Another objection to setting aside a specific portion of the state budget for education is that such a step might set off a general melee among government social programs to stake out their own funding claims.

Yet the merits of the education funding referendum and the context in which it is being proposed far outweigh these potential problems.

ALTHOUGH the proposed referendum, like all such measures, would be rigid and inflexible, it would not introduce any pernicious new element into the state budget process. The money that would be gained back for education was initially lost though Proposition 2 1/2, an equally, if not more, inflexible measure that capped local property taxes and severely limited towns' revenue options. Tsongas' referendum would merely fight fire with fire.

And fears that giving education entitlement status would prompt a squabble over funding levels for social programs seem unfounded, since the state already guarantees spending levels for important programs such as Social Security and veterans benefits.

Is education any less vital than these programs? In fact, it seems more fundamental to the state's well-being, since a skilled workforce generates the tax revenue that makes the other programs possible in the first place.

Tsongas has a proven track record with state-level referenda, having successfully mobilized citizens behind a non-binding building moratorium on Cape Cod last year. Massachusetts will be better off if he can achieve similar success with this progressive and pragmatic funding initiative. Populist referenda can be simplistic and constricting. But in this case the end justifies the means.