whether put on ballot by state legislators or by the initiative process.  Which makes it interesting why the right keeps trying it.  I think it is as much as anything else an attempt to motivate base voters to come out and vote in the hopes they will vote on other issues or political contests.  But so far the American people reject the idea of vouchers.  And if it gets handily defeated in a state whose support for Bush may be the highest in the nation, that should be the death knell, but unfortunately it won't be, not for this ridiculous idea.

Leaving aside the details of Utah's program, what in essence is wrong with the idea of school choice? 

This is the NEA's position.  http://www.nea.org/v...  I did a lot of reading on this issue at one time and concluded NEA was right.  My biggest objection is that it is going to subsidize rich people who don't like to send their kids to school with everyday folk -- so I say let 'em pay for that themselves -- and it will fund religious education.  The latter really scares me and offends me.  The leaders of the pro-voucher movement tend to be religious wackos or elitists like George Will, Grove Norquist, Ann Coulter, etc.  I've seen little respectable support for it.

The NEA is biased source.  They are an advocacy organization for public school educators.  So, it is not unreasonable to think that they would put forward arguments and gather facts to support those arguments in opposition to anything that potentially threatens public schools.  In the article you reference, those are critiques of specific programs.  And faults in programs can be fixed.

Back to the issue of choice, you can conceivably create a choice program that does not subsidize wealthy families that could otherwise send their children to private schools.  And you could also mandate that public funds not go to the religious coursework of parochial schools and that those schools allow the choice students to opt out of that coursework.  And to the critiques of those individual programs, there is no reason the state cannot mandate the same standards and tests for private schools as for public.

So, what ultimately is wrong with the idea of allowing parents choice?  And let's just focus on the economically disadvantaged, because I agree we shouldn't write checks to the wealthy who already are afforded choice by their incomes.  If their zoned school is not serving their children well, why should they not be allowed the option to send their child elsewhere?

I read both sides some time ago.  Sorry, but I don't have the time now to re-look at the issue.  I concluded that the NEA was right.  Both sides are "biased" sources to some extent. I have not read of a single case where it was shown school choice raised achievement scores. And, quite frankly, some private schools use substandard teachers and deliver poor educations.

Also, as I said, I distrust the voucher people, many of whom are wackos who are doing this to destroy the "multiculturalist" public education system.  They're the same people who want religion taught in public schools, and opposed integration.

From an econ perspective, unfettered competition isn't always the best idea; there are lots of examples in our economy where we regulate competition, and schools are just one example.

n/t