While short of an outright backflip, Mr Turnbull's has announced Mr Gonski will conduct yet another review of school funding, only six years after his previous offering, due to report by the end of the year. The debate this time around appears to be less about how much money is needed, and more on how it should be spent to boost student performance and results.

On the face of it, the move would seem to nullify one of Labor's sharpest and longest-running attacks on the government.

But the detail is yet to emerge - the absence of public terms of reference for Mr Gonski's inquiry ensures a slew of relatively positive headlines for the government just days out from its latest budget - not informed debate.

The few funding details that have been released indicate an extra $18.6 billion over a decade for schools, from $17.5 billion to $30.6 billion to 2027 - a 7.5 per cent rise on current levels each year.

Albert Einstein once said insanity was the act of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

But in politics, an inquiry should not be commissioned if the answers are not pre-determined - through the shaping of the question being asked or simply by rejecting those pesky unwanted answers.

Mr Gonski's original 2011 proposals were widely lauded by education experts, unions and parents, if never actually implemented. Why repeat the exercise?

Perhaps it will address one of Education Minister Simon Birmingham's hobby horses - the over-funding of some schools (many of which can be found in the nation's capital), in order to more equitably divide the spoils.

He has said 24 as-yet-unknown schools in "the eastern states" would have "negative growth" in their federal funding.

Or maybe it is an exercise in delay, a review that will not report until late this year, generating new proposals that can be touted in the vital months leading into the next election.

A day after releasing a policy to cut $2.8 billion from higher education, increasing university fees between $2000 and $3600 for a four-year course, the 'Gonski 2.0' proposal should drown out those tetchy critics.

It could also cut short detailed debate on university funding, in favour of renewing what has been a deeply partisan debate on primary and high school funding.

Senator Birmingham may simply be out to correct the "corruption" of Mr Gonski's original proposals that emerged out of the political negotiations completed under Bill Shorten's hand - "corruption" that led to some states reducing their school funding in line with the extra funds secured from Canberra's coffers.

Of course, this proposal would never be subject to lengthy, post-review debate, nor the same sort of COAG horse-trading that defined the Gillard-era deals, despite being subject to state and territory government agreement.

Surely if the government's mission was simply to right the wrongs committed against Mr Gonski's original proposal, the Cabinet could simply agree to implementing those proposals as originally, well, proposed.

That would take the wind out of Labor's sails.

Rather, Gonski 2.0 is likely to simply delay action on creating an equitable funding arrangement for schools - where the disadvantaged, disabled and remote students get the same opportunities as those in Woollahra.

Two key issues presented in the original Gonski report remain on the shelf: an independent "national schools resourcing body" and a truly needs-based approach that is blind to whether a school is private, public, Catholic or independent.

What future these ideas, Mr Turnbull?