I think agree with Roberts' assessment here, states don't need to subsidize private education. If there is a state program that subsidizes private education, through student grants or state-backed loans, excluding private schools simply because they're religious seems like a greater affront to the constitution than accommodating them. If the state is already funding private education, it seems exclusionary to not provide that same funding for private education that happens to be affiliated with a religious institution. The solution for those states that take issue with this is to not offer individual tax reimbursements like this for any private schools.
Consistent with the 2017 ruling, a private school being able to receive a grant to make a playground safer, where children play, isn't what I think of when I think of "State sponsor of religion." These seem like pretty small accommodations that can improve the lives of people without becoming a slippery slope of the state endorsing a religion. I understand the argument of ideological purists, but even as an atheist I think it becomes punitive to a fault where someone can't qualify for a scholarship tax credit because the scholarship they donated to is at a religious school. As long as that school is meeting the state mandated requirements for a quality education, I don't have a strong ideological opposition to the program. Also, I disagree with the take of "Religious schools should be banned," that's... completely unconstitutional and entirely against the liberal progressive concept of religious freedom.
