> Stanley said this order sets the country “on a path to educational authoritarianism”.
Paying large sums of taxes for a school that is unquestionably failing my children, with no option to attend another school (without shelling an unfathomable amount of money for private schooling), feels like educational authoritarianism to me.
As somebody on the other political side, I wouldn't want federal tax dollars going to mormon universities in a vacuum. To prevent more culture war distractions from the faculty's jobs of teaching, I think anybody who can do math can agree that:
Either every university should get subsidies proportional to the effectiveness of their graduates or no universities should get any subsidies at all.
what about every university should get subsidies per student's head-count and let the universities decide what for the money is used? The market will regulate the demand & supply of places and the universities have an incentive to grow and to attract students by quality. If its mormon-university and mormonism happens to be in big-demand, so then its a mormon university that gets subsidies. At least, its in europe mostly like this.
Religious institutions should only be supported by voluntary contributions from those who believe in its mission. No state should ever give money to a religious institution, for any reason, because no state should favor one religion over another. To do so leads to religious authoritarianism, which is a direct precursor to religious segregation and persecution. Money given to the state should only be used for purposes that benefit all citizens equally or to level the playing field for the less fortunate.
Institutions should not be treated differently because they are or aren't associated with a recognized religion.
Really, the government shouldn't be in the business of recognizing religions at all.
Secularism/atheism is a religion too. It has dogmas on abortion, homosexuality, fornication, usury, adultery, education of children, and hatred towards other religions (as shown by you).
I do not hate religion at all - but I do not like state-sponsored religion, for the reasons I mentioned. If a religion relies on the the state, then the state gets to decide the practices of that religion and who may practice that religion, if it's allowed at all.
Likewise, if a state relies on a religion for its legitimacy, then the religion chooses who is valid to serve in government and governs the practice of those outside it's congregation.
The church should be a refuge from the state, not necessarily in opposition, but in a protective sense. It should provide a way to live, but not be the only way to live. If needs be, then the state should be a refuge from the church.
As for these dogmas, if they exist, it's that they allow the things you speak of to exist and provide a framework for those things to be safely practiced. None of those things are crimes when practiced within a framework of law, but instead are the choices of free individuals and should always remain so. They are not religious functions, but secular ones. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; even Jesus was OK with that.
Your mistake is equating the belief they should exist with hatred - I they should be allowed to exist for all and any restrictions in their use or practice by an individual should be governed by that that individual's conscience.
Per my religion, God gave us Free Will. The State doesn't get to take that away.
I am not sure secularism is synonymous with atheism.
I am pretty sure secular policies would be avoiding advocating or prohibiting for atheism just as it would for any other form of views that fall into religious or faith beliefs.
> Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion. It is most commonly thought of as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere.
That's the introduction from Wikipedia, which matches my understanding of the definition. It's not synonymous with atheism. However, given its stated mission of minimizing religion, it seems like it would be relatively unconcerned if atheism were to be treated more favorably.
Read a few more lines further:
> Secularism is not necessarily antithetical to religion, but may be compatible with it.
Generally applied to civil affairs means that it is not inherently interested in minimizing religion in personal lives.
The dogmas, if you want to call them that, come from rational thought, not a magic man in the sky.
I might maybe perhaps be willing to consider this if we revoke the tax exempt status of religious institutions. Maybe. I still doubt it.
Religion is a cultural and historical construction and part of our life. There are constructions such as churches that are part if a country history.
The state supports, say, history teaching so religious artefacts should be partly financed by the state.
Which ones is the question.
Note: I am French, profoundly atheist and actively anti religion. But I love yhe culture and thus the history of my country.
> what about every university should get subsidies per student's head-count and let the universities decide what for the money is used?
From what I understand it usually works better to pay for results rather than effort.
Paying for results sounds efficient, until you start thinking about what those results should be and how you'd prevent policy makers anyone politicizing them and educational institutions from gaming them.
This. So how do you compare physics outcomes with humanities outcomes or creative fields of study versus science or engineering?
"Success" is often neither quantifiable nor immediately obvious.
You may have a point with it's better to pay for results. But that lead to an chicken-egg-problem. Without chicken no eggs and without eggs no chickens.
So, how to achieve good results, if they are needed upfront to get subsidies and subsidies are needed to offer opportunities to achieve results?
It's not always better to pay for results. Paying for effort would also allow the headcount and university size to be regulated by the market. If you are a university no one wants to adhere to, then you also would not get any subsidies and have an incentive to become better in whatever you teach, without questioning first, where to get the money from.
I see it as a try to remove people without money from education. That fits with all the wisdom trump is producing every single day. Stupid.
I don't think that's a logical conclusion, just from looking at your argument.
Universities are pretty much always basically regional-monopolies, while it's true that not every university gets the same amount of applicants, I don't think they're struggling to get students altogether? But I'm not American, so maybe it's different in the USA?
If it's not different in the US, then this kind of subsidy is much worse then the result based one, because their incentive ends at getting people into courses, not successfully finishing them. So from a profit incentive, keeping them an extra year is highly desirable
Ok, I see your point. You may have an argument here :)
The best option is likely a combination of both, a minor payout per head to provide the baseline and then the bulk via results. But hey, we're all just random armchair pundits speculation on things they have no ability to influence ◉ ‿ ◉
You can consider moving to a better district.
