The constitutional argument against vouchers was taken care of by the U.S. Supreme Court last June. A grant of public money to parents, as opposed to particular schools, overcomes supposed worries about state aid to religion.
What, then, is the argument against vouchers? The unions argue that allowing students to opt out of public schools, using public money, would threaten the viability of those schools. This is the silliest argument yet. Whatever is wrong with threatening the viability of schools that fail to serve the customers? So the marketplace customarily works.
The teachers unions argue, essentially, that marketplace discipline has no place in the public sphere, because public entities like the schools should go on operating -- and spending taxpayer money -- no matter how badly they perform. Somehow, in the teachers unions' eyes, it's unfair to hold public and private institutions to the same standards.
With this hollow argument, the unions have been able to squash an experiment that Texas might have conducted with vouchers. An experiment, nothing more. Don't confuse us with viewpoints we don't share, the unions say.
Oh, boy. No wonder the public schools are in the shape they are in -- and certain to stay that way until next time the Legislature meets. If not longer.