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.
Either every university should get subsidies proportional to the effectiveness of their graduates or no universities should get any subsidies at all.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Really, the government shouldn't be in the business of recognizing religions at all.
From what I understand it usually works better to pay for results rather than effort.
"Success" is often neither quantifiable nor immediately obvious.
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.
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
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.
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.
But, to answer your confusion, the median house price almost doubles in this area. So it's economically infeasible.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Why not just remove the middle man and eliminate public education then?
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.
I don’t see how that makes your child’s school better, can you explain how we get from A to B?