But even before the state House of Representatives and Senate members face off to debate the ``Put Parents In Charge`` initiative, championed by Gov. Mark Sanford, local school boards are being asked to take a stand against the measure by the S.C. School Board Association.

However, the Kershaw County School Board agreed that it needs time -- and information on both sides of the issue -- before giving up its neutral stance on the issue.

The board had a taste of what promises to be a highly contested issue in coming months during its meeting Monday.

Representatives, speaking in favor and in opposition to the state school board association`s proposed resolution against any future credit or voucher system, came before the board to plead their case.

``I am concerned about the deceit and misinformation generated by groups that are opposed to Gov. Sanford`s proposed `Put Parents In Charge` legislation,`` said Sheri Few, an education activist with Parents Involved in Education and a parent of school-aged children. ``These people have intentionally labeled the legislation as vouchers when it is actually a tax credit that allows parents to have a choice in educating their children.``

Few told the board during a public forum that the proposed legislation would give parents a rebate on money that they pay in the form of annual taxes, with the funds going toward their choice of private educational institution. She said that in a voucher system, the money goes through government hands, while with a tax credit the money passes through the hands of individual parents to the schools of their selection.

``This is a unique and unprecedented goal that will allow parents the opportunity to have free choice as to how their children are educated,`` Few said. ``This is not an issue of private schools versus the public education system. It is an issue of what is in the best interest of the students.``

Few pointed to the need for solutions in areas such as the achievement gaps between minority and white students, teacher/pupil ratios and value-based curriculum as marks in favor of the tax credit legislation.

She said the legislation, first proposed in last spring, would assist low- and moderate-income families and students requiring an alternative learning process with an option that is not provided in the public schools. She said the plan provides for scholarships to be set up for families who normally would not be able to pay for education in a private school setting.

``The `Put Parents in Charge` legislation will help these families by freeing up the educational market place, allowing parents a choice,`` Few said.

Kevin Synan, a father whose children are presently home schooled, agreed with Few, saying that every parent should have the choice in educational venues. He told the board that the legislation would make education across the state a free market instead of a monopoly regulated by state government and local districts. He said passage of the proposed legislation would make the system ``more responsive`` to the needs of parents and students and cross economic boundaries now placed on low- to moderate-income families.

Scott Price, a representative of the S.C. School Board Association, presented a rebuttal to comments made by Few and Synan.

He spoke in favor of the resolution, drafted by his association and placed on the board`s agenda for adoption by the local district administration.

Price told the board that 73 school district boards had already signed off on similar resolutions as the one presented Monday night to the Kershaw County School Board and reminded the members that they had passed a similar resolution against the proposed tax credit legislation several months ago.

``This is a generalized resolution that expresses opposition to tuition tax credits and voucher plans in any form,`` Price said. ``It gives a strong impression by a locally elected board to take a position on an issue that will be debated at the state level but that will have a great effect on the local level.``

He said the association is opposed to any plan that would divert money and resources from public education, thereby eroding funding needed to make gains in student achievement.

``We believe that any plan that diverts money away from public schools to private schools is not the right choice for South Carolina,`` Price said.

According to a fiscal impact statement on the ``Put Parents In Charge Act,`` presented to the state Budget and Control Board, the five-year implementation of the legislation would mean a $237 million drop in state education funding and $37 million from local government money usually funneled to public education, the association representative said. He said it would greatly affect the state`s constitutional responsibility to ``provide quality public education.``

Price also told the board that the there are other reasons behind the association`s campaign against the proposed legislation. He said approving such legislation would erode the state commitment to public education.

He said that private schools are not subject to public accountability requirements and do not have to adhere to academic standards or report academic achievement results as mandated by state and national guidelines. He said the legislation and its proponents do not take into account the ``improvements shown thus far in public schools`` and the continuous strides in achievement on the national, state and local levels. The increased accountability for student and school achievement in the public education system is ongoing, he told board members, and will continue to take time that could be stunted by the passage of any tax credit or voucher legislation.

``This campaign is a non-partisan, non-political effort,`` Price said. ``It is not a campaign against private schools, against home schooling or against parental choices. Parents should have a choice with within there local school districts, depending on the resources available to those districts and the desires of the public.``

Despite the district administration`s recommendation to adopt the state association`s resolution, the board voted to suspend any decision until more information is presented to the group by proponents of the ``Put Parents In Charge Act.``

``The administration has not allowed us the information to make a fully informed decision,`` said Trustee Charles Baxley, who is retiring from the board. ``I want the item off the action item agenda and want to hear from the other side of the issue before voting on the recommendation (approving the resolution). I want the administration to invite an informed speaker on Gov. Sanford`s position so as to have a fair opportunity to make a decision in the best interest of the district and its students.``

Baxley`s fellow board member Gene Stokes was adamantly opposed to the local school board taking a stand on the issue.

``I don`t want to hear either side, good or negative,`` he said. ``I see this as a political issue. As a school board, we have enough concerns that we don`t need some issue as this to divide us any further. We have much more important things that we need to be discussing other than what I see as a political issue.``

Like Baxley, Stokes admonished the district`s administration for not including information that covered the proposed legislation in a positive light, but stood firm in his opposition to the board debating the issue in any fashion.

But he was overruled in a vote by the board to hear more on the issue in a future meeting.