The education voucher idea is reviewed and comparisons are made among three existing plans. The basic idea is that the government issues a voucher of monetary value directly to families to pay for education. Existing proposals include the California Coons/Sugarman plan from the 1970's, the Friedman plan, and the Jencks proposal. These plans vary from providing basic subsidies with little regulatory control to providing subsidies that include extra compensations for the poor and slightly more regulatory control over school standards. Sponsors of voucher plans believe that choice is a requirement for school improvement and that competition improves school delivery systems. They feel the plan's simplicity eliminates complex administrative processes, is inherently fair, and will add innovation and diversity to schools. Critics argue that the plan has uncertainties, that the schools could loose their common core curriculum, that costs could vary, and that it may require added bureaucratic procedures. They express concerns that a competitive environment brings potential for abuse, increases social stratification, and gives public support to religious schools. In the 1970's the Office of Economic Opportunity and the National Institute of Education conducted research on voucher systems, but it was unsuccessful and provided little information on whether such systems can work. Major questions about voucher proposals remain. (MD)