One of the primary reasons given in support of the voucher system, as opposed to the focussed one-on-one system that is currently in place is that it would give the student a greater variety of choice in which teachers to have lessons from. As I will address later on, this reason is a red herring and based upon faulty assumptions, however, let us proceed with the assumption that this particular argument stands on firm foundations.

The learning of a musical instrument is a study that is comparable to a old trade profession. The study is still loosely based upon a Master/Apprentice model, and this model is a complete package of learning over a number of years (ideally the number of years is flexible, depending on the progress of learning). The choice of which Master to learn from is a one that you take seriously at the beginning of your course, as it is this person who will guide and shape your development throughout your developing years. It is a slow and long term process that should not be subjected to the whim of a moment, as sometimes a difficult period is neccessary in order to learn deeper understanding (both musically and technically). However, if the relationship between the student and the teacher is not workiong, then the student is always free to leave and seek a new teacher, and thus the concept of choice is still available at all times.
The idea of a voucher system for lessons can be compared to a voucher system for books or compositions. The idea that instead of buying into a complete system or package, that you would pay the author or composer only for a single page at a time and that perhaps your might ask someone else to write every second page or even someone different to write every different page is completely ludicrous. It would also be ludicrous to suggest that any other course in the university have each individual lecture be delivered by a different lecturer of each individual student’s choosing.

However, I have been generous so far. The principal advantage that the voucher system purports to hold over the existing system is the illusion of choice. As alluded to perviously, the idea of choice is an advantage, however, it comes at the cost of breaking the concept of sustained and foccussed learning if this choice is excercised constantly. If the choice is not excercised constantly, then you have the same existing system udner a different name.
But more importantly, the arguement is based upon the fallacy that there is currently NO ability to gain lessons from different teachers. I know from experience that this is not try, during my time at the CSM, I had one main teacher for Violin, a second teacher for my minor topic in Viola and in addition, I was always free to have lessons from anyone in the faculty without paying extra fees (the advantage of salaried teachers, rather than clock-in, clock out teaching). And, if this was not flexible enough, I was able to receive lessons from visiting teachers and masters (without extra charge), and if I wanted to cover the lesson fee I was able to study lessons with teachers with no formal connection to the School both within Australia and overseas. If this is not a surfeit of choice then I am not sure what would qualify as choice, and all of this was in ADDITION to a long-term sustained and foccussed one-on-one apprenticeship with my chosen teacher.

The idea that face to face teaching could be replaced by video-conferencing and such technologies is not really viable. First of all, after living overseas for a while, I can attest to the fact that Australian internet speed is a joke, and to run video lessons (with such a high bandwidth required for quality video and audito, in addition to the procurement costs of such a setup for multiple students) on a regular basis to the rest of the world is just a pipe-dream. But more importantly, during the early years of a Bachelor (apprentice) degree, a teacher needs to make physical contact with the student to assist in the development of technique. Something that can be done with a few minutes of physical contact and explaination would require hours of talking and would still result in misunderstanding. This is not really an economical use of time and resources.