That would be fine if the Czech government returned said families the taxes they took from them to finance public education.
No service, no charge.
No service, no charge.
Is the state decides not to grant you the service, for whatever reason, then it should give you the money it would otherwise have spent in order to provide you with said service. Else you are subject to discriminatory treatment by the state, based on your personal decisions.
The parents don't approve giving their child a vaccine they consider experimental/risky/unnecessary, they do this in full use of their reason and with the children best interest at heart. The State decides no to provide educational service to the child, but the child still needs an educational service. The right course of action would be for the State to give the parents the amount money it would hav spent, so the parent can contract the services of a private educational institution that would give the child the education the child needs.
Sure, but some parents are unfit to take decisions for their children, and quite apparently the culture in the US seems to be religiously (pun intended) on the side of the parents.
In Europe, the fear of government in that regard is less expressed and the fear of parents mistreating their children by not giving the proper health-care or education overweighs that one in general.
If there is a criticism on that point, I hope it will not diverge into hypotheticals but rather concrete current examples, where you think that is misguided.
Can I get my taxes back since I don't have children, and I've never been a child in this country?
And I've never driven on that road, can I have taxes back for the maintenance of that road?
We have an easy way to deal with roads: tolls.
You don't receive a service from taxes, because a government is not a company, and society is not a itemised order list for a reason: they are often interdependent to a degree, that you cannot have one without the other.
You definitely want everyone in your country to be as good educated as possible, especially in a democracy. You can't complain about a stupid government, if you have stupid electorate.
The American electorate would like to have a few monosyllabic, badly spelled and probably racist words with you.
It presupposes that some bureaucrat in Berlin should be entrusted with the educational decisions has the kids best interest at heart. The bureaucrat cares more about a child than the child's parents.
And yes, they are doing their share of stupid things. But that is the 1% everyone does wrong
Also, more qualified? What makes the bureaucrat more qualified? Does the bureaucrat know the child better? Is the bureaucrat better equipped to make decisions about the child future having limited to none information about the particular child? Doesn't the caring part have a huge impact on how carefully the decisions are made?
I see the rightful role of the bureaucrat only as one more source of information for the parent, to supplement any lack of knowledge the parents may have. But, the decisions, an ultimate responsibility, lies with the parents.
I sense a certain underestimation on your part towards non-college educated people, or maybe an overestimation of what college educated people can do. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The school system has an evolution of hundreds if not thousands of years. No colleague or not educated Administrator of that will be able to ruin it that much :) ... That quickly :).
Kids belong in a (public) school.