Letters to the editor for March 22

Virtual K-12 education should be our future

The coronavirus scare is another reason why Washington schools (K-12) should move to online education at least 50% of the time. With virtual education, student teaching and learning can continue during pandemic scares, inclement weather, and other threats made towards schools.

Moving away from expanding brick-and-mortar facilities to accommodate greater numbers of students makes fiscal sense. Using existing facilities more effectively and expanding online learning reduces the ever-increasing cost burdens on taxpayers while still improving and providing quality education. Example: Grades 9 and 10 attend physical school two weeks, online two weeks, alternating with grades 11 and 12. This saves transportation costs and reduces greenhouse emissions.

With money saved, we could help provide internet connections and equipment for students without access, based on family income level.

Another way to reduce education costs: Consolidate our state’s 294 school districts into 39 countywide districts. A county approach makes sense from a geographic coverage area and fiscally responsible stance. A countywide district would provide reduced duplication of effort and resources better used elsewhere. Principals or their designees would provide individual schools with representation in the decision-making process.

We already have K-12 education available online in Washington, and could build on those efforts. The opportunity to see real improvement in student teaching and learning through technology are endless. We need to break away from old ideologies and embrace these same technologies for learning, just as we use them in our daily lives.

Population growth can be stopped

Ever since I’ve read the Olympian (1971 to last Sunday) the paper has run editorials saying “You can’t stop growth.” That’s nonsense. We can stop growth. It’s just that nobody dares talk about it. So, here goes.

Suppose that every young woman received, on her 18th birthday, a check for (say) $2,000. For every year after that she would receive another check just like it — or bigger — if she refrained from giving birth to a baby during that year. The annual checks would stop whenever she decided to bear a child.

Suppose that men and women could receive a substantial one-time reward for getting a vasectomy or tubal ligation. Suppose that the federal family income-tax credit for children stopped after the second birth (but continued if subsequent children were adopted).

What if we required health insurers to cover women’s contraceptive needs – including costs of IUD emplacement or removal?

What if faith communities whose dogmas enforce procreation were required to adopt all unwanted babies? Or at least find other good adoptive parents for them – at no taxpayer expense?

Suppose that a condition for immigrating to the US was to agree to bear two children or fewer (always, of course, with the option of adopting more).

Suppose advertisements enticing people to relocate here from elsewhere were stopped? What about financial assistance for would-be emigrants to relocate in other countries?

Let’s talk about it. It’s not just about reducing overcrowding. It’s about stopping climate change and saving the planet for future generations.