Seven districts meet that criteria. But the proposal featured a loophole through which well-heeled communities could enjoy the use of state funds for private schools. A provision allowed any school district to sign up for vouchers by a vote of the people or of the school board. No question, the California initiative deserved to go down in flames. And perhaps the same goes for the Michigan proposal.
Vouchers are worth doing only if they target low-income families.
Better-off families already enjoy choice in that they can afford to pay for private schools or to move to communities with good public schools. Publicly financed choice for all comers could in fact hurt poor families by stepping up the competition they face for private-school seats. Though better targeted, the Michigan proposal, even in its main thrust, wasn't focused enough, in that it would have given vouchers to well-heeled students, so long as they lived in poorly performing districts. What's more, the loophole made vouchers feasible for any district, rich or poor. According to opinion polls over the summer, the California proposal was in a dead heat and the Michigan proposal enjoyed majority support.