- This topic has 66 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Five Towns Yid – Towns like Kiryas Joel and New Square have some of the highest number of people living below the poverty line. Also Yiddish speaking Williamsburg has a very high incidence of Section 8 voucher applications. You can point to your example of someone making 200k+ a year and getting child health plus, but that is ignoring the large population that makes very little and is eligible for all sorts of social programs.
Even if you take the Yeshivas that teach secular education, you will likely find an inordinate amount of graduates who are in Kollel on social welfare. So from a social welfare standpoint the State will likely have a pretty easy time showing they have a right to insist on minimal standards. Lakewood, has an increasing poverty rate (up about 6% over the period from 2000 to 2010, when the population grew 60,000 to 92,000) and they are also far above the national poverty rate.
There are the numbers based off census and tax return data. I think the State will not have much difficulty arguing that Yeshiva education, for many Yeshivas, does not lead to self-sufficiency, hence they have a very strong vested interest in improving the education standards. The State would also argue the parents do not have a right to decide that their kids should get a sub-par education and not be self-sufficient, as that violates the kids rights.
Joseph – In a prior comment you already engaged in nonsensical arguments that were clearly wrong, so I question the wisdom in responding to your nonsense. I will offer a few brief responses to your irrelevant points.
1. The Yoder case establishes very clearly that the State has a right to insist on minimum educational standards. That is what the discussion here is. In the Yoder decision due to the circumstances there, which don’t align with many of the Yeshivas, the State was limited as to what they can insist. Your comment about inalienable rights is simply rhetoric that does not address the specifics here. Further, cases subsequent to Yoder have lent credence to the idea that the child has rights as well that may supersede the parents rights to determine how they are educated. It is the child’s life after all that is at stake here.
2. The statistic I focused on was families living beneath the poverty line, which Lakewood, Williamsburg, New Square, and Kiryas Joel are above or far above the national averages. Impoverished families generally get social programs. That is enough for the State to argue that they have a vested interest in regulating the schools. Your point about larger families, etc, will not change this fundamental conclusion that there is a lack of self-sufficiency.
3. Your statistics about how some schools outperform is very nice. I think I mentioned this already that the State will address each school one by one. The rules will apply to all private schools, but if a school performs well, most likely there will be no significant changes required. On the other hand, the Yeshivas that underperform (e.g. especially the schools that don’t teach secular studies or teach very little) can expect to have to make big changes.
One last point. The concern expressed as to the regulations by many of the schools that perform well, likely is primarily due to their concern that the State may attempt to implement many hours of secular instruction. If the State can clarify the rules/standards so that the Yeshivas that provide an adequate education feel comfortable that they are not affected by this, then you would see very quickly that Satmar and few others would be out there on their own. The position of those that do not provide an adequate secular education is not something that a lot of the Rabbonim expressing concern here, actually support.
In any case, you will respond with irrelevant information that does not help the case you are making. When I look at legal cases in general, you see the losing side often clueless to the factors that made them lose. Instead they focus on various points that are external to the decision. All your points (assuming they are even valid, which I question based on your prior ignorant comments) are of minimal import to this issue and just won’t help.
Anyway, its been real. I will not bother with further comments beyond this. The issues are clear to many of us, and we should focus on the legitimate issues, such as what the standards actually require and if they are appropriate or not. For schools that don’t educate, as they go against the Talmud’s dictate to teach your child a parnassah, it is hard to see why I should be opposed to the State stepping in and doing the parent’s job. So long as the State does not use this to make unnecessary requirements that undermine our ability to practice and teach religion, it is hard to see what the big deal is.
The statistic I focused on was families living beneath the poverty line, which Lakewood, Williamsburg, New Square, and Kiryas Joel are above or far above the national averages. Impoverished families generally get social programs. That is enough for the State to argue that they have a vested interest in regulating the schools.
That doesn’t make sense if the reason for the poverty level isn’t related to education.
For schools that don’t educate, as they go against the Talmud’s dictate to teach your child a parnassah
They teach their kids how to make a parnassah. They don’t have college degrees perhaps, but they do very well in business.
It’s also not the government’s business how we follow the Talmud.
The average income is higher than that of public school attendees, so your points fall flat.
“That doesn’t make sense if the reason for the poverty level isn’t related to education.”
It is not so difficult. If the State can show that students of a Yeshiva are not self-sufficient and rely on social programs, the Yeshiva will not be able to make a strong case based on Yoder. The State does not need to show why they are impoverished, just that a disproportionate are. The burden of arguing that they should not be regulated will fall on the Yeshiva as a result.
FYI, if a school were to argue that they teach their students to avoid gainful employment and instead to rely on social welfare, the State may decide they have the right to shut-down such a school. So if in theory you were to argue that we teach a belief that the students should go learn, which will result in being funded via social programs, nevermind the chillul hashem such an argument would cause, it would be tossed out of court so fast.
“They teach their kids how to make a parnassah. They don’t have college degrees perhaps, but they do very well in business.
