New Hampshire lawmakers are about to launch into another education battle, this time over a school voucher system that would let parents take public school money and spend it at private schools of their choice.

House Bill 754 would allow parents to use up to 80 percent of the state's per-pupil adequate education grant for tuition at a private school. The bill makes no distinction between religious and secular private schools.

Proponents say they want to end the public school system's monopoly on education and give poor students the same private school options that wealthier children have.

Critics say the bill is one of several moves aimed at dismantling public education by starving it of funds. In this case, they say, the bill conflicts with the state Constitution because it allows taxpayers' money to go to religious schools. It requires school districts to pay money to private schools and wait two years for reimbursement, they argue, with no chance for local voters to have a say.

The state now pays each school district an adequacy grant equal to $3,390 per pupil, compared to the state average expense of $7,233 per pupil. At the current aid level, a voucher would be worth $2,720. Estimates are that the program will use more than $6 million in state education funds in its first year, and $12 million in its second.

The bill limits the program to 2,000 first- and second-graders in its first year, and 4,000 students in grades one through three in its second year. By 2009, it allows a maximum of 14,000 students a year in grades one through eight.

Rep. John Alger, R-Rumney, a co-sponsor of the bill, said schools won't lose money under the bill. "They will lose kids, not money," he said. The fact that a school district keeps 20 percent of its state aid for each pupil who leaves is actually a bonus, Alger argued.

Opponents say the bill is unconstitutional because two provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution bars public money from going to religious schools. Most specific, they say, is Part 2, Art. 83 which says, "no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use" by a school of any religious sect.

"I know the school boards are nervous. Everyone is nervous, but it seems like a sensible thing to do, to me," Alger said. "If they're worried about it being unconstitutional, let's get this into law, then let them take it to court and find out."

Rick Trombly, lobbyist for the NEA-NH, the state's largest teacher's union, said the voucher program will become an election issue.

"The people of this state are going to have to determine whether, while funds are diverted from public schools, people want to pay for religious-based education for their neighbor's children," he said.

He said schools won't lose enough students to lower costs. At most, by 2010, the bill would allow fewer than one in 10 students transfer with public money. Also, he said, the bill requires free transportation to any private school within the district, a potential big expense in multi-town districts.

The bill passed a House education subcommittee on a 4-3 vote that split along party lines, dominated by Republicans. It comes up for a final committee vote on Nov. 18. House Education Committee Chairman Rep. Stephen L'Heureux, R-Hooksett, said last week he thinks the Republican majority will recommend passage.

L'Heureux said he wants to remain neutral, but he sees serious constitutional problems in the bill.

Alger and other bill sponsors say a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a Cleveland program cleared the way for vouchers. It said that because it left the choice of where to spend voucher money up to parents, the program did not infringe on the Constitution's prohibition on government establishment of religion.

In New Hampshire 's version, a school district will make out an "education certificate" as the voucher is called, written to both the parents and the private school. Both parties would have to endorse it before the money could be used for tuition.

Matt Moore, senior analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis in Washington D.C., said Cleveland's program made the vouchers payable to parents, so that government had no role in spending money on a religious organization.

"That decision did not necessarily lay down a blanket ruling for all voucher plans across the board," he said. "You need to break that link between government and a religious school."

Rep. Claire Clarke, D-Boscawen, an education subcommittee member, opposes the bill. "Just because the Supreme Court gave Ohio permission to include religious schools, doesn't mean it will be constitutional here," she said. "Why can't Republicans just agree to fund the adequacy formula the way they should?"

New Hampshire 's Supreme Court already ruled on a voucher-like program in a 1992 advisory opinion. It said a plan by Sen. Gordon Humphrey that would have required local districts to pay up to 75 percent of any private school tuition would violate the Constitution.

HB 754 co-sponsor Rep. John Laurent, R-Westmoreland, said the current bill is no different than the GI Bill that allows veterans to attend public or private colleges of their choice, including Catholic colleges.

"The basic opposition to the bill comes from people tied to public schools because they are afraid of competition," he said. "They are afraid of change."

Trombly said he'd bet on a public school every time, if competition is even-handed.

"If public schools have to teach everyone who comes through the door and apply every law and regulation state government passes, then we need to apply the same laws to any school that gets public funds. Don't make us subject to the laws, take away our funding and give it to others, then blame us for problems that develop," he said.