The public school system was created to insure that no child goes uneducated due to lack of financial means. That admirable objective does not require all publicly funded schools to be owned and operated by the government, however, just as food stamps can prevent starvation even though the government does not own and operate a huge chain of grocery stores (at least not in the USA). Food stamps are given directly to the beneficiary, who then decides where to spend them, whereas public funding of elementary education is currently permitted only at government schools. Why the difference? The answer is painfully obvious: as long as most parents are unwilling or unable to "pay twice" for a private school, the government schools can be used to indoctrinate their children against their will. After all, many "liberals" believe that traditional religious morality constitutes dangerous bigotry that children need to be inoculated against.
Public funding of elementary education has the effect of transferring funds from wealthier families to less affluent families, but average families will break even, more or less, paying about as much in taxes toward education as is spent in their behalf for educational services. For those average families, the net effect of the government school monopoly is that the government takes money away from them in taxes, then gives it back in the form of benefits -- but with a huge string attached. The government takes away money that could have been used at any school, public or private, then it gives the money back, but on the condition that it can only be used at a government school. It all boils down to a perverse money-laundering scheme in which parental choice is washed down the drain.
The transfer of funds to lower-income families could be accomplished, without sacrificing parental choice, by simply giving parents vouchers and letting them choose for themselves where to send their children to school. The vast majority of underclass families prefer this approach, yet liberal Democratic politicians vociferously oppose it, and the teachers unions characterize it as "radical." They think they know better than parents what is best for their children. Of course, the fact that the Democrats receive huge contributions from the teachers unions is a major factor. After all, neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore would dream of sending their own children to government schools, yet they arrogantly insist that those schools are good enough for the rest of us. (The excuses about security beg the question: why are private schools more secure than public schools?)
Opponents of school vouchers contend that they violate the First Amendment by allowing parents to spend public money at private religious schools. The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing an official state religion, but it also guarantees religious freedom. The notion that letting parents choose religious schools somehow constitutes the establishment, or even endorsement, of a particular religion is patently absurd, as the Supreme Court has recognized. A much stronger case can be made, in fact, that it is the current system that violates religious freedom by stripping parents of their religious educational options unless they are willing and able to "pay twice." It is the current government school monopoly, not a voucher system, that violates the First Amendment.
Another phony argument used against school vouchers is that they would divert funds from the government schools and cause them to deteriorate. It is true that vouchers would divert money from government schools, but they would obviously also divert the responsibility to educate children. Vouchers are virtually always worth less than what is spent per student at the government schools, so the net effect is to increase the spending per student at the government schools. A typical elementary school might spend $7000 per student annually, for example, and vouchers might be available for up to $4000. That leaves a windfall of $3000 or more for the government schools for doing absolutely nothing. The fewer students that remain in the government schools, the more money will be available per student. If only a single student stays, that student could be educated like royalty.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this issue is that liberal Democrats, who staunchly oppose parental choice in education, are widely perceived by the public as stronger supporters of education than are conservative Republicans, who favor parental choice. The Democratic demagoguery seems to work, unfortunately. Those same Democrats who are proudly pro-choice when it comes to letting parents kill their unborn children are vehemently anti-choice when it comes to trusting parents to decide where to have their children educated. Opposition to voucher initiatives is typically funded by special interests (i.e., teachers unions) at ten times the level of the funding in support of those initiatives, so voucher initiatives face an uphill battle. How much longer the public will continue to be fooled remains to be seen, however. Sooner or later we must realize that a government monopoly is not the answer -- or we are in deep trouble.