During an election year, fanciful ideas masquerade as serious policy proposals, offering simple solutions to complex problems. A case in point is U.S. Senate candidate Hillary Clinton’s suggestion that the federal government supplement teacher salaries in school districts across the country. Vice-president Al Gore has also endorsed subsidizing teacher salaries with federal dollars as part of his $115 billion plan for improving schools. But if these two candidates have their way, taxpayers will end up paying billions of dollars for a program doomed to fail.

Estimates of the cost of such a plan vary, and Mrs. Clinton and Vice-president Gore have offered few details about their respective proposals. But a recent study by the Century Foundation, a privately-funded organization in Manhattan which also supports using federal money to boost teacher pay, has put the price tag at $60 billion annually, almost tripling the U.S. Department of Education’s budget from $36 billion to $96 billion. Besides the prohibitive cost, this approach is just plain wrong.

While student performance has eroded over the last several decades, teacher pay continues to climb. The principal reason behind this alarming trend is that across the country, especially in under-performing districts, rigid salary schedules continue to determine compensation.

Salaries are based on the number of credentials instructors possess and on seniority. Dramatic pay increases result in raises for all teachers—good and bad alike.

The Century Foundation study claims, "teachers should be paid more and teachers should be accountable for the performance of their students," yet the solution identified by the authors is to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into an already broken system. If teachers are to be accountable, they should be paid in an accountable way.

Teachers deserve the same performance-driven compensation system that exists in other professions. The real problem with teacher pay is that most districts do not reward excellent teachers for their superior work, and failing teachers are rarely held responsible for their students’ poor performance.

According to a recent Public Agenda poll, more than four out of five teachers prefer working in an environment with highly motivated and effective teachers, even if it means having to forego higher pay. Salary schedules that only reward teachers for credentials and years of service hardly motivate them to be successful in the classroom.

Another weak proposal, which is supported by the candidates and teachers unions, is that teacher pay should be increased based on "peer review." But peer review, where teachers grade teachers, is no replacement for producing results. If teachers enhance student learning, they should be paid more, and if they continue to fail, their incompetence should not be tolerated.

Across the country, the states with the best results have implemented tough academic standards, set their goals high, and measured progress with standardized tests. Teacher salaries must be part of the equation, tied to increases in student performance. But allocating more federal dollars to teacher salaries without this link would only widen the accountability gap even further.

Local school districts decide how teachers are paid, and until they adopt performance incentives that emphasize student learning, increasing federal contributions to salaries will do little good. Of course, when districts accept more federal money for salaries, more red tape will also follow.

Ratcheting up teacher pay is popular, especially in an election year. But if student performance is to improve, the entire system, including teacher salaries, must be tied to whether children meet academic goals. Performance and output are the measures used in other high-skilled professions. It should be no different in teaching.