The plan introduced in this legislative session would have provided up to $4,600 in income- or property-tax credits for qualifying families, and for businesses or individuals that contribute to scholarship funds, to offset the costs of private-school tuition or home schooling. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, though not opposed to the bill's general approach, recently told us that he questioned both the wisdom of having the state grant property-tax credits that could adversely affect local government revenue, and the limited benefits of tax credits for those who pay little or no taxes.

Rep. Harrell said those obstacles might eventually be overcome, but that time constraints precluded the bill's passage in this session. He explained: "The main problem this year was that the bill was introduced so late and requires more research. I believe that is an issue that needs to be thoroughly debated."

Such debate is warranted -- early in next year's session. However, the repeated charge by the bill's opponents, including the S.C. Department of Education, that the governor's proposal lacks accountability fails the logic test. That charge is based upon the fact that private schools are not subject to the same government oversights imposed on public schools.

Yet private schools meet significant accountability standards of their own by having to satisfy their customers -- their students' parents -- in the education marketplace. And granting tax credits that facilitate competition in that marketplace would place renewed focus on failing schools -- and give more children a chance to attend successful schools.

Another major argument against the bill was that it would deprive public schools of funding. Bill Gillespie, chief economist for the state Board of Economic Advisors, estimated that the bill would reduce state revenue by $32 million in 2005-06, the first year of its five-year phase-in format, and $234.4 million by 2009-10.

Yet a study by a Clemson economics professor Cotton Lindsay projected that the state would save $594 million over that five-year period due to the reduction in students in public schools. And Barbara Nielsen, former state superintendent of education and an adviser to Gov. Sanford, insisted that the governor's proposal contained safeguards assuring no net loss of per-pupil public-school funding.

Rep. Harrell told us the fiscal impact of the plan was probably "in between" those opposing extremes. He added: "I like the general idea of doing the tax credits" to foster school choice.

That general idea already helps college students who use state tuition grants to attend private and church-affiliated colleges in the state. Using state tax credits to help younger students attend private schools is also a sound concept.

And South Carolina voters apparently backed the notion of fostering school choice, including the choice of private schools, in 2002 when they elected as governor Mr. Sanford, who made this issue a strong plank of his campaign platform. The General Assembly should keep that public support of school choice in mind, and give this proposal a fresh look next year.