"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi."[0]
("what is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to an ox")
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Latin_phrase...
* the people who fund reelection campaigns get to opt out of public education.
* politicians before and after their political careers can opt out.
* a quick change to the law is all that would be required for politicians to opt out while theyre in office.
It would be enough to make them care a bit more, but only an outright prohibition would make them truly committed to public education.
The counter-argument is the same in all places too, which is that: “freedom is good, so you should have a really good reason for restricting it and restrict it as little as possible, and this isn’t a good enough reason because it probably won’t work out like you intend”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor...
I'm afraid this story doesn't have a good ending in the long term, though - the law expired in 5 years, and wasn't renewed.
This reminds me of a story I heard at a presentation when working at a bank. A politician was going through a closing process for property he was purchasing. He had an issue and found out that the banks automatically tac on PMI for his type of loan, regardless of loan to value ratios.
A year later, their state passed legislation saying PMI cannot be forced on mortgaged loans with certain ratios and must be disclosed before closing.
Funny how things work :)