It's almost heretical to question demands for increased public-education spending in our state, but that's what I'm about to do.

I'll even go a step further: If the root of our education crisis is not "inadequate funding" (as I will argue), then our fixation with money is delaying true and necessary reform. Spending more money on a broken system will not fix the problem, it will make it bigger.

I've spoken with hundreds of people all over the state about education-funding issues, and I've discovered that many who know we need more money for our K-12 public schools can't answer two simple questions: How much are we spending now? And how much is enough?

The fact is, we're spending almost $9.5 billion a year — an average of $9,688 per student, or roughly $125,944 over the lifetime of one K-12 student. That's 17 percent more per pupil than we were spending 10 years ago, after you adjust for inflation. All things being equal, it amounts to an annual bill of $1,605 for every man, woman and child in our state, and a lifetime cost per household of $229,034.

Meanwhile, even as spending has increased, student academic performance has remained stagnant or fallen by almost all measures. (The notable exception is the highly controversial and subjective WASL.)

We all know it costs money to provide a quality education, but how we spend that money is just as important as how much. Are we spending current dollars wisely to achieve the results we want? I think the answer is "no."

For starters, the state doesn't have clear and measurable goals when it comes to education. If we don't know what we want to achieve (outcomes), how will we know what it takes to achieve it (inputs)?

In 2002, when former Gov. Gary Locke asked agencies to clearly identify their goals and prioritize activities based on how to most effectively achieve those goals, our superintendent of public instruction refused to participate.

This year, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) participated, but not meaningfully. In the agency detail that accompanies state general-fund budget proposals, OSPI identified just one "expected result" for some $9 billion in expenditures: "By 2007, develop and implement an improved K-12 education funding model, in partnership with the Legislature, school districts, and other educational partners."

The focus is on money again, when it should be on academic success. Do we want schools to be accountable for ensuring student literacy, or for spending money? It makes a world of difference.

OSPI does have a five-year strategic plan spanning 2002-2007, the overarching goal of which is that "all students achieve at high levels, taught by high-quality educators and staff in safe, supportive, and well-managed schools."

That sounds good, but what does it mean? What are the results for which our schools will be held accountable? Unfortunately, there is no accountability. In her introduction to the strategic plan, Superintendent Terry Bergeson says it "will be a living document ... responding to changing conditions."

Thus, students, parents, legislators and taxpayers have no fixed standards by which to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of education programs and expenditures.

Worse, there is no guarantee students will benefit even if state education officials achieve their non-binding goals, since some of those goals are highly questionable.

We know, for example, that the most important controllable variable in student achievement is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. Bergeson has guidelines for "assessing teacher capacity" on the OSPI Web site. According to these guidelines, a "below standard" teacher is one whose students "believe there are right and wrong answers to questions and work to determine what those are. [They] come up with immediate responses to questions and move quickly to the next task."

Conversely, an "above standard" teacher is one whose students "know their ability to construct understanding and think reflectively about a problem is more valuable than correct answers."

This mindset has led state officials to invest millions of dollars in teacher development and evaluation programs that do little or nothing to improve student literacy. We could invest billions more in such programs and still not get the results students need.

We need to stop blindly assuming the solution to our education crisis is more money. Instead, we need to implement real solutions, even if we have to do so over the protests of entrenched special interests that have a stake in maintaining the status quo. It's the least we can do for students and taxpayers.

Marsha Richards directs the Education Reform Center for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a public policy research organization based in Olympia. E-mail her at mrichards@effwa.org