There are two primary lens through which the American public views lobbying. On one side you have those who favor lobbying and believe that a lobbyist’s expertise might grant a policymaker a different outlook on an issue. However, there also exists a group who views lobbying as unethical, and believes the pressure exerted by interest groups on politicians is enough to gain votes in favor of their corporate interests. This could create an issue granted that the interest group may not be lined up with constituents’ viewpoints. Moreover, lobbyists are often accused of using bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions. However a larger issue is imminent–many Americans are unaware of the full scope of these back room practices.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC for short, is a non-profit organization founded in 1973 under close scrutiny not only by the IRS, but by the American public. ALEC identifies itself as a group of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives that draft and share model state-level legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States. As noted by the company’s mission statement, ALEC “works to advance limited government, free markets, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public.” While non-profit organizations such as the ACLU generally use their revenue to further enhance their mission or purpose with the benefit of not being federally taxed, ALEC has been accused by the IRS of taking advantage and abusing its tax-exempt status.

In April of 2012, Common Cause accused ALEC of being a lobbying organization, while objecting to ALEC’s tax status as a nonprofit organization, alleging that lobbying accounted for more than 60 percent of its expenditures.

Although ALEC formally denied lobbying, previous ALEC chairwoman Dolores Mertz expressed in the Daily Beast that  she was “concerned about the lobbying that’s going on, especially with [ALEC’s] 501(c)3 status.” Former Republican state senator and current vice chairman of the New Jersey Ethics Commission William Schluter, has also criticized ALEC in the past for its lobbying practices, telling nj.com,

When you get right down to it, this is not different from lobbying. It is lobbying… Any kind of large organization that adds to public policy or has initiatives involving public policy should be disclosed—not only their name, but who is backing them.

In fact, 2012 was not the only year ALEC was accused of taking advantage of its non-profit status. Most recently the organization has been discovered collecting money from lobbyists and corporations, and using the capital to subsidize costs for legislators to attend private “educational” meetings. Media Matters produced a video exposé on ALEC’s back room dealings and its results were truly outstanding. Not only did they find that legislators are wined, dined, and taken on golf outings; they are also given substantial wads of cash for miscellaneous purposes. What’s even more shocking are the decisions being made in the closed rooms, which the general public is denied access to.

During its investigation, Media Matters interviewed Georgia Senator Nan Orrock, a former ALEC member, who called ALEC a “corporate bill mill which cranks out legislation.” Moreover she divulged alarming information on the proceedings of the meetings wherein corporations and legislators have equal say on a piece of legislation.

The investigation  also uncovered that there are bills which need only initials by legislators and have been entirely drafted by corporations. One example is the Asbestos Claim Priority Act, which prevents asbestos victims from suing corporations. Noteworthy is the fact that although the bill passed in Georgia’s capital, it was first approved in Las Vegas, according to the video. Media Matters uncovered records indicating that three Georgia senators who sponsored the bill received over $22,000 in the year before, during, and after the bill was passed in “scholarship money” to attend resort meetings by ALEC.

For more detailed information on ALEC conferences please refer to this video.

In this context, the question arises of whether ALEC is complying with legal standards or not. Certainly the notion of filtering money between corporations and legislators through ALEC is not ethical, however do they breach any sort of law? It is tough to say granted that each state differs in terms of ethical rules and laws. Some states such as Wisconsin require legislators to fund their own trips to events. Other states, however, permit organizations such as ALEC to sponsor or grant “scholarships,” to legislators for said trips.

Regardless of whether any actual laws are being violated or not is yet to be determined, however it is clear that the operating system of the supposed NPO is being further observed not only by the general public concerned with fair legislative practices, but also larger actors. Mega corporations who once played a prominent role in ALEC, such as Coca-Cola, are showing their concern with the way ALEC handles legislative practices, as seen by Coca-Cola’s recent disaffiliation from the organization. It is only a matter of time before the continued allegations turn into large disputes, potentially leading to a landmark legal case.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ALEC: The True Indicator of Legislative Decisions? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that the state of public education in the United States is concerning. We are falling behind our peer nations, and recent efforts to improve the American education system haven’t been great. So what can be done? One proposal that has been floated is to link the pay of teachers to how successful their students are, sometimes referred to as “merit pay.” Read on to learn why merit pay was suggested, what it means, and what the arguments for and against merit pay are.

How’s the state of public education in the U.S.?

Let’s be honest, not that great. There are a lot of factors at play here, but a lot of people are concerned about what our students are learning. There are many voices and debates out there — should we test more or test less? Offer more structured education, or less structured education? No one’s really sure, but what we do know is that something definitely needs to change. A big question is if we’re spending money in the right places. Here’s a quick overview on the money spent in the American educational system.

What is merit pay?