It’s also not the government’s business how we follow the Talmud.
The average income is higher than that of public school attendees, so your points fall flat.”
Kiryas Joel and New Square as two area easy to see the income levels, are far below national standards. The State will look at this on a school by school basis, and some schools in fact will likely do very well (RAMAZ comes to mind), others not so well. Also if you claim that overall the incomes are much higher then national averages, let’s see the tax returns that show this. While the Jewish population in the US as a whole fares very well economically, that is strongly based on income of people who do not go to the schools with the big educational issues.
My point about the Talmud should be elaborated on. It is not the State’s job to ensure we follow the Torah, but from our tradition, if we don’t follow the Torah, Hashem sends agents to get us on the right track. Hopefully the people who perpetuate the system of not sufficiently educating our children, will do Tsheuva and ensure they follow the Torah going forward. In this Zechus we should merit not having to suffer worse Tsaris.
Joseph,
1. No right is absolute. Parents do not have the right to educate their children to be gangsters or spongers.
2. So limit your family’s size to your means. In any case, if they have good jobs they will at least need less. Moreover, there is a halachic prohibition against taking charity from non-Jews. These communities should support their own.
3. If the students are doing so well the school will pass muster.3. If the students are doing so well the school will pass muster.
I will respond by quoting Joseph from above:
“This is a falsehood. The new regulations propagated several weeks ago by the NYS DOE make very clear that all private schools are subjected to their full guidelines, including requiring seven hours a day of secular studies, alone. Whether the private school is Ramaz, Yeshiva of Flatbush, Satmar, or Torah Vodaas.”
If the State can show that students of a Yeshiva are not self-sufficient and rely on social programs, the Yeshiva will not be able to make a strong case based on Yoder. The State does not need to show why they are impoverished, just that a disproportionate are.
This isn’t so difficult. If the reason for “impoverishment” isn’t lack of education or lower gross income, it makes no sense to address it by changing educational standards.
DY:
You wrote: “They teach their kids how to make a parnassah. They don’t have college degrees perhaps, but they do very well in business.”
There is a huge mistake in this statement. Some of their kids go on to make decent parnasah, and among these are several who enter various kinds of business. But there are many that don’t. They are those lacking the skills and motivation to be klai kodesh, but are coerced by the trend to remain in kollel until they get thrown out by the kollel, the family, or circumstances. Meanwhile, we have a family that is impoverished because there was no valid reason to “kvetch a bonk” while dependent on others, family, entitlements, etc. This is not a small segment of the population that comoes out of our yeshivos that do NOT prepare their talmidim for parnasah.
Yeshivos have abdicated their responsibilities here. They should have hanhalah that establishes individual relationships with each and every talmid, and fulfills the mandate of חנוך לנער על פי דרכו, where a rebbe understasnds the liabilities and assets of each talmid, and knows how to guide that talmid towards a career that affords success while maintaining a life of kedusha in avodas Hashem. Do you know any Rosh Yeshiva, Rebbe, Mashgiach, etc. that does this? Of course a parent should participate in teaching the child אומנות, as the גמרא tells us. But that does not mean the specific career, as the father might not possess the skills to teach. But the average rebbe gives the message to NOT pursue a career, and instead teaching the talmid that anything but learning is either bitul Torah, kefira, or other lies. Can we straighten this injustice out before resolving the others?
I remember reading that a total of 6 hours of secular instruction in the mandated subjects are now required by NYS. Was that wrong and it’s actullay 7 hours, or is the number 7 hours based on additional lunch time and recess breaks to illustrate that there’s virtually no time remaining for Limidei Kodesh?
Although I mostly disagree with FrumTD, it’s hard not to see how the state is not expecting to compromise on this. So IMHO it’s a huge bargaining chip, and by starting with such a crazy number of hours and scaring us all, they can eventually whittle it down to three or four hours, remove musical instruction as mandatory etc. and get most schools to happily comply and feel they won.
Time will tell.The real issues will be if they ch”v actually force us to teach subjects contrary to Halacha, and if once most schools are satisfied the rest will have to fend for themselves and all talk of achdus will fly out the window.
Just to clarify, I’m not here to mitigate the threat of this Gezeira, which it definitely is, but that there’s almost no way it will remain in its current form after the necessary lobbying process.
(Imagine, if this law was passed in DC, most likely Arabella Kushner’s dayschool would be found lacking, and the parents faced with truancy charges if they continued to send their kids there…)
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.
https://cdn.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/01-26.jpg
The state already made clear what the curriculum should be. The only caveat so far is that certain religious studies may be incorporated into the mandated secular curriculum if it meets certain as of yet unknown criteria.Bottom line: as of now, all Yeshivas and Jewish dayschools are at risk, until steps taken are successful in overriding these ALREADY EXISTING REGULATIONS!
The question is if they will change the rules after a legal battle or lobbying, not if our Mosdos are currently under attack.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.