In addition to tuition, the House version of the bill that Jindal has been touting will now also include tax breaks for uniforms. At least this will also apply to public school parents, so it does make some sense if you assume that the tax breaks should be made in the first place. (After all, I would argue that public school parents are more in need of some kind of break than those of private school students, since they will tend to be less wealthy than the private school parents, even accounting for the difference caused by tuition.)
The arrogance of this bill is well expressed here:
The tax relief is warranted because the state’s inadequate public schools limit parents’ choices for their children’s education, Rep. Hunter Greene told the House Committee on Ways and Means.In other words, the public schools aren't working, so let's fund them less and provide incentives for not using them, and therefore not being invested in them as a community. That makes sense. It stinks of the "logic" of NCLB, which rewarded only schools that were doing well or improving, without a way to actually help badly performing schools improve. And I have little sympathy for parents who think their children are too smart for public schools--if that is truly the case, then enroll them in the Gifted & Talented program; as a part of special education, its precise purpose is to ensure that sufficient education is provided for every student.
“The (public) schools, at least in my area, haven’t been performing up to par,” said Greene, R-Baton Rouge.
Furthermore:
[Rep. Harold Ritchie] suggested adding a deduction for uniforms and instructional supplies that parents purchase in the public school system.So I suppose the parents who can afford private school deserve breaks, but those who can't, don't. Read More...
Greene resisted the change, pointing out that private school parents incur those expenses as well.