The Harris plan to use federal funds to raise teacher pay on a national basis is shrewd politics, because:
- Teachers are a very engaged part of the Democratic coalition, so having the support of their union would be very helpful, particularly in the primaries;
- They are a sacred cow of sorts (as opposed to, say, people on welfare), so Trump won’t make much hay running against them in the general election; and
- They’re already mobilized, and a major political factor, even in the reddest of states. They could help Harris win delegates in, say, West Virginia and Oklahoma, even though those states are clearly out of reach in the general election.
But is it good policy? There, the story is mixed. You can make a strong case, particularly in red states, that teachers have lost ground economically over the last 30 years, and so deserve a raise that will only realistically come from Washington. Increasing teacher pay significantly would, in the long run, make the job more attractive and thus improve the pool of applicants. It is consequently a measure that has the support of both unions and reformers. You can also make the argument, however, that a large percentage of the money would just subsidize mediocrity if it isn’t tied to rigorous national standards. There would also be complaints about excessive federal interference in a field traditionally dominated by state and local officials, although I’m personally agnostic on that one. Finally, is investing in teachers more important than, say, infrastructure? There is only so much money to go around; whether teacher pay should be given this high a priority is a debatable point.
To me, as policy, it is a close call. It will have to be viewed in the context of the overall budget if and when (more likely, the former) it is given serious consideration in Congress.