Editor: 

As we approach the March 23 vote on a 1 percent sales tax increase for education, potential supporters should ask themselves some hard questions: 

First, does more money equal better education? In answer, I am reminded of a speech given by Mr. Lawrence W. Reed, president, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, in which he related the story of the Kansas City, Mo., school district. A federal judge directed the school district in that city to devise a “money-is-no-object” educational plan to improve achievement. As a result, Kansas City taxpayers ended up spending more money per pupil annually, on a cost-of-living-adjusted basis, than taxpayers in any of the country’s 280 largest school districts. They paid for 15 new schools, an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a robotics lab, field trips to Mexico and Senegal, and higher teacher salaries. The student-to-teacher ratio was the lowest of any major school district in the nation at 13-to-1.

By the time the experiment ended, costs had mounted to nearly $2 billion. Yet test scores did not rise. In fact, the Missouri Board of Education eventually removed accreditation status from the district for failing to meet even one of 11 performance standards!

Second, I wonder, since many supporters say the increase is necessary due to the recent economic downturn, if those same supporters would ever support repealing the tax if and when times improved. Somehow, I doubt it. Redistribution plans are rarely, if ever, rolled back or reduced once implemented. Politicians know how unpopular it sounds to the public to ever “reduce” spending on education—even if we entered an economic boom during which sales taxes filled the fund’s coffers. No, once done, tax hikes are rarely undone.

Thirdly, since the services involved are so user specific, wouldn’t it be more equitable to initiate a more incentive-based emergency funding approach?  I’m sure there are many well-meaning parents with “one-cent” signs in their yards who truly don’t mind (and could afford) spending more on their child’s education.  In that case, they should.

We should be voting instead on an “emergency tuition bill” establishing a temporary “booster” fee to be paid by parents whose children attend the school.  Additional incentives could be given to corporations, grandparents, and other volunteers by making their donations tax-deductible. This fund-raising method would solve two inequities: The funding would be more likely to match the need in the long term—i.e. the fee could be rescinded and donations would tend to drop as the school’s budget situation improved. And, the system would be voluntary for those who did not directly benefit—enticing those who had the most incentive to contribute. 

Many older or childless people, or parents who use some means other than the government system to educate their children, are weary of being asked to continually increase funding for a system which they do not even use or have no management or budgetary control over. 

With this, as with other proposed taxes, the question no one seems prepared to answer is, “When will it ever be enough and by whose standard is ‘enough’ measured?”

Felicia Coker

Daphne