While Widgerson's piece is spot on the Ellis issue with school choice runs even deeper than this. My read on Ellis, based on what he said and did about this issue last session is that he believes voucher/choice should be reserved for low income/low performing schools. It was from this belief that his now infamous "cesspool" comment about a Green Bay school sprang. 

Public education is a legal monoply and the Ellis position is a fascinating one. Clearly a fair number of residents in any school district would welcome the opportunity to break up that legal monopoly. But Ellis feels people should have the right to maintain a public school monopoly if they can get a majority vote to do so. In other words, they might very well choose to limit their own choice, as strange as that sounds.

And Widgerson is also right that this would create chaos in every district where it's voted on. Just look what has happened with "the parent trigger" in California. Residents of local districts would be told they're "teacher haters" if they vote for choice. They're "anti-education" if they don't love public education. Why doesn't Ellis just admit he opposes vouchers for most schools, rather than hide behind this nonsense?