First off, the federal government can say anything they want about vouchers but it wouldn't mean a whole lot. There is no clause in the US Constitution relating to education and the federal government only pays about 10% of aggregate education costs and that is largely for special education, Title I money for poor children, and a bit for career and technical education. That would make only a small amount of money that could conceivably follow a student under a voucher plan. The rest of the education revenue is comprised of state aid and property taxes and the ratio of those varies from state-to-state.
We have a lot of school choice here in Minnesota. Open enrollment in the public system (districts can only refuse transferring students due to space constraints), expanded open enrollment between Minneapolis/St. Paul and the suburbs under an integration/achievement plan, charter schools, area learning centers, alternative schools within school districts, tax deduction for private school tuition, college-in-the-schools, and post-secondary enrollment options where high school students can take courses at a college are all part of that system. We rank near the top of comparative rankings on achievement among the states, but our achievement gap between white and minority students is the worst in the country. I don't think the crux of the minority achievement issue would likely be addressed by more school choice. To me, it's more a function of the growing disparity in wealth and economic opportunity that exist between the rising wealth of the suburbs and the growing desolation of the inner cities. In Minnesota, revenue per pupil doesn't matter either. Minneapolis and St. Paul get considerably more revenue than the average school district, but when residents of the district speak over 100 different languages, there simply isn't enough money to get everything done. Language barriers and student mobility make it extremely difficult in those districts.
Standardized testing is a largely a joke after elementary school. We force all 11th graders in Minnesota to take a math test that is probably applicable to the futures of less than 10% of the students taking it. I scored in the high 90%'s on both the ACT and GRE and when looking at the test questions, I wondered if I could have passed it in high school. I remember being at a site visit in her State Senate district years ago with the illustrious then-State Senator Michelle Bachmann and she when the testing question was being discussed, she turned to me and said (and I paraphrase) "The only assessment that matters is the one parents and their children have about the quality of education they are receiving." I believe there is something to that, but at the same time I think there has to be some rough set of measures by which schools can be graded. I am not an educator, but as someone who has been involved in the financial side of education funding for the past 30 years I've learned enough to form many wrong opinions, but I think critics of public education spend too much time on the depth of knowledge issues and not breadth of knowledge issues. The curriculum has been greatly narrowed in most school districts throughout the country. Part of that is due to the overweening dedication to standardized testing and the other part is about money. Career and technical programs are more expensive to operate and with the stress placed on getting kids into four-year colleges whether it's appropriate or not has mothballed a lot of those programs. And, as I've stressed in numerous posts over the years, everyone here needs to read Bill Bishop's The Big Sort. It doesn't talk about education directly, but it really hits at the heart of the fraying of common vision in the United States due to the geographic re-sorting of the population and I believe that has had an effect on education.
Hawk, charters are fine, but the Minnesota experience is illustrative of some of the problems that crop up when inexperienced people (some with good intentions and some with bad intentions) are given license to start a school. Minnesota had the first charter school law in the country. There was a cap on the number until the late-90s when a ton were established. Again, some were started by well-intentioned people and some were started by straight-out con artists. Running a school is a complicated business and you simply can't get rid of all the procedures that govern the expenditure of public money when sending money to charter schools. I was on legislative staff when the idea of charters were first being kicked around and was in a meeting with my boss (chair of the Education Funding subcommittee) and a proponents of charters. My boss asked the proponent "What about liability insurance?" The proponent was absolutely dumbfounded. His response was "Why would we need liability insurance? We are educating kids." My boss told him, something to the effect, "Well, good luck when the kid falls off the poorly-maintained jungle gym." I honestly think the growth of charters, at least in the urban areas, spring from the frustration that the minority population has when facing a largely white bureaucracy. Now that bureaucracy is simply following a lot of orders from federal and state officials, but in a lot of these big operations, it is hard for frustrated people to get a straight answer. They would rather go to a charter school where achievement levels are the same (or often worse) but they feel invested in the education of their kids. We also had a charter school closed down that was on the verge of being a madrassa. Charters have also led to greater self-segregation (and I can understand that).
My two-and-a-half cents.