No one disagrees that property taxes in New York State are far too high. That’s why Governor Paterson’s proposal to cap them sounds like a great idea. But will New Yorkers continue to love it when they discover that it will lead to an even greater tax burden for most of us?

Mr. Paterson’s plan follows the June 2 release of a preliminary report from the Commission on Property Tax Relief led by Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi. The commission’s mandate was twofold: to study the root causes of the property tax burden, with special attention to unfunded mandates, and to make recommendations for how to alleviate it. The commission suggested a tax cap and also made extensive proposals for curtailing costs in education. Mr. Paterson followed suit with his own tax-cap plan.

Unfortunately, the governor seems to ignore that part of the report dealing with cost cutting. He proposes to cap annual property tax increases at 4%, or 120% of the consumer price index, whichever is lower, but ignores the real issues driving up school budgets. He would not require that new mandates include a complete accounting of their costs and revenue sources. He does not streamline and centralize school district reporting to curtail expenses and to ensure that the results of tests are provided to local districts in a timely fashion.

The governor’s proposal also omits the 12 suggestions from another body, the Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness. These recommendations would go a long way toward lowering the cost of public education.

Remarkably, few school-district employees now have to make any contribution for their health insurance premiums. Such contributions should be mandatory as they are for most of the private sector.

Mr. Suozzi’s plan also would revamp the pension system to bring it into line with the private sector by offering a defined contribution plan. Changing the defined benefit plan would require an amendment to the Constitution of the State of New York, which is unlikely to happen without the support of the governor.

A number of localities, particularly those in Westchester, have seen their assessments shrink even as the number of students in the locality has grown. This paradox is the result of commercial real estate owners successfully filing tax certiorari claims — claims that taxes are too high — against school districts and local municipal governments.

Some districts are seeing tax increases of more than 2% a year to cover the cost of paying these claims and to spread the lost taxes across a lowered assessment base.

In other words, before these districts have even spent a penny on education, taxes have risen by more than 2%. Mr. Suozzi’s Commission recommended that counties should undertake a reassessment to avoid this problem. Mr. Paterson dodges the issue entirely.

Cynics around the state are saying that the governor endorsed the tax cap because he believes that there is no chance that it will be passed by state legislators. However, State Republicans have endorsed the cap, and some key Democrats are in favor of it. With a recent poll showing that almost three-quarters of voters would like a tax cap, the momentum in favor may be so great that it is impossible to stop. And stop it is exactly what should happen.

If annual property taxes increases are capped at 4% and there is no concurrent legislation to curtail costs, education in New York will go from bad to worse. With the cost of health insurance, pensions, fuel, and compliance with government mandates rising far faster than the CPI, school districts will have to make radical cuts in programs and personnel.

Lobbyists for New York State United Teachers have sprung into action to oppose the governor’s plan. A key part of their lobbying platform is an insistence that Albany send more aid to education. This demand has been taken up by others including the New York States School Boards Association. They argue that the aid provided by the state is below the national average. If schools cannot be funded through property taxes, they look to Albany to make up the shortfall. Where is Albany going to find the funds to raise state aid? Taxes, but not property taxes. So even as property taxes are capped, Albany will have to raise income taxes, sales taxes, and corporate taxes.

Mr. Paterson’s plan is in no way a plan to lower taxes. If the governor truly wanted to lower the high cost of education in New York State, he would be addressing the drivers of the costs. His decision to ignore the causes of New Yorkers’ high property tax burden means that either he does not care about the education of our children or he thinks it is politically expedient to lower property taxes while raising others.

Ms. Stern is president of the board of education of the Edgemont Union Free School District.