Amid a general call for reform in American education that resulted in legislation such as the Bush Administration’s “No Child Left Behind” Act and the Obama Administration’s “Race To The Top” school incentive program, there has been a call for the implementation of a merit pay system for public school teachers. Currently, teachers get a set raise in salary each year. Merit pay would establish a system in which teachers would receive raises and bonuses based upon their effectiveness, much the same way that corporate employees receive raises.

There’s no real consensus about how merit pay would be decided — some suggestions include that it be tied to test scores, teacher evaluations, or a combination of those factors and other more intangible parameters.

What are the arguments for merit pay?

Advocates see merit pay as a fair system that would create a form of natural selection that retains effective teachers and drives out those who are ineffective. Advocates of merit pay note the flaws in the current system, wherein teachers who have been at a school the longest have the highest salaries based on set raises each year, and the tenure system that keeps older teachers in their jobs. They say this old system assumes that experience translates into effectiveness, which is not always the case, and also prevents younger teachers with newer, fresher ideas from being able to get jobs.

Advocates point to merit pay’s successful use in the corporate world as an indicator of its possibilities in education. If teachers’ salaries were based upon their performance, all teachers, young and old, would continually strive to improve their teaching and work hard throughout their careers to ensure that they are effective in teaching their students. This system would also draw more highly-qualified professionals to the profession who would have otherwise been driven away from a profession known for its relatively moderate salaries, thus adding more quality to the talent pool. While many opponents chafe at the thought of standardized test scores determining teacher salaries, advocates argue that this system could be based on a combination of test scores, lesson observations, school involvement, and even peer reviews.

Those who favor a merit pay system also point out that it was originally met with resistance in the business sector, as well. The current system of rewards that we see right now at many corporations only came to fruition around the early 1980s. It was deemed unfair and too subjective by many workers, but now it’s become the norm. Advocates for merit pay point out that the transformation didn’t happen overnight but rather took some time, and now business as a whole has been improved by the implementation. They argue that the same thing will happen with merit pay for teachers — it will take some time but the kinks will be worked out and everyone will eventually be pleased with the changes.

What are the arguments against merit pay?

Opponents of merit pay argue that this system would have less-than-desirable side effects that would damage the education system. Opponents point out that education budgets in most towns and cities are already stretched thin, and that these limited budgets would make the bonus incentives of merit pay minimal and parsimonious. Therefore this system would pit teachers against one another in competition for raises and destroy the collaboration that currently exists between teachers, while possibly leading to favoritism.

Merit pay would also reduce the intrinsic motivation that currently drives many teachers, replacing a genuine desire to educate students with a desire to merely jump through hoops in order to gain more money. Such attitudes, opponents argue, would promote a narrow focus on what educators are teaching students and, if the system were based even in part on standardized test scores, would also promote a practice of “teaching to the test”. “Teaching to the test” shows students how to answer simple, multiple-choice style questions without activating any deeper analytical or critical thought, and would provide an incomplete and shallow education for students as a result of standardized testing. If this emphasis were placed on standardized testing, the pursuit of merit pay would drive many effective teachers toward affluent, high-achieving districts and away from less affluent school districts where low socio-economic status and other problems often factor just as much into test scores as the effectiveness of a teacher.

There’s also the issue that merit pay would be very difficult to organize. The businesses that give certain employees bonuses for good performance already have many of the bureaucratic mechanisms in place. Schools don’t necessarily have the extra administrative capacity to come up with a fair and equitable way to measure merit in addition to actually implementing it. It would distract from the real goal of administrators: making sure that students receive the best education possible. Overall, opponents argue, these negative side effects of merit pay far outweigh the benefits it may bring to education.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt that there are plentiful issues that need to be discussed in the way we run our public schools. One proposition has been to link teachers’ salaries to their performance, however that performance may be measured. The idea, while certainly drawing some applause, and some ire, is an interesting one in an environment where ingenuity is so desperately needed.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Teacher Incentive Fund

Additional

City Journal: Why Merit Pay Will Improve Teaching

Forbes: Merit Pay For Teachers is Only Fair

ASCD: When Merit Pay is Worth Pursuing

Washington Post: Does Teacher Merit Pay Work? A New Study Says Yes

CATO Institute: Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay

NEA: Pay Based on Test Scores?

Washington Post: Why Merit Pay For Teachers Sounds Good–But Isn’t

United Teachers Los Angeles: No Merit to Merit Pay

Voice of San Diego: Problems With Merit Pay Outweigh Benefits

eSchool News: Why Teacher Merit Pay Can’t Work Today–and What Can Be Done About This

USA Today: States Push to Pay Teachers Based on Performance

Economist: Merit Pay for Teachers

Dayton Daily News: Schools Push Merit Pay For Teachers

Times-Picayune: Teachers to Begin Receiving Merit Pay Based on 2013-14 Evaluation Scores

wiseGEEK: What is Merit Pay For Teachers?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Merit Pay for Teachers Fix Our Education Woes? appeared first on Law Street.