Despite opposition from the politically powerful bloc of Orthodox Jews in New York state, the state and the city of New York will begin investigations of yeshivas. Graduates of the yeshivas have complained that they did not get an education that prepared them to live in the modern world. Defenders of the yeshivas claim that these investigations violate the separation of church and state. It is an interesting paradox, because the same schools would be delighted to get tax credits for tuition, and Governor Cuomo has tried in the past to court their votes by offering tax credits. Until the last election, one representative of the Orthodox Jewish community held the decisive vote in the State Senate, blocking all efforts to monitor the quality of education offered there. It is likely that states with vouchers and voucher-like programs will face the same scrutiny if their critics ever regain political office.
In parts of New York City, there are students who can barely read and write in English and have not been taught that dinosaurs once roamed Earth or that the Civil War occurred.
Some of them are in their last year of high school.
That is the claim made by a group of graduates from ultra-Orthodox Jewish private schools called yeshivas, and they say that startling situation has been commonplace for decades.
Over three years ago, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration opened an investigation into a lack of secular education at yeshivas that serve about 57,000 students in the city, but the probe essentially stalled almost as soon as it began. The reason, advocates say, is the city’s politicians, including the mayor, are fearful of angering the Orthodox Jewish community that represents a crucial voting bloc in major elections.
Then the state stepped in with the most significant action yet in the probe. MaryEllen Elia, the state education commissioner, released updated rules on Nov. 20 dictating how nonpublic schools like yeshivas are regulated and what students in those schools should learn, with consequences for schools that do not comply.
The guidance could force yeshivas to change how they operate and what they teach. It will also hold Mr. de Blasio’s feet to the fire, as his administration is forced to ramp up its investigation into the schools.
“There’s no time to waste,” said Naftuli Moster, the founder of Young Advocates for Fair Education, which pushes for more secular instruction in yeshivas. “New York City has already been dragging its feet for three years.”
The city’s yeshiva probe began in 2015, after Mr. Moster’s group filed a complaint claiming that scores of students — boys, in particular — graduate from ultra-Orthodox yeshivas unprepared for work or higher education, with little exposure to nonreligious classes like science and history. Instead, some yeshiva graduates say, students spend most school days studying Jewish texts. Younger boys sometimes attend about 90 minutes of nonreligious classes at the end of the day, a city report found.
A coalition of prominent ultra-Orthodox rabbis and community members have accused critics of yeshivas of attacking religious freedoms.
“This is a smear campaign against our community and what it stands for,” said David Niederman, a rabbi and the president of the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg. “If some people are not happy with what they are taught, it is up to them to take action.”
Avi Schick, a lawyer for Parents for Educational and Religious Liberty in Schools, a group formed after the 2015 investigation was opened, said, “The intrusive set of requirements imposed by the state demolishes the wall between church and state that politicians have hid behind for decades.”
This past summer, the organization, known as Pearls, handed out 10,000 posters and bumper stickers emblazoned with the hashtag #ProtectYeshivas to parents of children in Orthodox Jewish schools.
The state’s guidance places the burden of investigating the schools on Mr. de Blasio’s administration.
City officials are now required to visit all nonpublic schools by the end of 2021 — which will coincide with the end of Mr. de Blasio’s second term — and visit each school every five years after that. If officials find that the schools are not providing an education that is “substantially equivalent” to what public schools offer, the city can give schools more time and resources to add secular teaching. If that does not work, the city can withhold some funding it provides private schools…
Still, enormous obstacles remain for those who want the city to shine a spotlight on yeshivas.
Few if any politicians in Albany or downstate are willing to anger the Orthodox political establishment. Urgent problems in the city’s 1,800 public schools — including ballooning student homelessness and entrenched racial segregation — will take precedence over issues in religious schools that the city does not run.
Addendum: Yeshivas receive extensive public funding from the state and federal governments.
This from Leonie Haimson:
“These schools receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding, through federal programs like Title I and Head Start and state programs like Academic Intervention Services and universal pre-K. For New York City’s yeshivas, $120 million comes from the state-funded, city-run Child Care and Development Block Grant subsidy program: nearly a quarter of the allocation to the entire city.”

Speechless.
LikeLike
This will be a hot button political issue in New York. The Jewish vote in New York is largely Democratic, and some groups vote in a block. There is a great deal of variance in the quality of education in Yeshivas that are used to Democrats staying out of the way of their schools in exchange for their support. The Democrats are need to proceed with care, but they still should be able ascertain that students are receiving an adequate secular education.
