state-subsidzed churches vs. state- subsidzed schools

The topic of this essay is; is there a difference between state-subsidzed churchs  and state-subsidzed schools? The differences are that in state-subsidzed churchs  is they have a preacher and pope. While state-subsidzed schools have teachers and a principal. In  one  focuses on religion and the other  only education. Yet, schools claim to be neutral on religion but,  actually  are not neutral on religions because school mostly celebrates only one religion  ( mostly the public schools does). Other than that they both are state-subzed meaning that the  state controls both of them or starts controling them.  Despite their differences, they are actually similar  my reason being is that  they both , at the end of the day, are control by the state;  Since  the state subsidzed  both of them by giving money support for doing what the state wants them to do.  So my conclusion, is that when you have state-subsidzed churches and state-subsidzed schools it’s bad for society because  you won’t  be able to preach or teach  what you want. Therefore, to avoid this one should not say yes to  state subsides  because the state just wants to control and have power over everything. What are your thoughts on this one? ~ Asiyyah Banks