IN OUR VIEW

Two things have puzzled us as the voucher debate has heated up.

Why has discussion of a relatively minor experiment grown so heatedfi And why do the opposing arguments seem so disjointedfi

After a flurry of debates last week, including one on Daily Herald TV and heraldextra.com, the picture grew clearer. The issue is bigger than it might seem, the stakes higher, the possible payoffs greater.

The two sides have drastically different visions. It's as if voucher opponents are describing the educational system of 1962, while advocates try to sketch out the schools of 2062.

In the last few days, county residents heard Marilyn Kofford, a former state PTA education commissioner, speak passionately about children in the schools. Pat Rusk, former head of the UEA, ardently described the dedication of teachers. They passionately and sincerely defend what the public schools have been.

But voucher advocates envision what schools must become.

Consider competition. Voucher opponents deplore it, but as Rep. John Dougall correctly points out, in today's wired world economy we're competing with the world's best and brightest. Today's students must be measured not only against the kids down the street, but against children in classrooms from London to Mumbai. Vouchers, by embracing competition and giving a boost to children who are not served by a cookie-cutter system, will help future generations prepare for this challenge.

Consider accountability. Most of the debates so far have revealed teachers' frustration that they must jump through so many hoops, from certification to accreditation reviews and the mandates of No Child Left Behind. Meanwhile, the private schools envisioned by voucher advocates seem to get a relatively free pass.

It can be persuasively argued that newer private schools should be treated like the shoots of a new plant, tenderly. Pruning and spraying can happen later, but getting them to take root is the first order of business. Evaluating them comes later. Voucher advocates look ahead to a time when the job of evaluating education rests not with bureaucrats but with parents.

"Why doesn't the parents' decision count as accountabilityfi" asked Paul Mero, president of the Sutherland Institute, at a discussion at UVSC. It's a fair question. Tomorrow's world will, in many ways, shift responsibility from state institutions to individual shoulders.

Consider finances. During the Daily Herald debate last week, Lisa Johnson of Utahns for Public Education held up a graph illustrating official cost estimates. It predicted that the cost of the voucher program to the state will rise over the years to total hundreds of millions of dollars. Indeed, it does look as if lawmakers have front-loaded the benefits and postponed the bills.

However, listening to state Rep. Aaron Tilton at a forum in Spanish Fork, it became clear why vouchers could save money in the long run. You have to look beyond the government's own records. In Tilton's view, granting vouchers would seed a network of schools to supplement, not supplant, the public schools. Utah is bracing for a heavy influx of students. If Referendum 1 encourages more private schools, they would take some of the burden of constructing buildings and teaching students. Parents, given choices they like, would be willing to assume costs that would never appear on the books at school districts or in the state budget.

Vouchers offer parents more choices. They do promise to help some students reach higher than they would in the public system. But they are anything but a free ride. A voucher will only supplement, not pay for, an education in a private school. They require parents to do more -- directly -- for their children's education. They have to pay the difference between the amount of a voucher and the higher cost of the private school.

Only a truly committed parent is going to do that. This is the parent whose child is not being served and who feels compelled to try something else. It is ultimately about the best opportunity in life for the child, as judged by the parent.

That's why the vision is conservative. It fosters initiative and autonomy.

Vouchers have been called another government handout, but that is an unfair description. They are simply a way to share education dollars with schools that can educate children as well or better than the state.

Vouchers have been slandered as taking money away from taxpayers. This is also not true. Nobody's tax bill is going to change. This is money that the state has long since committed to pay for a education, an important public purpose. The fact that it goes to a private entity should trouble no one. State money is paid to private businesses all the time to achieve public purposes.

Take highway construction, for example. A massive state highway department does not build our freeways. Private companies who can work efficiently to achieve the public purpose are paid with tax dollars. And if you could find a construction company that voluntarily exceeded state specifications, you'd want to hire that outfit for every job.

So it is with private schools. Their record of results is virtually unassailable. That's because the free market works. People don't patronize bad schools for long.

Voucher opponents point out the plan has unknowns. That's true. It takes us into the future, always full of unknowns. But the world is racing ahead faster than ever, and vouchers would give Utah one more way to prepare for it.

If Referendum 1 passes, it will change students, parents and Utah for the better. We cannot ignore the challenges of such a venture. But the world will not allow us to stand still -- not if we want to maintain our prosperity.

Vouchers offer a way forward. We urge Utah voters to catch the vision.