LikeLike
The ultra-orthodox vote in NYC is no longer a Democratic vote and hasn’t been one for quite some time. Like any other cult (the Christian right or Islamic fundamentalists …)
” in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own”.
Not all but many ultra-orthodox might be very much in line with the voting patterns of the Christian right. Big Trump fans. Pursuing public dollars any way they can. To that end, they have supported IDC Democrats like State Sen. Simcha Felder; so as not to be locked out of power in NYS. They certainly receive tax dollars for textbooks transportation and other nonreligious programs like the purchase of computers (a previous scandal in Ramapo NY not to far from the city. ). Exactly how that money is spent is probably poorly monitored.
As for the thought that parents have the right to send their children to a religious school that does not meet state standards. The whole idea of compulsory education is to meet certain educational standards.
LikeLike
Joel,
I posted this earlier
Yeshivas receive public funding.
This from Leonie Haimson:
“Yes definitely state funding. And Title I too.
“Why Is New York Condoning Illiteracy?
“These schools receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding, through federal programs like Title I and Head Start and state programs like Academic Intervention Services and universal pre-K. For New York City’s yeshivas, $120 million comes from the state-funded, city-run Child Care and Development Block Grant subsidy program: nearly a quarter of the allocation to the entire city.”
LikeLike
In most states this issue is foreclosed by the deregulation of private education and home schooling. Some states still require certain subjects/content be covered but enforcement isn’t usually very active, especially vs. sectarian schools. For the most part many, many private schools are free to do what they want and regulation is by the market. IE, many states have overturned Pearce vs. Society of Sisters rather than deal w/ families communities that are resistant to the types curriculum required in public schools. I think vis a vis kids in schools that provide a discrepant education [especially on a sectarian basis] the notion is that families who want it can buy it and and the public has no interest in protecting the child from the parents. The thing is I wrote an article about this legal-educational conflict about 30 years ago when it seemed the war was ending on the side of truculent parents who could find a state that ignored their choices if need be.
LikeLike
Do the yeshivas receive tax monies in any form?
If not, then whatever they decide to teach should be up to them.
If so, then with state monies comes state oversight.
LikeLike
I know some of them sponsor Head Start programs, and in NYS they can receive Title 1 services such as compensatory reading, math and ESL. Beyond these services that are federally funded I don’t know.
LikeLike
The yeshivas receive millions in tax dollars from the city and state, as do the parochial schools, in open violation of the NYS Constitution. I have been complaining about this for years, but NYC and NYS are totally corrupt and nothing is done.
LikeLike
If the yeshivas are not receiving public funding and yet are still being pressured to provide a secular education, then something doesn’t smell right. Might they be getting primed for receiving public funding? Might the students complaining about being unprepared by a religious school be like the students in the Vergara case, planted or propped to do the bidding of the billionaires? I don’t know, but I wonder. My inclination is to say let private schools be private.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@LCT: I am in agreement with you. If the religiously-operated school is NOT getting public funds, then their curriculum is not the government’s business.
If the families/students are not satisfied with the quality or content of the education provided by the institution(s), they are free to leave.
LikeLike
In the tight knit Orthodox community, they are not free to leave.
LikeLike
I am not an expert on the customs/traditions of the Hasidic/orthodox community. But I would think that if a family/student is not satisfied with the quality of instruction, curriculum, etc. of a religiously-operated school, then they would be free to leave, and select a school that would be more in line with their needs.
No religion should be able to force children to attend a school, which does not offer an adequate educational experience.
LikeLike
Since you don’t know this community or it’s customs, you should not comment.
LikeLike
Diane: I am unfamiliar with this group. They sound like a cult if they are not free to leave. I know of extreme Protestant sects that will remove members for certain behaviors, but none that prevent members from leaving.
LikeLike
I’m no expert, but there have been stories and documentaries about how people who break with the group are shunned. If they marry out of the faith, if they leave the faith, if they reveal that they are gay, they are “dead” to their family and friends.
LikeLike
Yeshivas receive public funding.
This from Leonie Haimson:
“Yes definitely state funding. And Title I too.
“Why Is New York Condoning Illiteracy?
“These schools receive hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding, through federal programs like Title I and Head Start and state programs like Academic Intervention Services and universal pre-K. For New York City’s yeshivas, $120 million comes from the state-funded, city-run Child Care and Development Block Grant subsidy program: nearly a quarter of the allocation to the entire city.”
LikeLike
Unfortunately, when these religious and other extremist groups fail to educate their members in anything other than cultish dogma, our society is left with the bill of supporting them because they can’t function.
So there is more than just religious freedom involved here.
