When KVI host Kirby Wilbur used his radio show to announce a 30% Property Tax Cut initiative, my reaction was admittedly knee jerk. Washington’s public schools rely on property taxes for 100% of their state and local funding; how could our children possibly afford such a dramatic cut? I was outraged.
But once my knees stopped jerking, I decided to step back and take an objective look. So I steeled my bleeding heart, threw out my assumptions, and delved into the numbers. And what I found surprised me:
Wilbur’s tax cuts may be exactly what our schools need.
I will explain. But first, the numbers.
The Paradox
There are a little over one million students enrolled in Washington public schools, an increase of about 100,000 since 1993, and while annual state spending per student has risen during that time, it has consistently lagged behind inflation. Indeed, Washington’s total per pupil spending now ranks 43rd nationally.
Yet, as funding declines, public demand for increased K-12 spending remains steady. In November 2000, voters overwhelmingly passed I-728, calling for class size reduction, and I-732, granting teachers annual cost-of-living adjustments. And polling data consistently shows that voters believe education spending is growing too slowly.
But tax-cutting initiatives have proven equally popular, so it is not beyond the realm of recent experience to imagine Wilbur’s 30% tax cut measure passing in the fall, slashing about $2230 per student annually from the average school district’s budget.
So how do we honor the will of the people—as conservative talk radio so often demands—when the people contradict themselves? Simple algebra. Solve to x.
If per student spending is too low, yet taxes are too high, there can be only one answer:
We have too many students.
The Proposal
It has been said that a child’s mind is a terrible thing to waste, but the same is true of a child’s body. I have been assured by culinary experts in several obscure internet chat rooms, that in flavor and texture a school-age child compares quite favorably to pork, and is equally versatile and nutritious. Properly prepared, it would be virtually indistinguishable in a taco filling or sausage patty… or perhaps as a substitute ingredient in “turkey” tetrazini.
And with one third of students now qualifying for free or reduced price lunch, it only seems fair that overburdened taxpayers turn toward the student body to help offset the cost of this growing public subsidy.
Fortunately, thanks to the WASL test, a mechanism for culling the herd is already in place. For example, if only those students scoring in the bottom 10% of the WASL were harvested to supply the school lunch program, per-student funding would instantly be restored to 1993 levels.
And the benefits don’t end there.
With 100,000 fewer students, class size would drop an average of two students per room, dramatically improving the learning environment while significantly reducing the cost to fully implement I-728. Average WASL scores would rise substantially, simply by eliminating the low end of the curve. And of course, surviving students would be treated to tasty, protein-rich school lunches that bring new meaning to the phrase “you are what you eat.”
But perhaps the greatest benefit would be motivational, for students will be much less likely to slack off when they know that their Sloppy Joe is eponymously named.
Of course, the 10% cut-off is merely an example, and we can likely achieve a similar return on disinvestment while sacrificing fewer children. After all, many of our lowest scoring students are those with special needs — the most expensive to educate — and thus the source of the greatest potential savings. And merely enacting this policy would shave thousands from the rolls as less civic-minded parents moved their children to schools in Oregon, California, and other states with lower academic standards.
Now I know some might find this policy harsh, or even distasteful. But it would be equally harsh to leave our children ill prepared to compete in the global economy, and we simply cannot attract enough qualified teachers without finding the money to pay a competitive wage.
The math is simple. If Washington citizens are serious about improving education, serious about reducing class size, increasing teacher pay, and raising test scores, then we must increase per student spending. But if voters are equally determined to slash taxes… well then… I thank Wilbur and his cohorts for opening my eyes to the harsh reality of this dog-eat-dog world.
And so I offer my modest proposal in the hope of sparking a much needed public debate, and I trust that it will be received in the spirit in which it is intended.
