It gets very tiresome to have to respond to incorrect information and mischaracterizations of what I say…
1. Joseph wrote a long post regarding earning $93,000 based on NY’s SNAP guidelines. The data I uses is based off of Census data, which shows that the communities mentioned earn less then national standards. False information will not help you in court. As an aside, my point about the poverty level and reliance on social programs, is that it lets the State make a claim in court that the school is creating students that are a burden to society, hence the State has the right to burden religion in imposing its standards. This means the Yeshiva will be on the defensive to show that they should not be regulated strongly, that is all. It is significant as it changes the position you find yourself in court.
2. Joseph says the parent’s are best suited to determine the education of a child – I am not disputing this, rather following the logic of cases such as Yoder, and subsequent cases, where it is well established the State has certain rights to demand a child is given an education that it sees fit. Obviously, as in all things, the State’s right is not carte blanche, and there are limiting factors. This has all been expressed here already. Again you yelling that parent’s have rights, will not win you in court.
3. Joseph and DaasYochid makes certain claims about what the new regulations require such as 7 hours a day. First of all, it is not clear exactly what the requirement is. Second, it is not clear what will actually be enforced. Third, and this I absolutely agree with, if the State actually mandated 7 hours of secular study a day, I think the regulation would not be found to be legal. This is why I stated I would think the State will not start up much with Schools that perform well.
4. Joseph makes a comment about R’ Reissman and achdus. It is very clear that the driving factor is what he sees as difficult rules coming to Yeshivas that already provide a good secular education. He sees that as evidence of an agenda against Yeshivas. He basically implies that if they just went after the schools that don’t teach english he would not care. This is why I believe that the second the State clarifies that they will not make changes in schools that provide a good education, assuming Torah Vadaath meets that criteria, you will find this achdus falling apart very quick. It is one thing to have achdus against a perceived attack on Yeshiva education, another to have achdus to support Yeshivas that don’t follow the Torah and provide the necessary education for today’s jobs. One other point, the State likely has to go after all private education, as otherwise it would be accused of being discriminatory and it would be prevented from regulating, so I am not sure there is antisemitism at play here, just perhaps a reflection of the legal reality of engaging in regulation.
5. Joseph then makes some arguments about families with one parent working. Again this does not change the data as to income levels and social welfare reliance. The reasons will not matter much, simply the fact that there is lack of self-sufficiency will be enough for the State to meet its burden. Yeshivas will have near impossible standards of proof to argue that this outcome is not due to Yeshiva education (the State does not need to prove it is due to Yeshiva education, just that the outcome exists).
6. DaasYochid, makes arguments about the reason for impoverishment that if not due to lack of education it makes no sense to address by changing educational standards. This argument is flawed and will not hold up in court. Simply put, it makes a claim that is impossible to prove. You can’t prove that the impoverishment is not due to educational standards unless you first improve those standards and show that the result is not better. This is why the focus on outcomes is pretty much all that will matter and not the reason for them. The Amish, were self-sufficient and rejected social welfare, hence the State could not show any problems with the outcome that mattered to society. Yeshivas will not be in that position as the outcomes are not so good in many cases.
7. Joseph mentions about the Diocese and their protest of the standards. See point 3. If the State clarifies it requirements and schools that have good outcomes are convinced they won’t be negatively affected it will be all the schools that don’t provide a decent education on their own, and they will lose.
8. Mammele, who says she does not agree with me, actually does agree with me, as the points she makes are essentially the same one’s I make. (A) the 7 hour requirement will not hold up, (B) the State has the right to burden religion, but it has to limit itself to where it has a vested interest, hence teaching subjects that are not appropriate for Yeshiva students, if the Yeshiva can convince a judge that this subject is not critical, will be an area the State has to make reasonable accommodation for religion, (C) the Achdus is only due to the uncertainty about the regulations, the moment the State clarifies and only imposes reasonable standards, all the schools that meet the standards will leave the rest on their own.
I will refrain from posting further in this thread, as I am less then impressed with the arguments placed forth by some of those here. A decent amount of time spent reading and understanding legal decisions will go a long way to helping you understand the position the Yeshivas are in. Court is not 1rst seder, where you can engage in endless arguments. You can also be convinced you are right from today till tomorrow, but that will not help you in court. You need to meet the legal standards which is a very different standard then what your intuition tells you the result should be.