Issac Bailey's frustration with an educational finance monopoly that stands in the door and blocks the right of parents to seek out the schools they believe can best serve the educational needs of their children is understandable (Feb. 3 column). As he points out, drastic measures need to be taken to ensure that no child is compelled to attend schools where they have little chance of success. However, his criticism that Put Parents In Charge does not go far enough in helping the neediest children is wrong.

[Passage of] South Carolina's Put Parents In Charge Act would be a historic, statewide recognition that parents have the right to seek a school they believe can best serve the educational needs of their child and reflects their family's goals and values, regardless of who happens to manage it.

Affluent people have school choice today because they can purchase a home in neighborhoods served by the best public schools. Under Put Parents In Charge, low- and middle-income families will receive a credit or scholarship of either

80 percent of actual tuition paid or 51 percent per pupil state spending on K-12 education. Parents whose children are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch will receive credits or scholarships worth the full tuition paid, or up to 64 percent of per pupil state spending on K-12 education, whichever is greater. Mr. Bailey is incorrect regarding transportation; the bill does allow funds to be used for transportation costs.

Funding for each family choosing another public or private school comes only from state funds. Local and federal education funds remain in the public school, even after a student has left. Thus, per-pupil spending increases, and as Clemson Professor Cotton Lindsay concludes, there is a windfall for public schools.

The governor's plan enables parents to direct their child's education, will provide incentives for public school improvement, and will dramatically expand educational opportunities and choices for low- and middle-income families.