Proponents of voucher programs miss the point: the biggest problem is the students

Vouchers may be a great idea because it demolishes the wasteful public school hegemony, but they aren't necessarily going to make everyone a great student.

If your life depended on the results of a standardized test, would you rather have 100 of the most intelligent students (in terms of I.Q., which despite popular protest is a great measure of general intelligence), but who have been taught by average teachers in average schools, representing you, or would you prefer 100 students who are of average intelligence but have benefitted from attending great schools taught by great teachers?

If you choose the latter option, I have a hunch as to which group of 100 students you'd belong in. Schools are made by students. Intelligent, socially responsible, non-criminally oriented students make a school great. Taking thuggish villains out of ghettoes and putting them in private schools won't make them great students. We are mostly a product of our genetics, not environment (go read Freakonomics or the Bell Curve). Now, I grant you that if a school is dangerous, truly awful, or non-conducive to learning, those who could succeed are likely to fail or underperform.

But, once minimum standards for schools and teachers are met, I would wager everything I own that the marginal utility of increasing the quality of the school or the skill of the teachers decreases rapidly. No one thinks that great coaching will make everyone a good basketball player; you have to innate talent and the aptitude for it. Why do we think that great teaching will make everyone a good student?