vouchers for home vs. school

In this morning's C-J (Indiana edition):

The New Albany Housing Authority has been recognized for the way it runs a program that provides vouchers to residents who qualify to rent apartments in the private market.

So, if vouchers are good enough for the housing market, why aren't they good enough for elementary and secondary education? If poor people can make reasonable decisions about housing, why not about the education of their children? If the market can absorb consumers with housing vouchers worth thousands of dollars per year, why isn't it possible to do the same with schooling?

Or reversing it: If the government should be in the business of operating schools, why shouldn't they operate public housing? If the poor can't choose a school, why should they be allowed to choose an apartment? Wouldn't it be more compassionate and more efficient to have the government run public housing and force poor people into the same apartment buildings?

The primary difference is not efficiency, compassion, or the decision-making ability of the poor-- but a special interest group which wants to protect its monopoly power. Significant monopoly power is a great gig for suppliers-- if you can get it (typically from the government).