If Butler School District were to receive a sudden infusion of state money, would the school board drop its plan to close some of the district’s underutilized buildings to save money?

The question is purely rhetorical, but it should be asked, if only to consider the proposition that equitable funding and unlimited funding are not the same thing; and that tax dollars should be collected and spent sparingly.

It’s an important reminder as support for school property tax reform and an accompanying tax increase appears to be gathering momentum in Harrisburg.

The Associated Press reported Monday that the gap between what wealthy and poor school districts spend to educate children has widened dramatically in the four years since GOP Gov. Tom Corbett took office. The report cited deep budget cuts in state aid and long-delayed pension obligation payments now coming due. The gaps that existed when Corbett took office have more than doubled, according to AP’s analysis of state data.

This school year, districts in the top half of average resident income are budgeted to spend nearly $1,800 more per student than the poorest half of districts. That’s a 140 percent increase in the size of the gap, or about $1,060 more per student, since the 2010-11 school year.

The implication is that public schools don’t get enough state support, and there’s no denying that Pennsylvania plays one of the smallest roles in school funding of any state, leaving poorer districts too reliant on an often-shrinking local tax base.

Bringing the poorest districts into parity with their wealthier counterparts could easily require another $1 billion, according to the system’s critics, many of whom support Corbett’s successor, Democrat Tom Wolf.

Gov.-elect Wolf has pledged to reform the ailing system for school funding and to restore equity. Wolf’s pledge implies higher taxes to bridge the billion-dollar gap.

Reform might be necessary, but to what extent should any regulatory reform expand the state’s authority to dictate how these new tax dollars are spent — something traditionally relegated to school boards?

For example, should officials in Harrisburg decide when or how many of Butler’s schools will close or remain open? Do they know better than local people do about what’s best for Butler?

The scenario is not completely unlikely. A statewide coalition, the Campaign for Fair Education Funding, advocates a funding system that fairly and accurately measures community resources and needs, along with standards of accountability for student performance and spending.

“These standards also should allow and/or encourage schools to pursue and sustain operational cost-saving and cost-sharing options that are consistent with ongoing efforts to foster student achievement and success,” reads the coalition’s objective, posted on its web page.

A number of statewide and regional community organizations have signed on to the Campaign for Fair Education Funding, including teacher unions and other labor organizations, United Ways and chambers of commerce. Most of the member organizations are urban-centered and labor- or education-related — nearly all have a vested interest in boosting state funding for education and for some control over how it’s spent.

Such controls should not be regulated at the state level. They should remain firmly in the grasp of local school boards and the taxpayers they represent. Legislators from rural areas like Butler County should be vigilant that school tax reform does not become a cash and power grab.

School tax reform is timely and necessary. A tax increase might be necessary, too. But both should be to the exclusive benefit of Pennsylvania school districts and their students, and not to the regulatory whims of community and labor organizations or the state Legislature.