Overcoming a Crucial Objection to State Support for Religious Schooling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In their recent overview of religious education, Hanan Alexander and Terence McLaughlin discuss the characteristics of education in religion and spirituality and the benefits and challenges presented by religious education in liberal democracies. One of the questions they do not address, but which they suggest needs further consideration, is the extent to which the state should offer financial support for religious schooling. In recent years, religious parents in both the United States and Canada have challenged state refusal to fund school choice when it involves religious schooling, and have received a varied response. In the Cleveland case, the court ruling seems to offer encouragement to those seeking funding for religious education. In Canada, where a number of provinces offer support for religious schools, the courts have ruled that the state has no legal obligation to do so. The response to these rulings has been divided between those who support parents in their claims for funding and those who fear religious schooling will lead to the erosion of public education. Both the growing interest in parental choice in education and the lack of consensus regarding the appropriate liberal response to the demands of religious parents, suggest that a great deal more dialogue is required on the question of state support for religious schooling. That dialogue must take into consideration both reasonable arguments advanced in favor of state support, and an examination of the objections to state funding for religious schools. In this essay, I begin with a brief overview of some of the claims that may be advanced in support of funding religious schooling. I then examine an important criticism of religious education — that is the charge that religious schools cannot offer a satisfactory civic education. If it can be shown that this particular charge against religious schooling is unfounded, one of the most serious objections to state support would have been overcome and claims for funding could be more seriously considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it