 |
| Elementary school classroom in Kiryas Joel (Jewlicious) |
Yes. The schools would then be in compliance. But they would cease to be schools that educate their students sufficiently about their religion.
I stand second to no one when it comes to providing a decent secular curriculum to all of our children. No matter what their Hashkafos are. Be it Modern Orthodox, Centrist, Charedi (of the Lithuanian Yeshiva mold), or Chasidic. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the leaders of any of those schools to not provide such an education.
Most of them comply. In some cases they excel far greater measure than even some of the better public schools, while still providing a quality religious education.
So for the vast majority of Orthodox Jewish day schools and Yeshiva high schools I should think that the DOE would say, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. For those that do not offer any (or very little) secular studies curriculum, they DO need to be fixed. Because despite their protestations to the contrary, they are short changing their own people.
I’m sorry that things have deteriorated to this level. It should have never happened. When NYSED was approached by former students at those ‘broken’ religious schools and challenged them to enforce their own substantial equivalency rules, that should have been their focus. It should not have been to overhaul the system to the point where it threatens to destroy the very religious freedom the constitution guarantees to all citizens. This is why virtually all religious schools regardless of Hashkafa or any particular religion are fighting it.
It appears that these new guidelines if implemented will indeed do destroy religious education as we know it. Implementing one good that in the process destroys another good is not how the founding fathers intended our democracy to work. In order for rights of all to be protected there has to be reasonable compromise. In this case the right thing to do would have been to deal with the the few schools that were not living up the the original standards. And to leave the schools that actually did live up to them – alone.
I therefore agree with a recent editorial on the subject in the Jewish Press. Here in substantial part is what they said:
We were dismayed by some comments we saw in recent correspondence the NYC Department of Education had with several yeshivas. It seems that the DOE has not abandoned its effort to challenge our time-honored educational system.
What particularly caught our attention was the disconnect between the facts the DOE recited in a public letter about the 25 elementary schools it recently visited and the conclusions it drew about those very same yeshivas. Thus, the DOE had some very positive things to say in their public letter about how the schools taught English, math, social studies and science instruction. Indeed, the letters to the schools do not contain a word of criticism about the instruction provided.
Despite this, only two of the yeshivas visited were deemed “substantially equivalent” – the operative DOE standard for non-public schools – to the local public schools. But that was not because of a finding having been made that they do not offer a sound basic education covering English, math, social studies and science. Rather, the DOE claimed that the schools did not meet a legalistic standard that would require yeshivas to teach the “same” curriculum and classes as the public schools.
In our view, the DOE’s decision to define what constitutes an appropriate yeshiva education by relying on lawyers rather than educators was plainly wrong. And it has led others to mistakenly conclude that a school is not providing a sound, basic education if it has been characterized as not “substantially equivalent” because it does not precisely mirror what the public schools are required to teach. Despite the fact that the DOE itself confirms that the yeshivas it visited do provide instruction in the core subject matters.
There are some that might regret having attempted to improve the poor quality of education in the schools that short changed their children. Their objection being that the authorities should have been left out of this. And that any ‘fix’ should have been dome in house.
Normally I would have agreed with that. But the fact is that nothing would have been done without some kind of shake up. That should be obvious since those schools have been ignoring secular studies for decades with impunity.
Parents in the schools that dared to complain about it were either ignored, reprimanded, or blackballed. In some of the more extreme isolationist Chasidic enclaves, their supreme religious leader (the Rebbe) cannot be challenged on pain of being expelled as a member of good standing in the community.
It sad that it took government interference to get the ball rolling. And the jury is still out if those problematic schools will comply in any event. But at least there is public awareness of it. Now we might be paying too high a price for that.
At the end of the day, one might ask whether it was worth stirring the pot of religious education. I honestly don’t know the answer to that. I guess it depends on the outcome. If we can get DOE to focus on the bad schools and leave the good schools alone, it will definitely have been worth it. If not, then I’m sorry to say that it would not have been worth it. Because, obviously, if the entire religious educational system is destroyed, no one would win. And it would have been better to leave things alone.
What about those religious school that lack of any compliance at all to substantial equivalency? I have no answer to that hypothetical. But better that some schools survive than none. In the meantime let us all work to preserve the good and fix the bad. That is what our activists and public advocacy organizations should be aiming for. That would be the best outcome of all and will have made this effort all worthwhile.