First, in many nations, individuals had always had the right to choose from among educational suppliers. They could choose religious schools, privately endowed schools, schools created by neighbors, or even schools created by their own parents. The state required all children to be educated, and placed that burden on the parents, but if the parents did not like what was offered at public expense, they were free to spend their own money and time on a different educational supplier (as long as it met some minimal criteria to qualify as an educational process that the public judged to be important for all children). Second, under the many systems developed to support “school choice,” the society as a whole, being taxed by government, remained the financier of the educational suppliers. Parents and students were choosing which school they wanted to attend, but spending tax dollars to buy the particular services they received. This was explicit in the case of educational vouchers in which the government provided payments to individuals to purchase services from qualified educational suppliers. But there is also public version of this system that operates on some of the same basic principles, but provides choice to parents in the context of public schools in particular, rather than in the choice of schools operating in all three sectors. The idea of (public school) “choice” applies only to the assignment of children within public schools. Educational consumers continue to have the right to buy educational services outside the public system with their own money, but under the school choice system, they also gain the right to choose which public school to attend. That choice is no longer made by a central school administration on the basis of geographic location or other considerations the school administration thinks are important; the choice of which school to attend made by the individual consumers. It is important to see that the system of public school choice is similar to the use of educational vouchers in the sense that it delivered to educational consumers the right to decide which school to attend, and the state would pay for the education by reimbursing public schools according to the number of children who chose to attend the school. The only difference between this system and the proposed voucher systems (and it was an important one), was whether non-public schools could compete for public dollars, with the voucher system allowing payments to non-public schools, and the school choice systems requiring students to choose from a menu of public schools if they wanted to benefit from tax financing. The net effect of this form of privatization was two-fold: first to increase the power of educational consumers (parents and children) to judge the value of the educational services they received; second to allow non private schools to compete for government dollars by making appeals directly to parents. The overall level of educational consumption would continue to be supported by government subsidies of the individual demand for education, and that, plus a continuing rule that required parents to educate their children would presumably establish a universal floor for the consumption of educational services. The suppliers of educational services would have to become more responsive to what the parents and their children wanted from them. And, some additional variation in the specific forms of education would be added to the system. In effect, the value of output of the educational industry could be increased by meeting the varied demands of the consumers on one hand, and perhaps by finding in that varied response some methods that would work better in achieving educational goals for all goals, across all possible students. Efficiency would increase by meeting demand for individualized educational products and services (what