Most states have laws governing home schooling (as well as physical and mental abuse). Do these not apply to religious schools regardless of whether they receive state or federal funds?
LikeLike
Not only do the ultra-Orthodox Jews bloc vote, but they are the largest developers of luxury condos in NYC, the largest slumlords and the largest nursing home operators. They control billions in real estate in NYC and Upstate New York. Our politicians like Mayor de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo are whores bought and paid for by this bigoted insular group. These people never report for jury duty if called, do not serve in the military, do not associate with anyone from outside their community, and teach their kids that all Gentile women are sluts and that Gentiles eat “trayf,” their word for non-kosher foods, which is also their words for dog shit. BTW, despite the immense wealth controlled by this community, the Ultra-Orthodox have the highest percentage of people on public assistance IN THE NATION! They know how to exploit the system with their large families, with kids per family in the double digits or close to it.
LikeLike
How about if the state of New York practices separation of church and state, and keep its nose out of the religiously-run schools?
LikeLike
Charles, I thought you are all in for government support of religious schools. You have cited case after case to defend it.
LikeLike
I support families/students being able to select a school, that is adequate to their needs.
LikeLike
And suppose their parents decide their children don’t need to learn English, science, or math, just study the word of the Bible or the Talmud or the Koran? That’s their right but why should we the public pay for their ignorance?
LikeLike
I am not sure I understand your question. Parents do have the right, to select the appropriate education for their children. (See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925). The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, that parents have the control over what their children should learn. This is the “bedrock” of the home-school movement. Over one million families in the USA are home-schooling their children.
If parents choose a religious education for their children, that is their right. If parents choose that their children should memorize the Bible, or the sayings of Confucius, etc. that is their right.
And if parents qualify for financial assistance, in these choices, then of course the public should pay for it. Families receive school vouchers, and then enroll their children in religiously-operated schools in many states.
Bottom line: Who is going to control what children are taught? The families, or the government? The Supreme Court ruled for the family, in 1925. I support the Pierce decision. All freedom-loving people should.
LikeLike
Charles,
For the 100th time, parents have the right to decide their children’s education, but they do not have the right to have their choices paid for by taxpayers. The Pierce de ision of 1925 established that right but did not assert the right of parents to claim public funding for religious schooling. Stop citing Pierce. It does not support your belief that taxpayers are obliged to pay for religious training and home schooling.
As I said in the comment you responded to, parents may decide they want their children to study nothing more than the sacred book of their religion: the Bible, the Torah, the Koran. They may decide they want their children to remain ignorant of English, science, math, history, and civics. But why should taxpayers subsidize those choices? In other comments, you have said that civics should be required. But there are schools where civics is not required, only the study of the sacred text. Do you mean to force your curriculum on parents that don’t want it?
There is a simple principle which the nation’s founders understood: education is necessary to sustain a democracy. The Foinders did not write it into the Constitution because the principle was well understood. They did, however, write it into the Northwest Ordinance, which was adopted before the Constitution as the document defining the composition of new states.
LikeLike
I never said that the Pierce decision has anything to do with providing public financial support to parent’s choices. The Pierce decision is about parental control, not financing. Stipulated.
However, the Supreme Court has ruled that states can set up choice programs, and provide financial support to families who choose to opt-out of the public school system. Families can receive financial support and send their children to schools which do not teach the required state curriculum. See this chart, which lists the states where families can receive public financial support for educational choice:
https://ij.org/issues/school-choice/
When parents make choices for their children’s education, whether they receive public financial support or not, they may make inappropriate choices.
Please do not twist my words. I have advocated for schools to include appropriate instruction in civics and government, in middle and high schools. School systems should be doing this already. If parents select a school for their children, and the school does not include instruction in civics, that is their right. I do NOT advocate having government mandate a particular curriculum in non-public schools. That defeats the purpose of opting-out of the public schools!
No one disputes that the framers of our government understood the value of education. Citing the Northwest ordinance of 1787 is meaningless. It was adopted under the Articles of Confederation, and only applied to the states created in that specific area. (The ordinance forbade slavery in the states created there. Long after the passage of the ordinance, other slave states were admitted to the union).
LikeLike
Charles,
You have said here many, many times that taxpayers should pay for religious schools. That means you support schools that teach no English, no science, no civics, nothing but the Holy Book.
Whenever voters are asked if they approve, they overwhelmingly say no.
I don’t understand what you want.
I anticipate that someday all religious schools that take government money will be subject to government control. End of religious liberty.
LikeLike
I stand with Supreme Court on their decisions on states providing financial support for parents who choose alternate schools for their children.
