A Modest Education Funding Proposal
By Johanna Staley and Jessica Thomashow
Conval High School, 1998

ll well—educated–that is to say, well-informed–New Hampshire citizens know about the Spring 1998 Claremont decision. We are all aware of the subsequent school "funding" crisis with which the Legislature and Governor now struggle. As concerned but dispassionate observers, we would like to submit a solution so obvious it was overlooked. The answer lies in the wording of the issue itself. We do not have a funding problem; we have a spending problem. Once this becomes clear, so too does the remedy to this exhausted situation. Once we have identified the problem, we must simply reduce spending. We can't eliminate the students. The supplies and technology available to them must also stay, as it would be outrageous to discard the tools with which they learn. So we are left with only one option: to plug the dramatic drain teachers put on the budget. Decreasing their salaries will solve all of our problems.

Of course, we can't get rid of teachers altogether. This is not what we are suggesting, for the effects of that would be antithetical to the state of New Hampshire's concern for education. The teachers must be replaced. Their salaries are damaging the school system and tax payers at large. We have discovered a way to educate New Hampshire's public school students without having to pay a cent. The teachers must be eliminated, and in their place will come a faculty indebted to the state rather than to which the state is indebted. We propose replacing the dismissed teachers with convicts on parole. These previously incarcerated substitutes owe the citizens of New Hampshire their expertise in discipline, institutionalization, responsibility, and consequences. They will perform the functions of teachers at a 100% spending cut. It goes without saying that these former inmates are unqualified to perform managerial administrative work, therefore, our suggestion for the replacement of the administration is as follows. Hold an annual lottery of all college-educated citizens of the state. Those randomly selected for the positions will contribute something akin to a year-long jury duty.

The benefits of this plan are manifold. The most valuable are the drastic tax cuts. It also protects against the evil of sales tax, income tax, or sin tax. New Hampshire will remain a business haven without threatening our sacred individual rights. In addition, we predict that crime rates will go down, and swiftly. What could be a better crime deterrent than the threat of going back to high school? Former teachers will be forced to work year-round for the first time. The additional months of productivity can do nothing but improve the economy. New Hampshire will soon have the right to claim that our criminals perform the best on standardized tests (how could they help absorbing some of the material?), advancing yet another statistic of U.S. superiority in the IQ race. Spending will also be reduced in school supplies–it will merely be suggested to the parolees that new materials are needed and they should employ their own methods of acquiring them.

People who are still stuck on the idea of a funding crisis think that the problem is the unfair, indeed, unconstitutional distribution of property taxes. Many people suggested a radical change that challenges the very foundations of New Hampshire's values: a progressive tax on income. Another proposal that has been discussed is an increased sin tax on cigarettes, gambling, and alcohol. This must be rejected on principle. We cannot send the children a mixed message about morals. It should be clear that we advocate quality education at minimal cost and effort. Our solution is a way to balance the needs of the students with the inalienable rights of the taxpayers.

We, like the legislature, are committed to preventing a burden of citizenship from falling on the backs of people across the state. By retaining our identities as citizens of autonomous communities, we value "local control" to the exclusion of our responsibility to the state as a whole. Our proposal conveniently circumvents the necessity of seeing New Hampshire as a large community in which people share resources for the greater good of education. Let's allow former prisoners to break us out of this crisis while there's still time.

We would like to emphasize our role as concerned, uninvolved citizens. Both writers are going to college next year, and want to ensure that the educational system of the state we love stays intact.