When Schools Short Change their Students

Deception is the mother of all the problems parochial and private schools now face. And problems there are.  They are real. As Peter Murphy – quoted in Mosaic Magazine  indicated, the very existence of these schools is now threatened by New York State Education Department (NYSED). They have renewed commitment to assure that the intent of the state’s original guidelines are scrupulously followed. 

In pursuit of that goal they want to require specific core subjects be taught with specific time allotments for each course. It is only by doing this that they feel that the mandate of substantial equivalency to public schools will be adhered to.  And as if that isn’t bad enough, they are shifting the burden of oversight to local public school board districts. Which is clearly – as Murphy noted - a conflict of interest.

I happen to agree that these requirements are unfair. In the case of parochial schools these requirements substantially impede the purpose of those school – the very reason for existence. Which is to educate their young in the tenets and customs of their religion. I feel the same way that does Jewish, Catholic, and nonsectarian private schools who are challenging these new regulations in New York state court.

So what does deception have to do with this? A lot! It is because certain Chasidic schools (like those of Satmar and Skvere) completely ignored the original guidelines that these problems now exist. They relied on a history of NYSED purposeful ignorance about the way those guidelines were followed. Which was not at all. Their children thus failed to receive even a rudimentary education in Limudei Chol (secular studies). To say nothing of equivalency. It was exposing that deception to the world that has caused this problem.

There are those that insist on blaming the whistle-blowers.  If they hadn’t rocked the boat, none of this would be happening. That may be true. But blaming them does nothing to help those students lacking an education in Limudei Chol become better, more productive citizens.

Without the whistle-blowers it would have perpetuated a system that increasingly produces citizens that can barely speak the language of the country in which they were born and raised. At least not without sounding like ignoramuses. Not to mention the more important fact that they will lack the educational tools required for the kind of advanced studies that would enable better careers with better pay. Leaving only the brighter and more determined among them would even attempt to catch up with those that had the advantages of a formal Limudei Chol curriculum.

Chasidic leaders who are of course the loudest to protest this development keep claiming that their community gets along just fine without those studies. That may be true in the bubble in which they live.  But once outside that bubble, they are not going to find things that easy. True, many of them do well even without that education or by catching up. Some even go on to great financial success. But most rely on financial assistance as a normal source of income because of their large family size and inability to make more than the wages paid to people who lack a decent education.

Had these schools done what the vast majority of Orthodox parochial schools have done and offered a decent dual  curriculum - we would not be having this conversation. Because those schools did comply with the spirit of equivalency by requiring by way of their dual curriculum. Those students take the Regents exam and do quite well on them. 

I have said all this before. I repeat it here - not only to make it abundantly clear where the fault lies. (which is not with the whistle-blowers). But also to support attempts to reverse NYSED’s overreach.We are indeed facing the dilemma outlined by Murphy. And I agree with the conclusion - quoted in Mosaic: 

[G]iven the achievements of private schools, New York State should be doing the opposite of what it is currently pursuing, and enact reforms that would make private schools an easier option for more parents. . . . School choice [constitutes] a progressive approach to providing educational opportunity and economic equality for children from poor and working-class households to attend better schools. Moreover, expanding choice is not a zero-sum game; more school options for families do not impede the ability of elected officials to support and improve district public schools. 

He is right in his assessment of private schools. (I would extend it to most of our religious schools.) And he is right about his suggestion to do the opposite by enacting reforms that would make private schools (and parochial schools) an easier option via school choice.  Much the same way Indiana and a few other states already do with great success.  It is an option for public school parents that really works.

Yeshiva students that attend schools with a dual curriculum of Limudei Kodesh (religious studies) and Limudei Chol do quite well. As noted yesterday even Harvard is not out of reach to Yeshiva graduates. Just like Lakewood isn’t out of reach for them. Or Yeshiva University. Or any other school. Either way it should be their choice based on what’s good for them. Which will ultimately make it better for us. Klal Yisroel always benefits when we are given the ability to pursue every opportunity - choosing those we are best at.

With rare exception - those choices can only happen if a dual curriculum exists. Students that attend schools that offer no formal Limudei Chol curriculum mostly do not have those choices. Those schools need to reform their educational paradigm to include a dual Limudei Kodesh and LimudeiChol curriculum.

In our quest to retain control over what we teach our students that should not be forgotten. Those young Chasidim deserve better. Their lives would improve and they will end up better citizens in the bargain.  As we assert our religious rights - we must not abandon them allowing them to continue to be short changed.  

In that vein it would serve us well to urge NYSED to withdraw the new version of those requirements. To look instead to those Yeshivos that offer a dual curriculum as the model for ALL Yeshivos to follow. And to expand opportunities for all students to attend the schools of their choice. If they did that, I believe that would be something that we should all support.