As I've researched vouchers, I find pros and cons on both sides of the argument. In theory I like Milton Friedman's 1955 proposal for vouchers. Economically it makes sense in theory. Why not make education an open market? By making education an open market, schools will compete among each other to produce better education. This theory makes sense in a capitalistic society which finds positive results in an open market with its businesses, but businesses are regulated, and the laws that apply to the business world are complex and honed resulting in less potential mishaps unlike the current theories and structures of the proposed voucher system.

I went to El Salvador two summers ago. Their bus system was a competitive market. Buses were owned by individuals looking to make money, and as a result, the buses drove like maniacs so they could get to the next bus stop to collect the people before the other bus drivers and make money. In this unregulated, dangerous system, owners cut corners resulting in more harm to the public than good. This competitive market for the bus systems isn't a bad idea, it just hasn't been worked through enough to benefit the people the bus system serves as much as it could. Likewise, I think the voucher system is a raw idea in need of some serious fine tuning. The intended result will not be the actual result if we continue to implement the voucher system as is.