Will government-funding of private schools lead to government control over those schools? Some observers think this need not be the case, and to support their view they point to programs such as the G.I. Bill, which allowed veterans to attend the colleges of their choice without imposing an excessive regulatory burden. Unfortunately, the historical record is unambiguous when it comes to elementary and secondary (as opposed to college) education. In every case in the history of k-12 education of which I am aware, state subsidies of private schools have been followed by pervasive state regulation of those schools. This has been true from ancient Rome, to the medieval Muslim Empire, to England, Canada, and the United States in the 19th century.

If public funds flow to private schools, there will be a demand for regulations to ensure public accountability, and these regulations will limit the very freedom that defines a true marketplace.

"The private voucher movement helps families because it is private. It is charity. It is voluntary. On the other hand, tax-funded vouchers defeat free will, self-reliance, and thrift."
     --Marshall Fritz, Separation of School and State Alliance.

The essence of this criticism is that government funding encourages parents to take their schools for granted, and to relinquish their educational responsibilities to the state. Based on the historical evidence, this concern is justified. Educational systems in which parents have been responsible for some or all of their children's tuition have consistently been characterized by greater parental involvement and greater accountability. When parents see exactly how much their children's education costs, and when they are required to assume much of that cost, they give greater care to the selection of schools, they expect more from those schools, and they are consistently more satisfied with the education their children receive.