SALT LAKE CITY -- With Utah's voucher program dead, many hope the $9.3 million set aside by lawmakers will go to public schools.

But hard feelings and transportation needs could keep schools from seeing any of that cash.

Money for parents who choose to send kids to private schools was part of Utah's general fund, the big checkbook that pays for roads, social services and state workers. It wasn't part of the K-12 budget.

"Had we not funded the vouchers, we would have just left it in roads. I suspect what we'll do is put it back in the general fund for roads," said Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, co-chair of the Appropriations Committee.

The money isn't going anywhere until lawmakers convene in January, but a bitter dispute over vouchers has convinced many that lawmakers have no intention of putting it into public schools.

"The only reason I think they funded it out of (the general fund) was so the argument could not be made that this was taking away from money to public education," said Roberta Herzberg, head of Utah State University's political science department.

Hillyard said the money could fill many needs, including employee salaries, social services and transportation for a rapidly growing state.

But Kirk Jowers, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah, said lawmakers might feel a backlash if the money goes anywhere other than education. The voucher law was rejected by 62 percent of voters Tuesday.

"With the size of the victory, it would really be seen as sour grapes" if this money doesn't go to public schools, Jowers said.

Gov. Jon Huntsman has said one of his top priorities is increasing teacher pay. He also said he wouldn't rule out using money from the general fund to pay for it.

The voucher program's sponsor, Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, said he'd be willing to spend the money on public schools, but he wasn't sure in which way. He also noted that every lawmaker probably has ideas about how to spend it.

Kim Campbell, president of the teachers union, the Utah Education Association, had hoped the defeat of vouchers would be a clear signal to lawmakers that public schools need more money.

But the feeling among many legislators is that public educators, who were anti-voucher, are ungrateful for the $550 million increase they got last year, making new significant gains unlikely.

"I sense some frustration from legislators who constantly get beat up by the education community that we don't have education as a priority, when we know what a priority we have for it," Hillyard said.

Herzberg predicts the Capitol won't be a friendly place for public educators "for a while at least."

"I don't think legislators are going to be retaliatory, but I also think when someone says 'We don't think what you've done is enough for us,' and you think you've done a lot, you may feel somewhat resentful," she said.

Jowers said that kind of environment would be disappointing.

"Unfortunately there may be a few, particularly in the House, who would want to take their ball and go home, so to speak," he said.

"The bottom line is the only way we can improve education is a collaborative effort between the Legislature, the PTA, the teachers unions and parents across the state," Jowers said.

Rep. Greg Hughes, R-Draper, agrees. He was one of the pro-voucher movement's leading voices.

He said he would prefer the money be used for education in some form, including offering incentives for math and science teachers to move to the state. He said education reform shouldn't end with the voucher program's death.

"We need to continue to come up with other answers," he said. "People need to realize that the student population is booming, there's a teacher shortage and the funding challenges were not answered in the referendum vote."

He notes, however, he hasn't discussed his plans with legislative leaders.