 |
| A Chasidic classroom (Mosaic) |
I think NYSED (New York State Education Department) sincerely believes it has acted in the best interests of all New York students with these new guidelines - while at the same time being sensitive to the desires of religious schools. But it seems that several issues remain to be resolved. I believe that good faith negotiations should proceed so that these issues can be ironed out.
This brings me to a First Things article by OU Executive Vice President, Rabbi Moshe Hauer (to which the Agudah has linked in their news letter). His perspective on the way most Orthodox schools already meet or exceed the substantially equivalency requirements is accurate and matches my own view – which I have expressed many times.
He agrees that the state has a responsibility to assure that all children be educated enough to be productive citizens. Which I believe that the vast majority of Orthodox schools have done - and continue to do:
For over a century, New York law has required students in nonpublic schools to receive an education that is “substantially equivalent” to a public school education. Orthodox Jewish schools, or yeshivas, overwhelmingly meet this standard through a dual curriculum—including both Jewish studies and general studies. By and large, these schools have an excellent history of educating their students to become responsible and productive citizens dedicated to family and community.
Rabbi Hauer seems to imply, however, that NYSED does not take into account the successes of schools that offer a dual curriculum. Even if he’s right, I am not sure whether that is relevant. What is relevant is whether the required subjects are taught. Which in most cases a dual curriculum accomplishes.
One can quibble whether subjects like patriotism and citizenship, highway safety and traffic regulations, and fire and arson prevention should be part of that requirement. While Rabbi Hauer agrees that these are all valuable subjects they should not be treated as core curriculum requirements. If they are - that too is surely something that can in good faith be straightened out.
The problem is the following. Which is what generated this controversy:
The state alleges that a small group of Orthodox Jewish schools are providing substandard instruction in core general studies courses.
I think it is more than an allegation. I believe it is the sad reality. A situation those few schools wish to perpetuate which NYSED is trying to remedy..
A dual curriculum does not exist in that ‘small group of Orthodox Jewish schools’. Their stubborn insistence on retaining the status quo makes a meeting of the minds impossible. A hurdle too great to overcome in order to implement even a modified version of NYSED’s new guidelines.
Is it as Rabbi Hauer suggests - that there is a danger of bureaucratic overreach to insist that those schools meet the ‘substantially equivalent’ guidelines or be sanctioned if they don’t?
I don’t think so. If all else fails, I think it is their obligation to it see to it that equivalency standards are met by all schools. With the sanctions to back them up. What those sanctions should be and how they are implemented is – again - something that can be negotiated
What about those schools that refuse to offer a dual curriculum? This is where Rabbi Hauer and I disagree:
For many Jewish educational institutions, these two areas of study are not intended to be isolated from each other, but integrated. As a result, learning objectives typically associated with general studies—such as language arts or social studies—are often pursued under the Jewish studies umbrella.
I actually agree that there should be an integration of core subjects with religious subjects. What I disagree with is when that is the only way students can learn those core subjects. It is one thing to imbed core subjects into the religious curriculum. It is another to expect core subjects to be properly taught that way. Which is at best a secondary objective of their educators.
A dual curriculum on the other hand has a far better chance of doing that. But when those subjects are mixed into a religious curriculum, it is highly unlikely that most students will be able to fully understood them the way they would be in a course that teaches them formally. As would be the case in a dual curriculum.
Rabbi Hauer also asserts the following:
…our society should support these minority communities in their pursuit of their way of life. Majoritarian notions can all too easily, without a proper check, produce assessments that fail to acknowledge the benefits of an integrated educational program.
I have no problem supporting a minority way of life provided it does not harm some of its members or society at large. But I do have a problem when that way of life short changes their students. While I agree that an integrated educational program ought to be properly evaluated, it cannot possibly be the only way core subjects are taught. There is no way it can be considered substantially equivalent that way.
In my view, refusing to teach those subjects in stand alone fashion fails to meet the ‘substantially equivalent’ bar set by the state. Integrating those subjects is a good thing as an enhancement to teaching those subjects. But it cannot substitute for them. Supporting a minority way of life should not come at the expense of short changing the education of their students.
What about Rabbi Hauer’s comparison to the Amish where the Supreme court ruled in their favor by not requiring they attend public school till age 16?
In 1972, navigating very similar concerns in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court found in favor of the Amish, noting “[t]he States have had a long history of amicable and effective relationships with church-sponsored schools, and there is no basis for assuming that, in this related context, reasonable standards cannot be established.”
First of all, No one is being forced to attend public school. So I’m not sure it is a fair comparison. Furthermore I cannot speak for what the Amish teach their children. It is quite possible they do offer a secular studies curriculum. What I am sure of is that a religious community that refuses to offer a secular studies curriculum is short changing their students. And that policy ought to end.
