People in various states across the country, witnessing walkouts by teachers wanting better pay, have been confronted with a core governmental question: Have we given enough financial support to the education of our children in public schools?

Now voters face a similar issue here, where rather than a walkout, the teachers union has petitioned for funds in the state Capitol, having lawmakers introduce bills. The legislation has taken different forms, proposing various new taxing strategies, before it has arrived at its latest, persuasive approach.

The proposition in Hawaii: Has the state captured enough of its enormous property value and directed it toward education?

Whatever that verdict may be, voters here deserve the chance to weigh in on whether their elected leaders should move in that direction.

Senate Bill 2922 made an important advance this week toward that goal — of putting an amendment to the Hawaii Constitution on the ballot this fall. Revisions made to the bill Wednesday have improved it, although the taxation targets should be better defined before the measure emerges in its final form.

The bill’s latest draft for the Constitutional proposal: “Shall the Legislature be authorized to establish, as provided by law, a surcharge on investment real property to be used to support public education?”

This year’s legislative push by the Hawaii State Teachers Association started with proposed wording to enable a property-tax surcharge, dedicated to fund education. Aimed at second homes valued at $1 million or more, it was to be paired with a surcharge on the transient accommodations tax (TAT). It also listed a range of educational programs and purposes that could receive the dedicated revenues.

Wisely, the ballot question was pared down this week, but now throws too wide a net. It would seem prudent to explicitly limit taxation to the residential category, exempting all whose home is their primary residence.

The amendment is necessary since the state Constitution delegates property taxation to the counties.

SB 2922 was advanced Wednesday by the House Education Committee by an 11-0 vote, after eliminating both the TAT component and the $1 million threshold above which properties would be taxed.

The measure’s proponents surely were aiming at a proposal that would steer clear of most local residents; however, adding to the tax burden of tourists also should be avoided where possible.

Presenting voters with the essential question about enabling new legislative authority will elicit a clearer response. All of the details — such as the value and type of property liable for the tax, the rate and whether the revenue would undergo budgeting review — would need to fleshed out later in public, should the essential question pass.

However, it’s not entirely evident what effect this increased funding will have on the quality of the classroom experience. Will it be spent well? Will lawmakers simply offset it by redirecting part of the schools’ usual allotment?

And would other departments, hungry for revenue, insist on their own tax-generating sources?

Further, throwing money at a problem is not by itself the answer. The state Department of Education’s inefficiencies are factors that put the potential for improvement in question.

But neither does the answer lie in the status quo. The DOE has a demonstrable problem with teacher retention and recruitment. Finding new revenue could enable more of them to stay at a job that is crucial to developing the coming generations, raising the prospects for a brighter future.

At a minimum, let’s hear the voters’ perspective.