By Marsha Richards
Sponsors of Initiative 884 (the billion-dollar education tax increase proposal) falsely claim the measure is targeted, accountable and efficient. They claim it will solve the crisis of low student achievement in our state. They are wrong. The initiative will actually harm students because it targets the new billion dollars toward failed programs instead of proven solutions. We owe it to students and taxpayers to solve the problems, not make them worse.
Is education spending down? No.
Washington is spending more than ever before on education. Per-pupil funding has increased more than 30% in the last decade (almost 17% in inflation-adjusted dollars) to its current $9,454. Much of this money never makes it to the school or classroom level where students are learning. Instead of accepting the tired mantra that “more money” is the only solution, we should fix our broken education delivery system and make sure current dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively.
Targeted, Accountable and Efficient? No.
I-884 is not a trust fund. The measure’s so-called “firewall” to protect funds from unauthorized uses is made of straw and legislators legally hold matches in both hands. Legislators can modify the initiative with a super-majority vote the day it passes, or a simple-majority after two years. History tells us they will, regardless of political pressure from their constituents. History also tells us the education bureaucracy itself will lobby for changes in how the dollars are spent.
Taxpayers, like any consumers, have a right to know what their dollars are buying. I-884 does not define any outcomes, nor does it provide consequences in the case of program failure or financial mismanagement.
The twelve-member “Citizen Oversight Board” created by I-884 is little more than an arm of the bureaucracy. Eleven of the Board’s members would be appointed by the governor or state agencies. The twelfth and only independently elected member of the Board would be the state auditor, but he would be the only member not permitted to vote.
In addition to being the only non-voting member on the Citizen Oversight Board, the state auditor would not be permitted to conduct performance audits or help determine their scope when and if the Board deems them necessary. This is ironic, since he would be the only member of the Board who has meaningful audit experience.
Improved Student Achievement? No.
Education science tells us what works. Students need highly qualified teachers and clear and rigorous academic standards. We know students and teachers thrive in smaller schools with a deregulated and flexible environment. And we know we need strong school leaders to ensure each institution is organized to meet its goals. I-884 does not address any of these crucial issues.
Our education delivery system itself is broken, but I-884 assumes the answer to the problem is to patch it together with “more money.” Tried and failed programs aren’t going to start working just because we spend more money on them.
Our state currently spends $9,454 per student per year for education (an average of $114,000 over the lifetime of a student who attends K-12). We need to make sure these dollars are being spent effectively and efficiently on the programs that work before we consider raising taxes again.
I-884 would provide generous bonuses (up to $15,000) to teachers who obtain certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Studies show this certification is a costly investment for taxpayers that holds almost no value for increasing student literacy.
I-884 operates on the assumption that teachers should be paid based on how long they’ve had their job, not on how well they do it. This model punishes excellent teachers (who often leave the classroom as a result) and rewards poor teachers (who shouldn’t be in the classroom at all). Demonstrably excellent teachers should earn competitive wages.
I-884 does not address the shortages of teachers in high-demand subject areas like math and science. The state should adopt a flexible pay model that allows incentive pay for teachers who choose to earn credentials in high-demand subjects.
I-884 would pour $100 million into preschool programs, yet most studies show the state’s early-learning programs offer no long-term academic value to the students who participate.
I-884 would spend millions of dollars on class size reduction efforts that have proven ineffective. Class size should be considered in context with other key factors in student achievement such as teacher quality and experience, curriculum, etc.
I-884 would expand our state’s current bilingual education program, which has a 90% failure rate, instead of adopting more successful bilingual education programs used in other states.
I-884 claims it will increase higher education enrollments by putting $400 million more dollars into our state’s public colleges and universities. Much of that money, however, would be used to compensate for current over-enrollments, not provide for new slots. Before spending more money, the state should improve productivity by improving four-year graduation rates, increasing the number of hours teaching faculty spending in the classroom, and reducing the number of college students who must take remedial courses in reading, writing and math.
I-884 would pour millions more dollars into the state’s learning assistance program, but evaluation shows students who participate actually progress more slowly than their non-participating, demographic peers.
A Good Investment for Taxpayers? No.
While it is cleverly marketed as a “one penny” tax increase, I-884 would raise the state sales tax 15.4%, making ours the highest in the nation. Residents of some cities and counties would pay taxes of nearly ten cents on the dollar. This hurts our border communities.
The I-884 sales tax would hit our state’s poorest families the hardest.
I-884 would result in the loss of up to 10,000 jobs, primarily in the retail sector, as citizens in border communities take their business across state lines.
Contact: Marsha Richards | Education Reform Director | 360-956-3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"
Receive Updates · 
