EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, jr.rnMANAGING EDITORrnScott P. RichertrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O.J. Brown, KatherinernDalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rn].0. Tate, Michael Washburn,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Donald Livingston,rnWilliam Murchison, William Mills,rnAndrei Navrozov, Jacob Neusner,rnSrdja TrifkoricrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCIRCLlL^riON MANAGERrnCindy LinkrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices;rn928 North Main Street. Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone; (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone; (815) 964-5813.rnSubscription Department; P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S.-. Newsstand Distribution b)- Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Va. 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan. Ohio 44848-9705rnCopyright ® 1998 b)’ The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthlv for S39.00 (foreign subscriptions add $12rnfor surface deliver), .$48 for .Air Mail) per vear bvrnTIic Rockford Institute, 928 North Main Street,rnRockford. IL 61103-7061. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IL and additional inailingrnoffices. POSTMASTER; Send address changesrnto Chronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054rnTire V lews expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarilv” reflectrnthe views of The Rockford lirstitnte or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited nraniiscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied bv a self-addre.ssedrn.stirmpcd envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.22, No. 12 December 1998rnI’milLdintlieliiiiU-dStatcsof •NiiiL-ricarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn School VouchersrnLew Rockwell (“Flies in the Ointment,”rnSeptember) and I have the same ultimaternobjective: “an educational marketrnin which parents are responsible for payingrnfor their own children’s education.”rnWe agree also on the “twin evils of publicrneducation: involuntar’ funding andrncompulsory attendance.” In our idealrn(libertarian) world, government wouldrnplay no role in schooling—neither compellingrnschooling nor funding schooling.rnParental responsibilit)- and the free marketrnwould reign supreme.rnWhere we disagree —and disagreernstrongly—is on how to get from wherernwe are to where we would like to be.rnRockwell’s answer is:rnGet the federal government out ofrneducation. Decentralize all fundingrnand decision-making to thernstates, and then to the local level.rnScale down school districts to thernneighborhood level, as they werernin the 19th century. As for privaternschools,. . . oppose any restrictionsrnwhatsoever.rnSo far, we agree. Even,’ one of thosernsteps is highly desirable. However,rnwhereas he believes that the “push forrnvouchers is . . . a distraction” from thisrnagenda, I believe that it is the most effectivernway to promote it. A system of universalrnvouchers, available to all parentsrnand usable at any school, secular or religious,rnnon-profit or for-profit, would leadrnto the development of a private enterpriserneducational industn’ that w.’ould bernpart of a political coalition powerfulrnenough to counter the influence of therncurrent educational establishment: thernpublic school bureaucracy and thernteachers’ unions, by far the most powerfulrnand left-leaning special interest grouprnin the country. Effective competitionrnwould also bring to schooling the kind ofrnimprovements in quality and availabilityrnthat we hae enjoyed in almost every’ otherrnaspect of our life in which private enterprisernhas prevailed. Governmentrnaside, there is no major area in our lifernthat is as technologically backward asrnschooling. We teach now as Socratesrntaught 2,500 years ago.rnProposition 174 in California was indeed,rnas Rockwell says, “a model piece ofrnvoucher legislation backed by all thernusual suspects.” But it “crashed andrnburned at the polls” not for the reasonsrnRockwell claims but because of the wellfinancedrnopposition of the vested educationalrninterest—notably the teachers’rnunions. In the spring of 1993, every pollrnshowed a large majorit)’ of voters in favorrnof the voucher initiative. But then thernspecial interest opponents went into highrngear, first using dirty tricks to invalidaternpetitions sponsoring the initiative, thenrnspending three or four times as much asrnthe proponents could raise on television,rnradio, and print attacks on the initiativern—attacks in which truth took a backrnseat.rnRockwell chooses to discuss not thernkind of universal voucher plan that I suggestedrnmore than 40 years ago but the extremelyrnlimited plan adopted in Milwaukee.rnBut that is an entering wedge, not arnfinal outcome. It has already been expandedrnonce—from 1.5 percent of studentsrnin the Milwaukee public schoolrnsystem to 15 percent—and pressure isrnmounting to expand it further. I agreernwith a statement that Wilbur Cohen, formerrnsecretary of HEW under PresidentrnJohnson, made in a 1972 debate with mernon Social Security: “A program that dealsrnonly with the poor will end up being arnpoor program.” Vouchers will not endrnup being a program only for the poor.rnThat is foreshadowed in the movementrnin several states for using tax creditsrnrather than vouchers as a way to empowerrnparents, as well as in the announcedrngoals of the various groups that are seekingrnto foster parental choice (includingrnthe foundation that mv wife and I havernset up: the Milton and Rose D. FriedmanrnFoundation for promoting parentalrnchoice).rnRockwell says that “Vouchers representrnnot a shrinkage of this welfare staternbut an expansion, the equivalent of foodrnstamps for private school.” But since thernvoucher amounts to only a fraction of therntotal amount that the state now spendsrnon each child in public school, and thatrnamount need not be spent for childrenrnwho leave public schools, vouchers restrictedrnto children in public schools rep-rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn