Vouchers are reactionary policy to failing public K-12 education. In DC, the voucher program participants outperform public school students at a fraction of the cost. Plus, as abortion advocates say, choice is good. So one would think the public schools would get a clue and try to emulate more successful charter and private schools.
But no, that would be putting interests of students first. You see, it’s pay day for unions across America. If you are the UAW, you get control of two major auto companies. If you are the NEA, that means wiping out the competition.
One of main arguments against vouchers is that it would leave underachieving students behind. So what? Do they need nerds to pick on to do well? I would put teachers and parents ahead of peers as more important factors to a quality education.
The fact is vouchers would not be necessary if schools did their jobs. I support vouchers because while they carry risk, they work. I support public schools because, if only disadvantaged students are left behind, then they can restructure to focus on helping them while helping to lower costs.
There is no reason both cannot co-exist.