Be fair. I support providing financial aid to families. This includes K-12, vo-tech, and university and post-graduate studies. I support the funding going to families. If the families select religiously-operated schools, that is perfectly fine with me.
If parents choose alternate schools, that do not teach the mandatory curriculum that is used in the public schools, that is fine. In fact, that is the object of the exercise. Parents opt-out of public schools for all sorts of reasons. Rejection of the state-mandated curriculum, is often one of them!
As long as the financial aid flows to families/students, and the choice includes secular private schools, there is no possibility of establishing a religion, and religious liberty is secured. Already, states which provide financial support to families who send their children to religiously-operated schools, have not experienced any diminution in their religious liberty.
For many years, religiously-operated schools have been receiving direct financial support from governments. The Court re-affirmed the constitutionality of this support, in the Trinity v. Pauley decision.
I agree, that voters keep rejecting school choice in referenda. Fortunately, school choice/vouchers keep advancing in states which pass these programs legislatively. Good for them.
LikeLike
To be sure I understand, Charles, you support the idea that taxpayers should pay full tuition at religious schools that teach no English, no science, no math, no civics. Only the Holy Book, be it the Torah, the Bible (only enough English to read it), or the Koran. And it’s okay if these schools openly discriminate against children who do not share their religious views and actively teach creationism and racism.
If that’s the case, I look forward to the day when these schools lose control of their curriculum and admissions policies as the state intervenes to apply accountability for academic quality and adherence to civil rights protections.
In your future comments, I will understand that you don’t care about teaching of civics, science, literacy, etc.
LikeLike
Here is a fascinating article, that is right “on point” to our discussion. see
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemcshane/2018/12/07/americans-dont-agree-on-what-they-want-from-schools-thats-ok/#473e9f05224a
Americans have disagreed on what they want schools to teach, since before we were a nation. Disagreement on the purpose and direction of our national schooling policies and curriculum, is “as American as apple pie”.
LikeLike
Charles,
This article is simply uninformed. The purpose of public schools is to produce a new generation of people prepared to function in a democracy. To be literate, to understand complex issues and vote wisely for our leaders, to serve on juries, to take care of themselves, their families and contribute to their community. To maintain this fragile experiment in self-government.
If Americans don’t agree, its because of the spread of misinformation like this article. Try not to spread any more misinformation.
LikeLike
Duane and retired teacher ask questions that are relevant beyond the issues in New York.
The questions go to the bearing of federal civil rights laws on any school that receives federal funds.
Right now about 7,000 private schools in twenty-six states receive state funds under four major choice plans (Vouchers, Education Savings Accounts , Scholarship Tax Credits , Dedicated Special Needs Programs/Individual Tax Credits).
Of the private schools that receive these state tax subsidies, 76% are religious schools, and 14% exclude students and staff who identify as gender non-conforming. In these schemes students who qualify for special education can be discriminated against, literally lose their rights under IDEA. http://edlawcenter.org/news/archives/national/gao-report-take-a-voucher-and-forfeit-special-education-rights.html
Here is the kicker. The 2017-2018 federal education budget included
$1,400,000,000 for school choice. In effect the federal education budget is an instrument for encouraging the violation of civil rights laws in education.
Nothing could be finer in the eyes of DeVos and supporters of this administration.
LikeLike
Well stated as usual, Laura! Thanks!
LikeLike
Who gave the private schools public funding initially?
LikeLike
The American public will inevitably have to support these people because they can not function in our society.
All because some extremist group decided that they don’t want their members being educated.
LikeLike
These people remain in their social enclave. The women remain isolated from the modern world. Many of the men are self-employed. As was mentioned above, some of them do take advantage of public assistance. Like the Amish many of them believe an eighth grade education is adequate, even less for girls. Unlike the Amish, they look to the government for help. However, this is not all Orthodox Jews as many of them are scholars. This description applies mostly to Hasidic Jews.
LikeLike
And it’s not just in NYC, either. The FLDS polygamist cult on the Utah/Arizona border did their own “schooling” for years. They may have also been receiving federal funds, as several leaders of the group have been arrested for falsely using federal funds. The kids are basically illiterate, and boys were pushed out of the group in their teens, while the girls were married off to MUCH older men in their early teens.
A lot has been done to break the financial back of this cult, and the public schools in the area now have more students. But there’s still slave labor happening (children forced to harvest for weeks on end, with little to no pay and no schooling), and probably a lot of other stuff that the public doesn’t know about.
LikeLike
Main problem: When the solution is one staged visit every five years.
LikeLike
How do we treat Amish and Menonite children? What about Adventist schools?
It seems to me we need some basic principles to guide us. The first, as pointed out above, would be money. If you receive my tax dollars, I have a right to regulate you.
