The details are still hazy (that’s always helpful when smoke and mirrors are involved), but a statewide effort is underway again to “reform” K-12 education funding. Get ready to read the fine print.

   The idea this time is to have a statewide initiative – i.e., a vote on a state constitutional amendment – that would shift much of the funding from local districts to the state. Similar efforts have already failed in the courts and the legislature. Now the voters are to be asked, “Wouldn’t you like to be relieved of that heavy burden called school taxes?”

   The less than subtle suggestion here is that someone else, somewhere, will bear the burden and provide more money, too.

   The main problem with the cry of “More money for education!” is that in the last two decades Ohio has been spending ever-increasing amounts. The state is now one of the highest in per-pupil allocations in the country.

   One of the voices of reason in this debate is the Buckeye Institute, a think tank dedicated to finding solutions to such problems. Many people label Buckeye “conservative,” although why it is considered conservative to save education dollars for their most efficient use as compared to wasting ever more of them . . . well, you figure it out.

   Buckeye’s study is entitled “More on a Child-Centered Education Finance System for Ohio” and is part of a series of common-sense education proposals made periodically since the 1980s. Maybe it’s time for people to listen.

   Buckeye President David Hansen notes that despite more spending on public education “the state has seen no increase in student achievement as a result. In fact, Ohio’s urban schools are among the highest spending districts due to past efforts to increase equity. Even with these resources, none of the Big 8 school districts managed to pass more than seven of the 25 criteria on the state’s 2005-06 report card. Our research over the years has consistently found that inadequate spending is no longer the school funding problem, if indeed it ever was.”

   These facts are not welcome news to the state’s teacher unions and boards of education that make up the so-called “education establishment.” If these forces were truly interested in public education reform and improvement they would be addressing teacher tenure, competency in the classroom, incompetence in school administrations, and pay scales that reward the best teachers. These reforms would have the effect of attracting talent that is now discouraged from entering the field of education.

   Pioneering states, Ohio included, have moved toward charter schools and – to a much more limited degree – giving children vouchers so they can leave failing schools and go where they have a chance to succeed. But this is anathema to the education establishment.

   It cuts the stranglehold of the unions and it removes power (and money) from the hands of administrators (including “professional” school board members).

   Any reform centralizing decision-making in Columbus also helps the current education establishment. Only the governor and legislature would have to be lobbied instead of a multiplicity of districts.

   In short, the only real reform, and one suggested by Buckeye years ago, would be to give the per-pupil education cash to each child and let them (parents, guardians, et al) decide where it will do the most good.

   William Wild is retired daily newspaper editor and freelance columnist living in Oakwood, Ohio.