No, Rabbi - It isn’t Shmad

My quick answer to that question is no. Most Yeshivos do not offer a subpar education. But we have to define subpar.

For me par means equivalent. But equivalent to what? I think the answer is relatively simple.  First, it should not mean a carbon copy of the state requirements for public school. What it should mean is an education where students attending public schools or Yeshivos will graduate with substantially the same level knowledge. Enough so that most graduates can continue their studies beyond high school without any significant disadvantages or the need for remedial help. 

That should be the standard. In other words, how well prepared are those students for continued education should they choose that route - compared to their public school counterparts?

Furthermore Yeshivos cannot be grouped together as one entity. It is unfair to impose new standards on Yeshivos whose students have shown great success beyond their yeshiva education. The differences between individual Yeshivos can be so stark as to make them unrecognizable to each other. To for example compare the secular education in a Yeshiva under Satmar auspices to what is offered in a yeshiva under modern Orthodox auspices would be like comparing a tricycle a supersonic jet.

Clearly it is the Yeshivos that offer no secular education that should be targeted. Not the Yeshiva system as a whole.

This is where the New York State Education Department (NYSED) guidelines have failed. Those guidelines will unnecessarily hurt schools whose students have a superior secular studies curriculum by virtue of the time allocation requirement that would leave practically no time for religious studies!

That portion of the guidelines needs to be challenged.  I support efforts to do so. What I do not support is the position of the Satmar Rebbe (of Kiryas Joel) as reported in YWN. His goal is to assure that his Yeshivos remain free of any secular studies curriculum at all. Claiming that being forced to offer it is a violation of his religious rights guaranteed by the constitution. 

Which in my view cannot be further from the truth. Judaism is not opposed to secular studies (Limudei Chol). There is no legitimate position like that anywhere in Jewish law. Not even according to Satmar whose girls’ schools do have a secular studies curriculum. Satmar wants to retain the right to keep their male polpulation ignorant. 

The Satmar Rebbe also declared that before education officials try and fix Yeshivos they should first put their own house in order. He challenged NYSED to measure the success of his students against the success of the students in inner city public schools. 

But that is a grossly unfair comparison. As public school officials have pointed out, public schools are required to take in everyone. Including children from communities where education is not valued at all. (The reasons of which are beyond the scope of this post.)

Satmar, on the other hand, values education greatly albeit only religious education when it comes to boys. You cannot compare the two. What their Yeshivos must be compared instead to is public schools in communities that do care about education. (Although there might be some comparison to be made even to those inner city school students in the sense that their English skills are both pretty poor.)

What about the claim that any government interference in a religious school is a violation of the first amendment? It is with this claim that they have declared a war on NYSED. This is where I part company with them. A government has the right to set minimal standards of education for purposes societal benefit. Good citizenship and being less dependent, more productive is a legitimate societal goal. Freedom of religion does not mean one has to be ignorant.  

If you don’t see the truth about the outside world and are constantly told how evil the outside world is, or how they must hate non Jews while pretending to love them, how can that produce good citizenship?

Religious rights should be sacrosanct. But that need not come at the expense of a secular education. To claim that requiring a minimal secular studies curriculum program is a violation of Jewish religious rights is ridiculous. Limudei Chol is not prohibited by the Torah.

Just because they think it is better not to offer any secular studies curriculum, does not mean that having one is a violation of their religious rights. Besides, the first amendment is not unlimited. What about a religion that believes in human sacrifice? Should that too be protected by the first amendment?

I have  mentioned the two extremes of secular education provided by religious schools. But there are  lot of schools in-between those two extremes that do offer secular studies programs. How should the state deal with them?

In my view the same standard should be applied to all schools. Yeshivos and public schools. NYSED should evaluate each school’s products and judge those schools independently  For me that means that there ought to be a basic secular curriculum in subjects like English, math science, and history.

The Satmar Rebbe’s declaration of war on NYSED is foolish and counterproductive. And it should not be joined by any responsible Jewish organization. Especially when hyperbole like the following by the Satmar Rebbe is used: 

That is pure Sheker. The esteemed Rabbi of Satmar knows better and I cannot protest that enough! As should any responsible Orthodox organization. A comment like that should not be allowed to go unchallenged by any mainstream Orthodox organization!

The is not a case of Shmad! And the only thing that should be protested in the new NYSED guidelines is the time allocation requirements. Not the subject requirements. And that ought to come in peaceful discussion. Not by way of ‘war’.