By now it isn't news that the Supreme Court yesterday narrowly ruled Constitutional Cleveland's school voucher program, which provides financial assistance to low-income families to send their children to private schools.
My primary beef with vouchers actually isn't the Constitutionality of government subsidy of religious education, although the Court's decision frankly didn't answer all my concerns on that score. My main problem with vouchers is it's a classic case of a simple solution to a complex problem, and as such I supect it isn't the panacaea it's purported to be. Even the just-upheld Cleveland program affects only 3,700 students; while I'm glad they're getting a better education, I am not sure how the measure improves the quality of Cleveland's schools in general, or how it benefits kids in bad schools whose families might not qualify for vouchers. I'm not familiar with the totality of Cleveland's law, and I don't think the voucher concept ought to be dismissed out of hand, but I'm not convinced unintended consequences won't surface, either.