A recent pro-voucher television commercial featuring Oreo cookies is clever but misleading. It has been embraced by some without adequate analysis. It assumes that all vouchers would be used by students who switch from public schools, leaving money behind. It argues that this would result in more money for public schools and smaller class sizes. I wish it were true.

The problem is that the commercial wholly disregards existing private school students who do not now receive public funds. To avoid immediate financial strain in education funding, the voucher law provides that these students, projected to exceed 23,000, would be phased in over a period of 13 years.

This fact alone speaks volumes about the anticipated negative financial impact from the voucher program. In reality, it would require a major infusion of new taxpayer dollars with no offsetting savings and no reduction of class sizes in public schools..

What is the financial bottom line? The Legislative Fiscal Analyst has written an impartial analysis contained in the Voter Information Pamphlet. Read it. Study it. In this war of words, it is the one safe harbor. It has been written in response to statutory duty. The analyst is nonpartisan and has the job of helping voters sort out the truth.

The impartial analysis, found on Page 5 of the pamphlet, concludes that by the 13th year, when all existing private school students qualify, vouchers would cost Utah taxpayers $71 million annually while only saving between $11 million and $28 million.

Any thoughtful reader should conclude that this does not bode well for public schools and Utah taxpayers. If you do the math, the shortfall is somewhere between $43 million and $60 million annually. Sorry for the pun, but that's a lot of Oreos.

The low savings ($11 million) is based on state funding of about $3,100 per student per year. This largely goes to pay teacher salaries. The high savings ($28 million) includes all other expenditures which are funded principally by local taxes and federal grants. It brings the statewide average per-student cost to about $7,600 annually.

The high-savings figure assumes a school can cut costs by $7,600 every time a student leaves. That simply can't happen in most school districts in the state. Rural school districts and urban districts with modest growth or flat enrollment would be particularly hard hit.

If one or two students from every class left with a voucher, the overall operation of the school and its fixed costs of doing business would change very little. Bond payments, administration costs, school bus routes and attendant transportation costs, utility expenses and maintenance would tend to remain relatively constant.

These facts make the low-savings estimate more realistic for the overwhelming majority of Utah school districts.

If we really want smaller class sizes in Utah, they're not likely to result from the inefficiency of funding a second education system that the impartial analysis estimates will cost $43 million to $60 million more annually than it will save.

---

* KAY MCIFF, R-Richfield, is a member of the Utah House.