I have mixed feelings about vouchers, and so I can't take a position one way or another. Arguments from both sides are a mixture of reasonableness and delusion.

Seems to me that the anti-voucher side's blatant pushing of the religious bigotry button (why pick on Wiccans, of all people?) and wild-eyed fearmongering is matched by the utopianism of the pro-voucher crowd.

Yes, there'd be competition. But as telecom "reform" demonstrated, by analogy with another deregulation effort, the benefits won't be distributed equally. There will be plenty of choice in high-density urban areas, and a paucity of choices in the low-density countryside. The government schools that are supposed to remain as a safety net--the schools of last resort--will be overburdened in some areas, wastefully idle in others. Schools require elaborate physical plants, the building or decommisioning of which can't respond quickly to fluctuation in demand. Capital won't be used to maximum efficiency.

The flip side of the benefit of diversity in curriculum (Rightists arguing for diversity? Will wonders never cease!) is Balkanization of curriculum. I'm concerned at the possibility that a generation of voucher-driven diversity in education will produce adults with wildly divergant worldviews. A little diversity is a great thing, but too much of it can divide a people and deprive them of a common framework on which to build a cohesive society. I think a healthy society steers a middle course between stagnant homogeneity and chaotic diversity.

Seems like I'm arguing the negative side, but that's more a reaction to your pro-voucher post than a statement of my position. I do think diversity and choice and competition are good things, in principle; it's just a good idea to examine the potential negatives, too.

Oh, yeah, and a Happy New Year, Larry!

--Robert