Passed as part of the omnibus education bill, the new law narrowly limits which teachers are eligible for annual raises of up to $4,100. Only those teachers with degrees in certain sciences who teach certain courses can qualify.

Unreasonably, those with degrees in education and endorsements in science or math do not. And nobody is offering a good reason for the distinction.

Some legislators say the idea was to make the salaries of teachers with math and science degrees competitive with the pay offered them in the private sector. If that was it, then excluding teachers who have degrees in education or another subject and hold math or science endorsements makes some sense, although it's unfair.

The problem is that a $4,000-per-year increase does not come close to making a teacher's salary competitive with the incomes of chemists, engineers and researchers. The state can never afford to compete with salaries that nearly double a teacher's.

Other legislators say the goal of the legislation is to improve the teaching of science and math in public schools and to attract and keep highly qualified teachers. If that is the rationale, there is no reason to deny the pay raise to teachers with endorsements in math or science.

If they're unfairly denied a pay raise that some of their colleagues are getting, some of these good teachers may leave Utah classrooms. In that case, the legislation would backfire, causing more harm than good.

There is one more possible motive for the bill that has nothing to do with improving math and science education in the classroom or keeping teachers from defecting to higher-paid jobs. It is an election year, and Utahns support higher pay for teachers. By having backed this legislation, candidates for re-election can claim to support public education and teachers in particular.

Pardon our skepticism, but the fact that the legislation singles out only certain math and science teachers, without any logical reason for exempting the others, has us thinking that campaign politics played a part in getting this low-cost law on the books.

After all, if you were one of the legislators who voted for the voucher law that voters didn't want, wouldn't you try to convince those same voters you are now a freshly minted champion of public education?