The economic model of education policy assumes a substantial consensus for a common set of educational goals.  Unfortunately, such agreement rarely exists in the construction of real world reforms.  In the case of educational vouchers, this problem is exacerbated by multiple goals and a lack of credible evidence, which neither supports nor refutes program effectiveness.  Research has become a venue for competing ideologies and we conclude that the frenzied search for evidence on the impact of vouchers on student achievement is a charade that will not settle the debate.  The primary conflict is between what we term libertarian and social contract positions.  Libertarians believe freedom of choice should be the highest priority of voucher reforms and assume that increased options will promote greater efficiency and (possibly) equity.  Advocates for a social contract maintain that education generates important positive externalities that are best promoted through a free, publicly-funded and democratically determined system.  The following paper contends that evaluations must openly acknowledge and account for competing beliefs. We define a comprehensive framework of analysis that employs four criteria– freedom of choice, efficiency, equity, and social cohesion–to analyze the regulation, finance, and social services provisions of individual voucher programs.  Our framework allows policy makers to gauge desired outcomes and understand the tradeoffs that choice reforms entail, especially when evidence is limited.   This article was also published in the American Journal of Education, 111, August 2005.