You're conflating different things. People can already choose between public, private, and homeschool. The "credit" is a public resource allocated for a certain purpose under certain conditions. A union doesn't unilaterally decide anything.
You're entitled to choose a non-public school, to want to divert a public resource to yourself with fewer strings attached, and to want more leverage to disregard teachers' stakes in delivering education. Not everyone would agree with your conclusion that it "should" make things better, or that it's even necessary to make improvements.
You're entitled to choose a non-public school, to want to divert that public resource to yourself
How is that? In the US schools are paid for via property tax.
You pay the same property tax to the school whether you have 0 kids in the public school system or 100.
If you choose to pay for private school, you still pay the same amount of tax to the public school system even though you aren’t using it. Only some states have a “voucher” system that lets you have your student’s fees redirects from public school to a private school. About 70% of states don’t have any voucher system so there’s no way to redirect your public school funds to a private school.
Most people’s entire education budget is taken up by their taxes that go to public schools. So unless you are giving people their tax money back in vouchers for school this is an elitist and privileged argument.
It's not, because I never argued against doing it. Oc asked "what's not to like?", and I gave an opposing perspective. Successful negotiation usually requires understanding what you're asking the other side to compromise on.
You're entitled to choose a non-public school, to want to divert a public resource to yourself with fewer strings attached, and to want more leverage to disregard teachers' stakes in delivering education. Not everyone would agree with your conclusion that it "should" make things better, or that it's even necessary to make improvements.