<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.

You severely underestimate the market's creativity at allocation of resources. Problems involving distribution of facilities and capital are dealt with thousands of times a day in the private sector in many industries besides education. I have confidence that these things would be worked out. Even very small towns often have several choices for eating, shopping, and other things. Why would schools be any different? And don't forget the Internet.

And telecom reform is doing just fine, despite its ham-handed handling, and companies going to Washington and attempting to "cook" the regulations to suit their own purposes.

You know anyone who can't get a phone? And as usual, the market is handling things in ways not expected. Much of the regulation of the phone industry was based on things like running wires to customers who would not otherwise be worth the expense. My parents, in a small town, now use cell phones for all their long distance. Many people use cell phones for EVERYTHING. You can get local TV channels through a dish, and can flip off the local cable company. Who saw that any of that coming? The free market always works.

...Rightists arguing for diversity? Will wonders never cease!

Kind of a cheap shot. A little thought, and you would realize the Left is a lot more intolerant of philosophical opposition than many conservatives are.

The flip side of the benefit of diversity in curriculum...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.

I don't understand why you assume that different schools will result in wildly divergent worldviews, even assuming that the latter is a bad thing. Most of the basics of what you learn in school are pretty homogenous. Math is math. Physics is physics. Classic English grammar is fairly consistent. One can mess with things like history and sociology, but the basic facts and dates are the same. Most parents will insist on schools providing a fairly noncontroversial set of basics for an education, and most schools will offer this if they want customers.

I have confidence in the ability of the average American to make intelligent choices in their kids' schooling. Sometimes I think whether or not one believes people are competent to run their own lives is the biggest difference between the collectivist and the individualist.

Anyway, your objection on the grounds of lack of a "common framework" would sound a little odd to many liberals, considering that any attempt to inject American culture or historic values into the public school system usually causes them to scream bloody murder.

For the record, you're a lot more reasonable on this subject than many people I've talked to.