Much ink has been expended regarding “Put Parents in Charge.” Opponents and proponents have sparred over the research on the effects of choice mechanisms on educational achievement, the impact of tax credits on the approximately $9,500 per pupil expenditure in South Carolina (which ranks it in the top half of the states), the politics of choice and race, and on ad infinitum. As South Carolinians grapple with this issue, they should consider these reasons to support the legislation.

Alternative means of contributing to the public good — namely, the education of a literate, politically engaged and moral citizenry — are popular. When given an opportunity to direct the education of their children, parents of very modest means jump at it. Thousands of parents have applied for scholarships provided by privately funded scholarship granting organizations in numerous states and cities.

In addition, African-Americans have busied themselves during the past 25 years establishing their own schools and choosing options within and without the state system. Indeed, an increasing number of children are attending schools of choice. This is especially true for children from the nation’s poorest families. While 83 percent of students from families with incomes of $10,000 or less attended their assigned public schools in 1993, that figure dropped to 74 percent in 1999.

Some opponents of “Put Parents in Charge” argue that only public education serves all students. Since its inception in the mid-1800s, public schooling, no matter how well-developed, has never met the needs of all families and their children, nor will it ever be able to do so. Any education worthy of the name involves selecting certain propositions of knowledge, skills and dispositions of thought, value, appreciation and belief and then transmitting them in a particular environment.

No one should be surprised that Americans of good will have deeply grounded differences of opinion regarding what constitutes the proper kind of education for their children. These differences have been the subject of acrimonious debate for more than 150 years, and are a major reason why Americans have sought alternatives to the so-called “common school.” School choice, therefore, does not involve mere “consumerism.” Rather, school choice is about matters of conscience and concern for the welfare of families and their children.

Comparing tax credits to enhance parental choice in education to the choice between paying or not paying for roads or asking for a credit for not using a public park is akin to comparing apples and bananas. Neither parks nor roads involve the value-laden process of the education of children.

The present tax credit legislation is an unobtrusive, constitutionally permissible means of empowering parents and encouraging diverse means of educating the public. Encouraging such diversity is not without precedent. Well into the 1800s, for example, many states including South Carolina provided monetary and/or land grants to schools that today we would label “private.” These schools were often called “public” because even though they were privately controlled and often faith-based, they contributed to the common good.

Many opponents of “Put Parents in Charge” have charged that it directs “public money” to private schools. This claim is suspect for at least five reasons:

• Neither the S.C. Constitution nor the Code of Laws indicates that a tax credit is an appropriation of public money.

• Other tax credits available to South Carolinians, e.g., child care, are not understood to be functional equivalents of direct grants of state funds.

• South Carolina allows taxpayers to take advantage of itemized deductions under the IRS Code, including deductions for donations to churches. If credits constitute public funds, then so must other policy equivalents like deductions. Tax dollars, therefore, would flow directly to churches. Courts, however, have not taken this view. Credits may indeed differ from deductions in form, but not in substance.

• Courts in a number of states have ruled that a tax credit does not involve any appropriation or use of public funds.

n• Black’s Law Dictionary defines public money as revenue received from federal, state and local governments derived from taxes, fees, fines and so forth. Under any common understanding of the words, public money is not involved in the present case.

Our tradition and organic law recognize that parents, not the state, have the primary right and responsibility to direct the education and upbringing of their children. The proposed legislation enhances the ability of parents to exercise that right by remedying the injustice of having to bear a full tax burden as well as the costs associated with an educational alternative for their children, and extends by means of privately funded scholarships to our less-fortunate citizens the opportunity to choose the kind of education they deem best for their children.

PPIC is about much more than public and private schools; it is about empowering parents to decide what is best for their children. Though we may not always agree with choices other parents make, I trust that we will take to heart the words of Jack Coons, professor emeritus of law at the University of California and one of the fathers of the school finance equity movement: “Parents are not always good deciders on matters of education; they are merely the best.”

Dr. Carper is chairman of the department of educational studies at the University of South Carolina.