Student vouchers. Imaginary golden slips of paper that will enable our state's children to attend whichever school they want to--or, actually, the school their parent's want them to attend. New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson touts this as the answer to the problem of public schools. Greater choice will foster greater competition, and thus bring better education for all. And Johnson believes in this so much he is willing to veto the entire state education budget and force a special session of the state legislature (a part-time entity)--and spend more state money--to argue about it some more.

The state's voucher plans have been condemned by public educators, private businessmen and many state pundits. The bills proposing various voucher plans are virtually guaranteed to get voted down by the Democratically controlled legislature (Johnson says he's Republican, but really he's just a big headed businessman backed by casino money). But this matters little to Johnson, who has taken his recent reelection as a mandate for anything he decides to believe in.

I tried to talk to the Governor about this, but every time I opened my mouth he stuck his fingers in his ears and screamed, "Nanny nanny boo boo, I'm the Governor and you're poo poo!"

So I guess I'll have to take my views to the street--just like the Governor plans to do in the next couple of weeks.

There are many problems with implementing a voucher system in New Mexico. The first being that this is, largely, a rural state. Outside of Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces, everyone lives in small towns. The towns have only one or two high schools. Private high schools only exist in Albuquerque and Santa Fe. And while church-run schools exist in a few of the towns, most of those are located in the big cities as well. In other words, most of the kids in this state wouldn't have a choice of school even if they were given one. And not too many parents are going to want to move to the big cities just for a choice about where their kids go to school.

The idea of fostering competition between private and public schools is ridiculous. Public schools won't get better if money is taken away. This is like saying a business (say a construction business, like the one Gov. Johnson runs when he's not running the state) that loses half of its contracts will become a better business. The business will become a former business, not a better business.

Schools aren't trying to sell anything, they're trying to educate. The only product produced is students. When students are treated like numbers and money by the state, we end up with the problem we have now--dropout rates in Albuquerque are close to 50%. In other words, 50% of kids who start high school don't make it all the way through. Giving the scant amount of money public schools get to private schools won't help dropouts. Private schools won't want to take on students who don't want to go to school. As a matter of fact, most of the private schools in New Mexico are at full capacity now and have no plans to expand to accommodate voucher-enriched students.

Albuquerque schools already have an open enrollment policy, which means kids can go to whichever public school they want--with restrictions only for sports participation (much like the NCAA restrictions on transfers). So what choice will the voucher give most students here? Nothing.

Let me propose something only slightly more sane. Let's give more money to public schools.

Now before you label me as some kind of spend-happy liberal (well, the government is taking my taxes, why shouldn't they spend it?), let me explain. We throw tons of money into places that don't do anything to help our way of life. We spend tons of money on unnecessary military equipment. We spend money for a war on drugs--with negligible results.

But there have been some beneficial uses of money. We threw tons of money down for more police and crime rates are lower. We've manipulated interest rates and bonds (at the same time minimum wage was raised a little bit), and unemployment is the lowest its been since the early 70s.

Why can't we throw money at public schools and hope?

Make sure extra-curricular activities (which are not only creative outlets for students, but also alternatives to gangs and drugs) are well-funded. Maybe overfunded.

Pay teachers a real wage, make it a vocation that the smart kids would choose--possibly as an alternative to becoming another self-important businessman or lawyer.

We buy billion dollar Stealth bombers that don't work, but we're against giving money to help our kids become healthy adults?

Now, I know that most of what I'm talking about is federal money and not state money. But the point should be extended to the state money as well. Put money into public education--that's what we're paying the taxes for. Public use of public money. And then we have to lobby our national representatives to put education first--not bloated defense manufacturers or public relation schemes about a war on drugs and cigarettes.

Matt Worley was educated in public institutions throughout his entire school life. And he's only slightly crazy.