There are imperative issues surrounding public education: teacher accountability, administrative efficiency, relevant curriculum, enhanced salaries, fair taxes and better financing, etc. The opportunity to discuss how vouchers (and other alternative programs) may or may not resolve these problems is lost amid this political noise.

To promote needed action regarding Iraq, many high-profile politicos must continue distancing themselves from the antics of Moveon.org. Hopefully, Utah leaders will isolate the activities of voucher extremists in order to foster a fertile discussion regarding public education.

· · · · ·

Webb: Whether vouchers win or lose on Nov. 6, the Big Idea behind school choice isn't going away. A lot of legislators and business leaders want fundamental reform and more parental options. A voucher defeat, especially, will motivate them to continue the crusade.

Lawmakers will look at voting results in their own districts to help guide them on further reform efforts. Overwhelming anti-voucher votes in Democratic and swing districts in Salt Lake County, for example, won't dissuade powerful Utah County lawmakers from continuing school choice efforts and other reform ideas.

Public education governance might be addressed in the 2008 session. Some lawmakers want to revamp the state Board of Education into a 29-member body (districts aligned with state Senate districts), with candidates nominated and elected through the political party process.

Currently, hardly anyone knows or keeps track of their state school board member. If board districts were the same as Senate districts, and if candidates sought the office through the regular political process, voters would be more engaged and knowledgeable about the candidates and the issues.

Meanwhile, some legislators are thinking about ways to create more school accountability to parents. Here's a basic philosophical question: When public money provides services to citizens, are better results achieved if the funds go to the user, allowing them to shop for services, or directly to the institutions providing the services? I believe, generally, that superior outcomes occur when money flows to individuals (with appropriate safeguards), rather than to institutions.

Federal college financial aid like GI Bill money goes to individuals. Colleges then compete for students and have an incentive to perform well. Low-income housing programs work better when rent vouchers go to individuals, who then shop around, giving landlords incentives to provide better service and keep properties in good condition. The magic of the marketplace performs well even for some government services.