Well-reasoned argument, perhaps. That is if one admires the old Soviet model of socialism. Equality of opportunity as stated in the article, “Equality of opportunity demands that children should not be penalized—or advantaged—by the accident of their birth.”  It is the Marxist version or the ideology of Marxism at play when equality of opportunity under the liberalism definition is turn upon its head. It is the resources of an education system that must be distributed evenly.

In a 1996 paper, “In recent times, the liberal idea of equality of opportunity has been subverted and transformed into a concept which may be termed equal opportunity. Equal opportunity departs from the orientation upon personal freedoms which is inherent in the liberal concept of equality of opportunity” http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap20.htm

The argument of equality of opportunity based on Marxist ideology is riddled with holes. The entire argument falls apart at the apex of students needs. Some students are blind. Some are intellectually advanced than their counterparts. Some are dyslexic, requiring specialized remediation in the 3 Rs. It is rather foolish to based their argument that banning parents from purchasing private education, will improve the public schools in terms of resources and students’ equality.

At the end of the day, equality of opportunity does not provide the right to a quality education. What it does provide is an opportunity to be educated.

Even I believe that people have a right to private school or home school. I just don’t believe they have a right to public money any more than they can get money for private police firefighting private doctors or private swimming pools.

I would tax them heavily however like alcohol tobacco or anything you want to be very limited.

Doug, you do realized it would be the end of your little private school for wealthy Chinese students. Equality of opportunity under Marxism doesn’t do restrictions very well. Under Marxism ideology, the assets are seized. However, under the 21st century socialist Marxism that the Chicago education unions goes on about, they practice the form of restricting education according to the needs and desires of the educator elite class. In that world, the kid who is struggling in reading is sent to the back of the classroom to be taught socialist ideology rather than to remediate reading. The parents are penalized because they want more than ideology. They want their child to learn to read well.

Got to remember Doug, private schools come in all shapes and sizes. The one-sized-fits-all public schools with rigged educational equality of opportunities does not catered to students who are not the round pegs dictated by the K to 12 education establishment. Since the vast majority are not round pegs, the K to 12 will self-implode tending to the non-educational needs of students. That is if parents were to be penalized for sending their children to alternative schools other than the public K to 12.

By your same logic Doug, we should tax teachers’ unions heavily!