In such vastly dissimilar milieus, even identical words can carry with them a freight of startlingly different meanings. CONCLUSION ¶ 72 We hold that the tuition tax credit is a neutral adjustment mechanism for equalizing tax burdens and encouraging educational expenditures. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that it violates either the Federal or the Arizona Constitution. We find it a valid exercise of legislative prerogative. Relief denied. JONES, V.C.J., and MARTONE, J., concur. 1 . See Board of Educ. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 705, 114 S.Ct. 2481, 2492, 129 L.Ed.2d 546 (1994) (finding creation of special school district for religious enclave violated "the requirement of government neutrality”); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 586-87, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 2655, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) (<HOLDING>); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69-70, 105
holding that graduation benedictions in public schools coerce support for religion holding unconstitutional the closing of all the schools in one county holding that the unilateral placement of a student by the parents in an unapproved school is not by itself a bar to tuition reimbursement but public schools may not place students in unapproved schools recognizing that public schools are owned by the government maintained with tax revenue and used for mandatory classroom attendance as well as for other public functions holding that a federallyfunded program in which public school teachers provided remedial education to disadvantaged children in parochial schools as well as public schools did not violate the establishment clause