The second would be behavior. If children in a group were raised to believe that we should kill all people with brown eyes, and the children grew up to be serial killers, we would certainly have an interest in regulating the education of the community.
Extreme views alone, however, would not seem to reach the bar that we have to cross in the separation of church and state. For example, if a community believed that they should give all that they make through their dealings with others to feed impoverished people, that would hardly seem to require investigation. But if the group was doing this by starving their own children, that might be another matter.
Religious toleration rose in the American colonies and developed in the United States due to European experience with systems of government that used religion as a test of political unity. The Hapsburgs closed Protestant establishments in Bohemia, sparking protests and reactions that became the Thirty Years War. Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, driving 200,000 Hugenots out of France. Catholics had to leave Protestant areas as well. Americans came to believe that government should not demand loyalty to a particular faith. That way, all faiths could be loyal to a government that protected their religious liberty. But there has never been the presumption that religious groups were allowed to breach laws of neglect and abuse of the helpless. Groups could not practice infanticide, euthanasia, ritual execution, or any other radical behavior relative to their own.
The basic principles that guide us seem relatively simple. If there are ways in which the governmental regulations benefit a group, that group should not chafe at other regulations.
LikeLike
“If you receive my tax dollars, I have a right to regulate you.”
I understand the sentiment, Roy, but I would use plural instead of singular. “”If you receive OUR tax dollars, WE (the polity) have a right to regulate you.” I say that in order to distinguish between current Randian libertarianism wherein I, me, mine, I only need to worry about myself and family, to hell with everyone else thinking dominates versus a community experience of all in it together for the betterment of all thinking. To me the statement as you wrote it can be seen as a manifestation of the former and not the latter.
Good short explanation on the historical reasons for why the founders sought to eliminate religious influence on government . I would add that in the Spanish realm (which included a fair amount of Europe), the church and monarchy were as good as married together. One did not act without the other’s approval. While there were dissenting voices, many were persecuted, put to death by ecclesiastical/monarchical forces. And the founders knew that history also.
LikeLike
Very true of the Spanish monarchy. The requonquesta pretty much depended on Italian alliances and the Hapsburg, Charles V, gave the important part of his empire, Spain, to Phillip,II,who defended the Itallian interests religiously.
Your point on libertarian views is well taken too. The modern liberitarian sees his own role as regulation of the rest of us while we give him space.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abuse comes in many forms.
Threatened ostracism if you don’t follow the rules is a form of abuse.
So is neglecting to teach basic stuff that will allow members to function in the society at large.
Some of these self styled religious groups are little more than cults.
Of course, one could argue that all the major religions began that way (and many of them still engage in cultish rituals leftover from ages gone by.)
Finally, with regard to the early immigrants like the Puritans, one has to wonder if at least some of the lack of tolerance for them in England was their own extreme intolerance of anyone who did not believe and behave as they did. I think there is a great deal of evidence for the latter, the Salem witch trials and their treatment of Native Americans being the most obvious examples. It’s not hard to imagine that at least some of these so called religious folks brought the so called persecution upon themselves.
LikeLike
The puritans had no monopoly on poor treatment of indigenous people or superstition, but they seemed to carry such things to their extreme. This was indeed one of the English objections to them.
LikeLike
My mother’s family was Mennonite, but many modern day Mennonites accept living in a modern day society. Some of them still avoid needless technology. The Amish, like the Hasidic community is very isolated. In Pennsylvania the government leaves them alone. Most of them get an eighth grade education and become farmers. However, some of the Amish leave the farms when there is no inherited land available. They often become very skill carpenters and craftsmen. The isolated Amish take care of their own. They do not ask the government for anything, and they get a deferment from military service on religious grounds.
LikeLike
I have a good friend who was kicked out of a Menonite church for joining the Navy. In Kansas, Menonites are indistinguishable from Methodists except for the woman’s prayer cap. Meanwhile, other groups eschew all modern conventions.
LikeLike
thank you
LikeLike
Diane has given some good & correct explanations of what happens to people in these extremely tightknit communities.
For more insight, I highly recommend the book “Unorthodox: the Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots,” by Deborah Feldman, 2012 (in paperback). Explains a lot, & a fascinating read.
Also, “Uncovered,” by Leah Lax (I’m not sure if I’d read that or not.)
LikeLike
My comments for Reply are appearing in the wrong place.
Don’t know why.
Just FYI to all.
LikeLike
The latest on this sad story: https://gothamist.com/news/de-blasio-delayed-report-yeshivas-political-gain-investigation-finds
LikeLike