"Progressive" vouchers?

[Gordon Fitch]

Carl Remick:
> I was surprised to see Robert Reich endorse school vouchers in a Wall Street 
> Journal oped, "The Case for 'Progressive' Vouchers," Sept. 6.  As the title 
> of his piece indicates, Reich supports a specific type of tuition credit, 
> i.e., "'progressive' vouchers that are inversely related to the size of 
> their family's income."  Perhaps I misconstrue what Reich advocates, but it 
> seems to me this scheme would do the same thing plain-vanilla vouchers would 
> do:  subvert the whole notion of public education as a democratic 
> institution.  Am I mistaken?

I think that's the idea, isn't it?  _School_ is a
fundamentally authoritarian notion (_these_ tell _those_ what
to know and think).  Since children have no political power
to speak of, the system works smoothly as long as all the
adults agree on who is to be in charge and what is to be
taught, be it 2+2=4, the Quran, or Pledge of Allegiance.  If
they do not agree, and they are unlikely to agree in a large
and diverse society, then the schools become bones of contention,
plantations, concentration camps, hunting grounds, killing
fields, and other unpleasant metaphors as the adults struggle
with one another to wrest various goods from the system
by means of the abstract civil war of democracy.  The
warriors cancel each other out.


>From the point of view of Capital, this is not good, because
Capital needs trained workers -- workers trained in
obedience as well as technical skills and language.
Democracy is failing Capital.  Therefore....

To refute the idea of school vouchers (and subsidized home
schooling) in favor of democratically-governed public
schools, it will necessary to show how democracy, authority,
and Capital can coexist under contemporary social conditions.
Not an easy row to hoe.