How about sending my children to the school 20 miles away that is doing orders of magnitude better than my local district? Not an option apparently. Even tried several routes, including appealing to the school board, and I'm effectively ignored on every attempt.
Anyways, moving is not an option for me, as I have local dependents that I am responsible for taking care of and who would be abandoned if I left.
I am confused. 20 mile commute to school is feasible personally for your child but moving 20 miles to be in the district suddenly makes taking care of certain individual infeasible?
This completely ignores the problem. I shouldn't have to sell my house and move to go to a school I can drive my kids to.
But, to answer your confusion, the median house price almost doubles in this area. So it's economically infeasible.
I wonder if there is a correlation with higher priced homes and improved school districts?
I'm not immediately aware of any studies, but I would be shocked if there wasn't a correlation. Low-income families have a higher probability of raising children in a dysfunctional home who then become a burden on the local school district. Respectable teachers then flee these schools for better opportunities. This part isn't conjecture, as I'm recounting personal testimonies of teachers who have come and gone from my town. Whether this is a widespread issue, or how much of the problem it represents, I cannot confirm.
So perhaps raise your income so you can afford to move to a better district?
Doesn't that feel a bit disingenuous? It sounds like you might be coming from a very privileged background and haven't been placed in a similar situation that is primarily outside of your control. It also seems to suggest that I haven't spent my years as a parent trying to do the best for my children (i.e., raising my income).
Besides all that, it seems like you simply disagree with the fact that this is a problem at all. If that's the case, we can agree to disagree.
First, I was trying to give you suggestions that may help you in your personal situation.
Secondly, I am confused as to what you think should be done. Because it appears that you do not like paying a lot of tax money but expect there to be affordable quality education available?
I mean, if you want more educational options available in your area then presumably that means the government at some level (local, county, state, federal) would have to pay for it which means an increase in taxes (for someone at least).
Third, you did say "Low-income families have a higher probability of raising children in a dysfunctional home who then become a burden on the local school district. " So it seems fair to suggest that you should consider raising the level of your income to meet your desired needs.
Fourth, in all fairness I don't have children so I am not sure why I should have to pay any tax what-so-ever for your child to receive a poor education.
> Secondly, I am confused as to what you think should be done. Because it appears that you do not like paying a lot of tax money but expect there to be affordable quality education available?
I shouldn't be locked into a specific school based on where I live. If there's a school 20 miles away that I think would be a better fit for my children, I should be able to take them there. Basically, I'm arguing for a free market.
Well you can take them there, you just need to move.
Otherwise what you're suggesting is that you should be able to place your child in a school that you yourself do not pay taxes towards since you're not in that district.
So other people in that district should disproportionately support your child's education compared to what you are?
> Well you can take them there, you just need to move.
This is what I meant earlier. Since you don't see a problem here, we're basically just talking past each other. The fact that I can't register my child within any school in driving distance represents a problem to me.
> So other people in that district should disproportionately support your child's education compared to what you are?
This is a symptom of the broken system that I am trying to present here. There are many existing proposals to amend it. For example, allow parents to use the taxes they are paying with any school. If I pay $5k in taxes annually, and the school 20 miles away pays $10k annually, then I can make up the $5k myself. The point is that I have a choice.
> The fact that I can't register my child within any school in driving distance represents a problem to me.
Moving is the current market solution or private schools.
> For example, allow parents to use the taxes they are paying with any school. If I pay $5k in taxes annually, and the school 20 miles away pays $10k annually, then I can make up the $5k myself. The point is that I have a choice.
Sounds like a good solution. Not having children then I should also have the choice to not pay any tax towards other people's children's education.
> Sounds like a good solution. Not having children then I should also have the choice to not pay any tax towards other people's children's education.
I'd certainly be in favor of that. I don't expect anyone to subsidize my children's education. Granted, as one commenter pointed out, some people believe it to be a societal good (like state-sponsored health care), so you're likely to get a lot of pushback.
But I think the current system lacks the correct incentives. My theory is that free market competition among public schools, similar to what we have in universities, will align the incentives more than they do now. The first step is introducing consumer choice back into the system.
Making public institutions compete with each other for funding seems like a rather inefficient use of public resources.
Why not just remove the middle man and eliminate public education then?
> I don't have children so I am not sure why I should have to pay any tax what-so-ever for your child to receive a poor education.
Because it’s a shared societal good, like government, roads, policing, defense, energy infrastructure, and many other things. An uneducated populace would burden everyone.
Beyond that, unless you went exclusively to private school, you also benefited from the system and it’s not unfair for you to now contribute.
Apologies. I meant that point as rhetorical, which is to say that it was meant to help illustrate to the person that I was replying to that other people help pay for their child's education even if they feel that public education is bad or their district in particular is.
Many American school districts are funded by property taxes, and access to higher quality schools is valuable. It follows that communities with more desirable schools would also have more desirable housing.
> Many American school districts are funded by property taxes
This is a red herring. Local taxes are not the only source of funding, and state / federal finding is deliberately allocated in a way that makes up the difference. Or iirc often more than makes up the difference.
So you are in favor of reducing the funding your childs school receives from the federal government? And for using the government to restrict funding to universities unless they comply with limiting the speech of students and professors?
I don’t see how that makes your child’s school better, can you explain how we get from A to B?