Debate at the State House over the school tax credit plan is expected to heighten in the weeks ahead. The so-called “Put Parents in Charge” proposal, which is the centerpiece of Gov. Mark Sanford’s education agenda, will generate as wide an array of opinions as any piece of legislation to come along in decades.

In my opinion this debate is not only critical to the future of public education, but to the overall economic prosperity and quality of life for all South Carolinians.

First and foremost, let’s be clear about one thing. After you read the legislation (H3652), you can quickly conclude that this bill is not about improving our public schools. It is not about how to recruit more people into the teaching profession or how to deal with the funding disparities in the poor, rural parts of our state. It is not about how to bring more technology into the classrooms or how to expand early childhood education initiatives. It is about one thing, and one thing only: tax breaks and tax credits that shift public dollars into private and religious schools — and if fully implemented, this scheme will cause irreparable damage and chaos for our public school system.

Supporters of this legislation like to accuse those of us so passionately opposed to this measure as defenders of the “status quo.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Although I feel we have made improvement in our schools in recent years, I also recognize that we have a long way to go.

I do believe many of our students and teachers are working hard in our classrooms. I also believe that with the continued implementation of our accountability standards, an unwavering commitment from the Legislature and the business community and, most importantly, parents and teachers working together with students, we can one day have an improved public education system that will be the envy of the Southeast and perhaps the nation.

Supporters of the back-door voucher plan like to use simple code words such as “choice” and then point to information from one school district in Milwaukee, or a targeted voucher program in Florida, and attempt to convince you that this is the magic solution for our state. Yet, when you ask specific questions, you get unspecific answers. Here are a few:

• When children leave our public schools to become home-schooled, or are enrolled in private or religious schools, and the education system loses hundreds of millions of dollars, how will that make our public schools better or more competitive?

• What provisions will be made so that all children, rich or poor, black or white, will have the opportunity to attend a private or religious school?

• What guarantees will be there for those schoolchildren who need transportation to their new schools?

• With regard to accountability, how will we ensure that the provisions of the South Carolina Education Accountability Act and the Federal No Child Left Behind Act are being met?

• Will local property taxpayers be asked to make up the difference when their local schools lose funding under the plan?

• Have any other states implemented a program of this magnitude on a statewide basis?

• What protection or limitations will be put in place to regulate these Scholarship Granting Organizations?

• Why are all these out-of-state groups pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into our state to market this plan? What’s in it for them, and are they really concerned about the schoolchildren of South Carolina?

These are just a few questions that I remain puzzled about, and for which I will continue to demand the answers. I am not prepared to gamble away our public schools for some experiment that grew out of a think tank.

I believe this is one of the most important debates ever in defining the future of our state. I hope that when people hear the facts behind this scheme and not just the fluffy rhetoric, they will join me in opposing this radical idea and urge their own legislators to do the same.

Mr. Lourie represents portions of Richland and Kershaw counties in the S.C. Senate.