I must take exception to your April 10 editorial diatribe titled "The moral case for vouchers."

In that article, you claim that the "voucher opponents consist primarily of members of a major labor union (teachers) and a corps of professional school administrators, both with a vested interest in the outcome. They fear a loss of power."

The overwhelming positive response of the public in such a short period of time by signing petitions belies such a misstatement.

My daughter, a non-unionized public school teacher who's planning retirement, visited her neighbors in a middle-income neighborhood and secured 25 signatures -- with no refusals -- in a couple of evenings.

No, my editorial friends, the major opponents to vouchers are the people who are disgusted by a Legislature that is suckered into passage of voucher legislation which will primarily benefit their own families and friends. They are the ones who would be able to take advantage of the voucher program -- not the families of the lesser educated and lesser advantaged. My daughter's fear is losing her brightest pupils who can afford private schooling and whose parents would be lured by public assistance. As the children and grandchildren of these advantaged legislators would withdraw from overcrowded classrooms (a problem which the same legislators have failed to adequately address), it would leave behind the children of the lesser advantaged who, on the whole, suffer more from educational handicaps.

For every student withdrawing from a public school, the school would be docked a full-time student equivalent in reimbursement.

Later you referred to the "violent opposition" to vouchers: I receive two newspapers and have failed to see (or hear) of a single instance of "violence." The opposition is strong, well reasoned and heavily supported, but it's not violent. Opponents are not opposed to paying for a valid public educational purpose, but that doesn't mean that every private school will so serve. Private schools may exist to serve racial, religious, political and economic segregated purposes. These purposes may be perfectly valid for private schools, but most of us do not believe these to be valid "public educational purposes," certainly not at the K-12 levels.

Our public school system is not designed to educate everyone at "the same gray shade of oatmeal" level. The ability of parents to move students around to charter or public schools already provides individual opportunities for growth. When sports and cultural arts programs are made available -- and they should be -- there are many additional opportunities.

Your statement that the voucher program would cost only $100,000 for two years to start the program is not true, and you know it. Why didn't you print the actual amount allocated for the grants, plus the administrative costsfi You liken public education to a public highway which is built by private enterprise for public use. Schools are also built by private contractors with public funds and are available for all to use for public education.

However, public funds are not available for construction of private roads to which access could be limited. Nor should public funds be used to support private schools, at least at K-12 levels, which can limit access only to "desirables."

J. Kenneth Davies is a retired professor of economics at Brigham Young University.

He lives in Provo.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A6.