I’ve been trying to draw attention to the dangers that regulations like those in Indiana’s new voucher program pose for long‐​term educational freedom and choice.


It’s a difficult thing to do, in part because we have little freedom at all in the public school system that educates the vast majority of kids. Destroying the independence and diversity of the private education sector seems a reasonable risk to run for many if it means more choice for the majority of families. I disagree, and think that we’ll trade the possibility of a dynamic and innovative market in education for a new era of stagnant secular and religious public schools.


The other difficulty in explaining the threat of regulations like those in Indiana’s voucher law is that it is a complicated bill, linked to complicated existing state code.


In the interest of clarity and transparency, I’ve uploaded a two‐​page overview of the regulations, with citations and links for those who would like to take a look themselves. You can access it here: Regulations Associated with HB 1003 Indiana—2011–05-20


Let me know what you think, and whether I have missed or misinterpreted anything.


Matt Ladner replied to my concerns recently with some interesting qualifications and questions. He notes, “I haven’t seen an example yet of a voucher program in the United States swallowing up the private school sector and homogenizing them, but I agree that it is possible and a grave concern.”


The primary reason we haven’t seen this yet is that these programs have all been too small and constrained by funding caps. And that’s the problem with the Indiana plan and other plans to expand heavily regulated voucher programs; the better they are on coverage and access, the more devastating the consequences for educational freedom.


I find it horrifying to contemplate looking back 15 years from now at this moment of great opportunity and realize that, in the pursuit of choice, we imported the dysfunctions of government education and top‐​down control into the private sector and reduced both choice and freedom in the process.