In analyzing the question of state-funded vouchers for private school attendance in Utah, the Herald has sometimes used the analogy of highway construction.

Tax dollars are paid to private construction companies to achieve a public purpose, namely roads. Likewise, we believe it is appropriate for the state to pay a private entity -- a school -- to achieve the public purpose of educating kids.

Voucher opponents [including letter writer Don Jarvis on this page] object to the road analogy because, they say, state specifications are imposed on highway contractors. The builders may not do as they please but must submit to close state oversight. Moreover, they say, the road analogy fails because anyone can use a public highway, but private schools are not required to accept all applicants.

These are interesting arguments that deserve to be answered.

The first objection is easily dismissed. Imagine a private highway construction company that voluntarily exceeds state specifications and which saves the taxpayers money per mile of road compared to the cost of construction by the state's own highway department. Wouldn't it be in the interest of all Utahns to use that private construction company every chance they getfi

Of course.

This is precisely the case with private schools. Academic performance, on the whole, exceeds that of the public schools, and the cost to the taxpayers of Utah with a voucher system is significantly less per student than we are currently paying to deliver an education in the public system.

With vouchers, the taxpayer contribution to a given student would be capped at $500-$3,000, depending on income. Compare that to the average taxpayer contribution today of $5,000 to $7,500 per typical student (not all students cost the same) in public school and you quickly realize that vouchers are a bargain.

Vouchers put private education within reach of a great many people. Let's say a private school -- American Heritage School in American Fork, for example -- costs $3,750 per year. A motivated parent (who already pays taxes, by the way) is willing to come up with an additional $750 out of his or her own pocket in the interest of the child who would do better in a new setting.

This supplemental payment to education has been called a "voluntary tax" by some legislators, and it's an appropriate name. Several thousand parents in Utah, judging from early voucher interest, feel that their children would do better in a private school, and they are willing to pony up this added "tax" for their own kids.

Since the voucher saves the state money while serving the parent and child, it's a win-win scenario.

But can everyone use the private school highwayfi Here, opponents subtly shift the argument. They say that private schools are not required to take all comers -- special needs children, for example, or children with behavior problems. Therefore, they say, the public schools are at a disadvantage.

We view this as a non-sequitur and a diversion. The voucher program was never envisioned as a way to make private schools exactly like a public school. Vouchers are merely a way to help a particular child achieve his or her potential in life. Vouchers don't pay the full freight in the effort, they merely help.

Put another way, the question of whom a school enrolls is entirely different from how effectively the school delivers an education to those it does enroll. Of course, quality is not the sole province of private schools. Utah's public schools deserve credit for the good job they do. It's just that they're not a perfect fit for everyone. We have heard many anecdotes from parents who can plot the rising academic trajectory of their kids after moving to a private schools. This is not surprising: it is the parent's duty to solve the puzzle and get his child on the most promising course, whether that be public or private.

Even the parents of a child with special needs are fully capable of placing that child in the best education setting available. Many private schools offer programs for children with special needs. All of them, under the current bill, are required to explain their offerings to parents. If the public school can do the job better, then the parent has a moral obligation to place that student in public school. If the private school is better, then the opposite is true, and vouchers can help.

But there is no good argument for forcing all students -- or even all special needs students -- into public school. Yet that's what voucher opponents want. The only exception they allow is the wealthy. They forget the fact that education, like road building, is a public purpose, and as such tax dollars are properly shared with private parties.

Placing the burden of private education entirely on the shoulders of the family is elitist. The anti-voucher folks claim to be all about equality, yet they are comfortable with today's system under which only the wealthy can make choices for their children. The rest of us can just wallow through without no choice at all. Good enough is good enough for the lower classes, in their view.

We're not sure which is more breathtaking, the moral vacuum or the lack of simple logic. Opponents are willing to stick with compulsory education, but they are unwilling to help pay for anything but a government monopoly -- even when a modest alternative would save taxpayers money. This is muddleheaded. What is worse, they won't budge when the alternative for accomplishing the compulsory purpose would enhance the intellectual lives of thousands of our children.

Opponents continue to argue against common sense even as America's highest courts are affirming the right of a state to share money with private schools, as in the New York case decided by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Only a week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed that decision to stand.

To say, as voucher opponents do, that the state's only obligation is to provide a state-run monopoly is to say that outcomes don't matter. To them, it's not about what's best for one child but protecting the status quo.

We hope that Utah voters are wise enough to look beyond the rhetoric in what the Wall Street Journal reports is a $3 million advertising campaign -- a campaign funded by a giant out-of-state labor union whose greatest fear is a loss of political clout.

Utahns should take a stand for the value of the individual and pass a modest measure that helps parents be good stewards as they strive to provide opportunities for their children.

Do you agree?