The idea of federally subsidized school voucher programs is wildly popular this year. After all, why shouldn't it be? In theory, voucher programs accomplish goals that educators, parents and government officials all hold dear: They give parents options for providing their children with a top-notch education, they ensure that America's youth will later be competitive in the global market and they play a role in "holding schools accountable" for student performance.

In the words of the McCain campaign, school vouchers ensure that "federal financial support [is] predicated on providing parents the ability to move their children, and the dollars associated with them, from failing schools."

They are also a bad idea.

Notwithstanding widespread support for such programs, school vouchers will almost certainly fail to achieve their goal of increasing educational opportunities for all Americans. In fact, they may only further blight an already crumbling system. Perhaps this hypothetical case can reveal voucher programs for what they really are —- tuition subsidies for wealthy families.

Two students attend the same high school. One student, Bobby, is from an upper-middle-class family, while another, Branden, is from a low-income family. Both are role-model students with 4.0 GPAs and outstanding records of community involvement, high aspirations and an admirable work ethic. One year the high school fails to meet the new federal regulations on standardized test scores imposed by the No Child Left Behind Act. Both Bobby's and Branden's parents are alarmed by this, because under NCLB, the high school is now on probation. Many of the school's most able teachers may choose to leave in search of higher-paying positions.

Bobby's and Branden's parents decide, after much deliberation, to try to place their students in higher-performing private schools.

They learn about a newly implemented School Voucher Act, a federal program designed to provide students in failing schools with free tuition to private, higher-performing schools. They turn to it for assistance. Both parents are relieved that the federal government has provided options for continuing their children's education, until Branden's parents realize that their voucher check will not be enough to cover the full tuition for a select private school.

In fact, they are later devastated to learn that Branden will not be able to attend private school at all. He will have to remain in public school, while Bobby's parents are able to foot half the tuition for a prestigious preparatory academy.

Behold the folly of school voucher programs: Because the federal government will spend billions of dollars partially subsidizing tuition for those who can afford to pay some tuition, public schools will receive even less funding than before. Branden's school will be even worse than before the school voucher program began —- worse than it was before his parents tried to send him to private school. Low-income students will suffer because the federal government, in effect, subsidizes tuition for wealthy families.

This can hardly be seen as fair or effective.

Because their school system failed them, many people like Branden will not receive the necessary education to earn scholarships or attend an Ivy League university.

The only fair and effective way to go about educating America is to dramatically increase funding for public schools and leave school vouchers behind.

> Rocky T. Cole of Marietta attends the University of Georgia.

New Attitudes is a weekly opinion column written by readers between the ages of 15-22. E-mail submissions or questions to dbeasley@ajc.com or call 404-526-7371.