This would make sense if equal funding was given to all public schools, let alone to all public and private. If you're going to adopt the corporate model (where all teachers, like employees, are tiered to a certain level of production that, here, is measurable in the tested knowledge of their students) in regards to education, you have to begin with the assumption that all schools are given equal footing financially. That way it becomes easy to dump responsibility onto lazy schoolteachers, fatcat bureaucrats, and teaching unions for the sad state of most public education because once you eliminate or talk down the money variable it becomes an abstract discussion on responsibility.

Fact is, most lower-education institutes in the country are vastly under-funded. I happen to come from Los Gatos, Ca which boasts one of the better public school systems in the state, and it's easy to see why: like many other schools in affluent areas (and unlike many in poorer zones), Los Gatos High School succeeded in generating a lot of funding through local property taxes, which go directly to the school's budget. Not through the state, not through the county. Directly. Did we have our share of administrative BS, lazy teachers, or bloated union policies? Sure. But for the most part, we had excellent teaching and relatively clean overhead for a simple reason: we could afford it. We also had a lot more financial opportunity for things like AP classes, afterschool programs, sports, publications, clubs, etc - and that's not even counting the extra money raised from wealthy local parents.

That said, I stand strongly against voucher programs. Why? Because the voucher system actually pumps in more money to schools like LGHS. "No," you might say, "we are empowering the poor with this system by giving them a vote, a direct voice against their corrupted public school systems." This is hogwash. Let's be generous for a minute and assume that the vouchers are all going back into the public school system (and are not being used by the wealthy to subsidize private education - which the poor, even with vouchers in hand, cannot afford - on the taxpayer's dollar):

Imagine for a second that there are five public schools in a given area, ranked A,B, C, D, and F, each grade corresponding to the quality of education offered at that school. I expect little argument to my proposition that school A, which offers the highest quality of education, will most likely be located in the most affluent residential district, whereas F will most likely be located in one of the poorest areas (I challenge those who favor vouchers to provide a concrete countermodel with factual data). Now what happens when you introduce vouchers into this system? Well, everybody with their wits about them at schools B, C, D, and F are going to stick their vouchers into school A and try to get their students into that school, since it provides better education.

Two things will therefore result from this: school A will suddenly have a lot more state funding, so its performance will shoot through the roof. It will become A+++. It will also become way overcrowded with the influx of so many new students, akin to what is currently happening at my Alma Matter. Also, schools B, C, D, and F will see their funding dry up like the Nevada desert and their performance will hit the proverbial toilet. Keep in mind that even this is an idealized system which does not include the money skimmed by private schools into the equation.

The point of all this is that the schools that are most often the highest performers are those who have the best financial resources on hand. If one suddenly converts education into a market system after these schools have enjoyed for many years the benefits of the communities that they reside in, they will, predictably, be the best performers. This is exactly what vouchers are poised to do.

A much more reasonable and intelligent solution involves the creation of state-funded magnet schools, where the government goes about creating and subsidizing specialized highschools in poor urban areas for various studies (there are magnet schools in the arts, for instance, and in science, athletics, etc..). This, I believe, has been much more successful in leveling the playing field.