Because many persons are legitimately dissatisfied with the status quo.
> Personally, I feel that an educated populous is a good thing.
Absolutely.
> Hence, public schooling is a good thing.
Ah, if only that were so. Unfortunately, in the last generation, public
schools have evolved bizarre philosophies which are counterproductive.
With social promotion and CYA attitudes which preclude rational
discipline, the current system is causing problems, not solving them.
> I also think that having an alternative is a good thing.
> Hence, private schooling is a good thing.
Refreshingly, the NEA has recently reversed its opposition to charter
schools. Let's hope this alternative lives up to its promise.
> However, if the mindset is that private schools are already so much
> better than the public schools, then why is a tax incentive needed to
> make them that much more attractive?
Refer back to your Econ 101 notes.
Personally, when my son was in first grade a decade ago, I worked for the
local bond issue. Now, after seeing the appalling practices of the
schools (esp. the grade schools, where the patterns are set), I would be
hard to persuade the schools need *money* to fix their problems. All the
money in the state would not correct anything, until the schools realign
their philosophies with reality.
I have discussed this with many persons in the district, inc. former
employees who left out of disgust. Local media have ignored or disguised
this unfortunate situation. Home schooling numbers have exploded, and
private schools grow in number and enrollment. Guess why? We're not all
religious fanatics, but we're appalled at the idiocy we are witnessing.
I don't resent paying taxes when I get a reasonable return for my
investment. I do resent paying taxes when I'm funding a problem, not a
solution. Any commercial business with the track record of the public
schools would have succumbed decades ago. Will they ever wise up?
Robert Probasco rcp@uidaho.edu