The Hawaii public school system is undeniably under significant stress.

There’s a chronic teacher shortage, which is getting worse as demands for services are intensifying. Poverty and homelessness are leaving more students in need of focused attention.

The state’s students, always a diverse population, include migrants struggling with language and culture, children in growing special-education classes and high-achievers who deserve the best Hawaii can give.

It’s hard to dispute the conclusion that significant improvements will require more resources. More teachers are needed to decrease class size, an important metric, and if there are already more than 1,000 unfilled vacancies year after year, there’s little hope that will happen without real change.

The Hawaii State Teachers Association (HSTA) believes a radical change is necessary, and those supporting the union’s proposal, Senate Bill 2922, hope the public agrees.

The measure needs and should get full discussion to carefully weigh the pros and cons. And if it passes, its advocates will get some idea of public sentiment.

That’s because the measure seeks a change in the state Constitution, to empower the Legislature to assess a new state tax on investment property worth over $1 million, and on visitor accommodations. This is the HSTA’s latest pitch to lawmakers to create a dedicated source of education funding, and this time its leaders have simplified their ask.

Rather than spelling out exactly how much the tax would be, the union now seeks to put the matter up to a public vote, giving lawmakers the option — and letting a future Legislature iron out exactly how it would work if the amendment is ratified.

That may be a pragmatic strategy to adopt in an election year, when nobody wants to deal with the reality of a tax increase. But voters should be clear that this is not a poll. Hawaii does not have initiative or referendum. An amendment vote can gauge public opinion, but it is bound to have lasting repercussions.

This could alter the way schools are financed, period. The wording of the constitutional amendment does matter, and this one should not make the ballot without careful revisions, on at least two fronts.

For one, the proposed language lists a full menu of potential purposes for the revenue, “including but not limited to” reducing class size, teacher retention, special education and instruction in a range from Hawaiian language programs to technical education, all as elements of a “quality public education.”

This seems to seek assurance that the funds remain open to the full spectrum of uses. However, it would be better to define the scope more generically rather than listing the intended uses, which could be interpreted as a constitutional mandate.

For example, the amendment cites afterschool programs and public preschools, while it’s not yet established that these are to be funded, fully or partially, by public taxation.

Secondly, advocates make a strong case that taxing high-end investment residential properties could provide a healthy revenue stream. It’s true that Hawaii has relatively low property taxes, and that the owners of these million-dollar property owners, who use them as investments rather than residences, can generally afford this.

But a surcharge on conventional visitor accommodations, such as hotels, could overburden the transient accommodations tax (TAT) as a source; it’s already being tapped for the city’s overbudget rail project.

The owners of bed-and-breakfast and transient vacation units could be more reasonable payers of a new tax, assuming the Legislature does enable the taxation of these unconventional tourist units.

Lawmakers should discuss whether the current amendment language — the nonspecific phrase “surcharge on visitor accommodations” — would allow a future Legislature to shield the current payers of the TAT.

There is a lot to dig through here, beyond SB 2922. Would the tax inhibit investors who develop and own affordable-rental complexes, and how could that be mitigated? Would spending from a dedicated source go through the same legislative fiscal review as the Department of Education budget now does? What would prevent the state from simply offsetting the added tax by redirecting the current DOE share to supplement other departments?

How would the state reap the highest returns for its educational investment, so crucial to the next generation?

The current system, with tax revenue from the state’s general fund allocated according to needs and priorities, ideally would have been able to adapt to a changing educational landscape.

However, the plain mismatch between school needs and available resources suggests it’s time to consider alternatives to raising the general excise tax, which disproportionately hits lower-income residents.

SB 2922 does not yet establish the optimal solution, but it could frame the question for voters: Should elected leaders have another tool for improving education? It’s worth having the conversation to decide.