3 ms·
"It also allows parents to send children to private schools at public expense and make up the difference in cost with their own money" Theoretically this is a
by jacoblyles 14y ago
"It also allows parents to send children to private schools at public expense and make up the difference in cost with their own money"
Theoretically this is a lot easier to do in the United States, where public schools cost much more than private schools on average. Washington DC was able to fund private school scholarships at 50% the cost of sending kids to public school, pocketing the savings.
- juan_juarez 14y agoThe problem in the US is that the most vocal proponents of this are trying to use it to get their children into parochial schools rather than academically superior ones.
- jacoblyles 14y agoHow is that a problem? The parochial schools are academically superior, at least compared to the inner-city schools run by public unions. And America is very religious for a western nation so it is not a political handicap.
- _delirium 14y agoOn the latter point, it's not a political handicap as long as religions Americans like are getting the taxpayer money for their schools, but once religions Americans don't like qualify for the programs, support starts to dry up: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/louisiana_n_1593995.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/louisiana_n_1593995...
- juan_juarez 14y agoThere's a number of problems. One is that it's whackjob fundamentalists that want to use this simply to isolate their children from reality. Another is that there's so many religions that just don't quite agree & wouldn't want their money going to a Baptist/Catholic/Jewish/Mulsim/Hindu/Scientologist/Mormon/whatever school. Finally, and most importantly, there's the 1st Amendment which provides for separation of church & state & putting any state money towards religious education is a clear violation of this principle.