We all should know by now that when people use clever terminology to advance public policy issues, it's wise to take a closer look.

A good example is the Bush administration's 2002 "Clear Skies Initiative," which actually proposed to weaken the federal Clean Air Act — and allow for more pollution.

Terminology, we learned, can serve to mask a policy's true intent.

When the "Urban Schools Scholarship Act" was filed in the New Jersey Legislature in 2005 at the behest of the pro-voucher group, Excellent Education for Everyone ("E3"), its sponsors knew that the term "scholarship" was preferable to the term "vouchers," which does not play nearly as well with the public or the media.

Yet the E3 proposal is clearly a voucher proposal by any accepted definition of the term. This five-year "pilot" program would divert $360 million from the already strapped state treasury to send a very small number of students from seven districts to private schools — at a time when most of the state's public schools are struggling to make ends meet.

But instead of calling for a straightforward voucher program, the E3 proposal would provide dollar-for-dollar tax credits to corporations contributing up to $200,000 to help send students to private schools.

Many people, when they hear of this proposal, assume that the corporations are somehow paying the cost of the "scholarships," and that there is no cost to the taxpayers of New Jersey. But under the E3 proposal, a corporation donating $100,000 to the "scholarship" program would receive a $100,000 reduction in its taxes for that year, so the corporation's "donation" actually costs the corporation nothing. Taxpayers end up footing the bill, and the state treasury must find that $100,000 somewhere.

Given that these tax credits are used to pay for tuition to private schools, it is only logical that they will come out of current state funding for public schools. To put it another way, it's highly unlikely they would be taken from funding for health care, highways, environmental cleanup, or corrections. Therefore, this proposal will almost certainly have a direct impact on funding for New Jersey's public schools, because in the end there is only one state revenue stream, and when you remove revenue from that stream, something must be cut.

Proponents of the E3 legislation argue that it will provide "competition" between public and private schools, forcing public schools to both improve and lower their costs.

But comparing public and private schools is the ultimate "apples and oranges" exercise.

Unlike public schools, private schools select their students and limit their enrollments. Private schools can — and do — discriminate in their admissions on the basis of academic ability, disciplinary history, athletic ability, parental involvement, religion, and the absence of special needs. Unlike public schools, private schools do not have to administer state tests, are unaccountable for how they spend their money, and do not have to report levels of student achievement. It is a fact that 75 percent of private schools do not have special-needs programs, making E3's "scholarships" useless to the more than one fifth of urban students who are enrolled in special-needs programs.

In short, there can be no true "competition" between public and private schools, because they play by different sets of rules. E3 loves to use the term "school choice," but private schools — not parents — do the real "choosing."

Without a doubt, the E3 proposal would take money that is available to New Jersey's public schools and divert it to private schools — leaving the 1.4 million children attending the public schools with fewer resources.

As a result, public school budgets will either have to be cut, or property taxes will have to be raised even higher. Prior to this year's state budget, state aid to public schools was level-funded for almost half a decade, forcing districts to rely even more on property taxes. This proposal would cut $360 million in funds that would be available to the public schools — or for reducing property taxes. It would force districts to choose between cutting programs and increasing class sizes (which many are already doing), or raising property taxes even more.

It would also put pressure on the Legislature to cut funding for the state's urban Abbott districts, which rely on state funding for programs that are finally starting to show meaningful gains in student achievement in those districts. To the extent that funds in those districts are mismanaged, the state must provide adequate oversight and accountability, and intervene strongly if necessary. But punishing the students in the Abbott districts by removing the resources for their schools is neither fair nor appropriate.

Finally, and most importantly, the E3 proposal is simply bad public policy. It would drain our state treasury of $360 million that we can ill afford to lose. It would divert already scarce tax dollars from the public schools, weakening them at a time of escalating demands for higher standards and higher levels of student achievement.

Approximately 10 percent of American students attend private schools; the other 90 percent attend public schools. That has always been the case, and we can assume it always will be. Yes, we have struggling public schools, and they need the involvement of all stakeholders — teachers, administrators, parents, elected officials, and the general public — to improve.

But weakening the schools that serve 90 percent of our children to benefit the remaining 10 percent is bad public policy, and threatens the very fabric of our democratic society.

For all of these reasons, New Jerseyans should oppose the E3 voucher proposal.