I’ve never thought of myself as a “Joe” before, but it’s clear from tonight’s presidential debate that our two contenders think every last vote-casting one of us should respond to the nickname. McCain came out with a hard-packed Joe in both barrels, and Obama couldn’t resist hurling a hastily-scooped-up Joe or two back. So where does that leave me, who’s neither a Joe nor a person who considers the governor of Alaska a role model?

Thinking about school vouchers, mostly. While I’m definitely interested in topics like health care that doesn’t result in personal bankruptcy and ineffective government intervention into major economic disaster, I actually have some knowledge about the notion of school vouchers.

Yes, although I don’t own up to it very often these days, I was an “educator” earlier in my career. Like many who started out in the classroom, I left the chalk-dust realm for the principal’s office. Well, okay, I admit. I was actually the headmistress of an elite private school, but that brings me to my point.

On the surface, it might seem as though the school vouchers McCain was touting as the solution to the nation’s educational ills could allow lots of little Joe Plumbers and Jane Sixpacks to go to fancy alma maters like Episcopal High School, the exclusive ivy-covered establishment that he attended.

Like Andover, Exeter, and any number of other well-respected American preparatory institutions, Episcopal High School is a wonderful place to spend one’s salad days. It counts numerous leaders among its graduates, one of whom is now a presidential candidate. Given a blank check and carte blanche, what parents wouldn’t want their kids to go to a school like that? And won’t vouchers give Joe Sixpack -– er, the Plumber -– the power to go where few Joes have gone before?

I hate to say it, but -– no. Outfits like Episcopal High School are against the idea of vouchers. But don’t assume it’s because they don’t want all those common Joes signing up. It’s really not that sort of elitism at all. Most well-established independent schools have well-funded financial aid programs and actively seek diversity in their enrollment. Their anti-voucher stance is actually founded on pure self interest, and it’s related to the reason Obama didn’t take public funds for his campaign:

Public money comes with strings.

The fact of the matter is that a school voucher program would result in two kinds of private schools: the ones that take vouchers and the ones that don’t. It’s possible that some well-established schools might retool their operations in such a way as to qualify them for public funding, but most, valuing their independence, won’t accept the strings that come along with it.

Instead, a rash of new schools will pop into existence. These follow-the-money startups will meet the requirements for collecting voucher checks, but what are the chances they’ll be better than the public schools they’re competing with? The odds are dismally low. If the new schools are founded as for-profit businesses, they won’t be able to pay their staff adequately. If they’re founded as non-profits, they’ll have to raise money from day one. Neither scenario promises much to the children spending their few and only educational years under their guidance.

At least right now, it’s only a scenario. The voucher idea has been around for a long time, but so far, it’s still a notion. In the meantime, schools like the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy here in Las Vegas are offering outstanding programs right now. A charter school, AACPA is an excellent example of what can be achieved without creating a system that will do little more than create a feeding frenzy among get-rich-quick pseudo-educators and channel funds away from public schools.

Okay, now I have to to drink a six pack, shoot a moose, and unclog my toilet.