Utahns take that "be fruitful and multiply" (or is it "multi-tithe"?) command very seriously. You'd think God himself was giving the order to get it on. The state's fertility rate -- 94.4 bundles of joy per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2007 -- is by far the highest in the nation.

It's not a bad thing. Large families have led to all sorts of useful inventions -- hand-me-downs, minivans, the wide-angle camera lens. Plus, I love those squalling, smelly little thumb suckers, I really do, especially in confined areas like elevators, buses and TRAX trains. But they're overwhelming our public schools.

Nearly a third of Utahns -- 30.9 percent -- are under the age of 18, and roughly three-fourths of those kids are of public school age, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

And that contributes to this disturbing statistic regarding education outlays. Utah ranks last in the nation, spending about $4,000 less per child per year than the national average, and nearly $1,000 less than No. 49 Idaho. Our neighbors in Wyoming, who rank fifth, spend $13,217 per student compared to Utah's paltry $5,683 outlay.

Let's put this in perspective. It doesn't necessarily mean that Wyoming kids are twice as smart as our kids. It just means that their state legislators love them more. A lot more.

Utah's Sultan of Spin, state Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, would disagree. He says our skinflint state simply spends its money wisely, and our schools should be a model for the nation. If crowded classrooms, supply shortages, low graduation rates among minorities and underpaid educators are signs of success, Stephenson is right.

Obviously, we need to do something to narrow the spending gap and give our kids the quality education they deserve. Let's do the math. If dividing X (the amount of tax money to be spent on education) by Y (the number of children to be educated) yields Z (the amount spent per pupil), there are only two ways to increase the value of Z.

Throwing money at a problem won't solve it, except in this case, where a lack of money is the problem. So we can make X, the pool of tax dollars, a lot larger. But that means we're going to have to give the gov'ment even more of our money.

Fortunately, there's a better way to increase the value of Z: reduce Y, the number of kids in school. All we have to do is get the folks who are breeding like bunny rabbits to exercise a little restraint.

But how? We can round them up and sterilize them. We can ship them off to Wyoming and tell them not to come back until their kids are grown. Or, we can do the sensible thing for the sake of our schools, and our planet, and establish a cap and trade program on kids.

You get two children free. But if you want a third, it's going to cost you. You'll have to buy a child credit and show your proof of purchase at the delivery room door.

Of course, even among those who practice family planning and use contraceptives, accidents do happen. For example, my wife and I have two children, Accident No. 1 and Accident No. 2. So people will have to buy third-baby insurance: "Allstate -- the hands that rock the cradle."

There is one other option. We can start teaching our kids the new math, the socially, environmentally and fiscally responsible, not to mention carbon neutral, math -- 1 adult + 1 adult = 2 children. That way we can carry on the species without straining our schools and the planet. After all, the Bible tells us to "replenish" the Earth, not overwhelm it.

Casey Jones is a member of the Tribune editorial board. E-mail him at cjones@sltrib.com.