Stephen Colbert converses with Jesuit priest James Martin, SJ. You won’t want to miss this!
Archives for category: Separation of church and state
After the election, I confidently predicted that Trump would never be able to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education. To eliminate a Department required Congressional approval, and I was confident that Trump would never get that. He would need 60 votes, not 51, and he would never get them. There might even be Republicans voting to keep the Department.
But I was wrong. Obviously. It didn’t occur to me that Trump would fire half the staff of the Department and dismantle it without seeking Congressional approval.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the President could continue to lay off the employees of the Department of Education while leaving aside the legal question of his power to destroy a Department created by Congress 45 years ago. Its ruling allowed him to achieve his goal without consulting Congress or abiding by the Constitution.
Because he wanted to. And because Congress–if asked– would stop him. And because six members of the Court wanted to help him achieve his goal.
Lower courts told him to reinstate those who were fired without cause. Federal Appeals courts agreed with the lower courts. The Supreme Court reversed them and gave Trump what he wanted.
The Republicans in Congress watched supinely, conceding another of their Constitutuinal powers. They had already abandoned their power of the purse. Trump might as well abolish Congress. He doesn’t need their approval. They have disemboweled themselves, with the approval of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court majority are extremists. They occasionally hold up a fig leaf and claim to be “originalists” or “textualists,” interpreting the Constitution as it was written. We now see that they are originalists when it suits them, but not originalists when Trump asks them to expand his imperial powers.
The Founders thought they had created a system of checks and balances, where no single branch could control the other two. Trump is the conniving scoundrel that they warned about in the Federalist Papers.
Republicans were not always hostile to the Department of Education. Reagan wanted to abolish it right away, but instead reaped the rewards of a 1983 report called “A Nation at Risk,” which excoriated the nation’s public schools and undermined the public’s faith in them.
Reagan’s successor, his Vice-President George H.W. Bush, did not try to abolish the Department of Education. Instead, he decided to use it to burnish his credentials. After first appointing a little-known president from Texas as Secretary of Education, Lauro Cavazos, President Bush decided that he wanted to be known as “the Education President.” He appointed Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander as Secretary and convened a gathering of the nation’s governors to set national goals. (Secretary Alexander selected me to become Assistant Secretary in charge of the Department’s research arm).
There was no talk of abolishing the U.S. Department of Education during the term of Bush 1.
When George W. Bush became President in 2000, he never sought to close down the Department. His first piece of legislation was called No Child Left Behind, and he expected the Department to help him build his claim to be “a compassionate conservative.”
Again, no talk of abolishing the Department during the eight years of Bush 2.
When Trump was elected in 2016, abolishing the Department was not on his agenda. He appointed billionaire Betsy DeVos as Secretary, and her goal was to use the Department to fund charters and vouchers. She shoveled nearly $2 billion into the creation and expansion of charters but got nowhere with a federal voucher plan.
And then came Trump’s second term, where he allied himself with the most extreme elements of the Far Right. They were there during Trump 1, but in his second term, the extremists are in charge. By extremists, I mean not only the anti-government billionaires like Peter Thiel, but the entrenched rightwing zealots of what used to be called the John Birch Society. When Trump denounces Democrats as “Communists,” “radical leftwing lunatics,” and other bile, I feel as if I’m time-traveling back to the McCarthy era, when unhinged rightwingers flung such insults at their political opponents.
With the Supreme Court’s approval, Linda MacMahon will resume firing employees of the Departnent of Education and sending its core programs to other departments.
If the Supreme Court ever gets around to deciding whether Trump has the legal authority to abolish the Department of Education, it will already be gone.
Molly Ivins was a brilliant journalist in Texas, who died far too young (62). We could surely use her wit and insight right now. She wrote for many publications, including The Texas Observer, The New York Times, the Dallas Times Herald, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. She also wrote a nationally syndicated column.
Ivins wrote an article about school vouchers in 1997 that was prescient. All her dire predictions about vouchers were right on target. The strangest part of the debate is that state legislatures now debating vouchers are totally indifferent to the problems they create.
She wrote:
Editor’s Note: The Texas Observer published this column in its April 11, 1997, edition under the headline: “Texas: Laboratory for Lunacy.” That year’s private school voucher proposal narrowly died at the Lege.
Three strikes and you’re out? Watch Texas spend more on prisons than it does on schools. Thinking of making your tax structure more regressive? Come to the Lone Star State and see how it’s done.
The latest brainstorm to afflict our friendly pols in Austin is school vouchers. Consider the beauty of this nifty scheme as it might eventually be worked out under the guidance of the Texas Lege. To improve the public schools (I swear, that’s how the advocates are advertising this lunacy):
■We give vouchers to all the students who are already in private or religious schools around the state. Right there, before anybody else even gets a voucher, we will have taken, say, $1 billion out of the budget for our public schools. Shrewd move, eh?
■We also give all the kids now in public school a voucher, thus theoretically enabling these children to attend the schools of their parents’ choice: Unfortunately, private schools might find themselves under no obligation to accept any of our kids; they could be rejected because of their religious affiliation, their disabilities, on the grounds that they’re not bright enough, because the school administrators don’t like their looks—any reason not specifically excluded by law.
The Texas Freedom Network, a normally sensible group of good guys, is running around like Paul Revere, trying to alert the citizenry to this dread downside of the school voucher idea. “Proposed voucher legislation would allow private schools to recruit the best athletes and students at taxpayer expense.” Folks, we’re talking football now! I knew you’d be concerned. Quel horrifying thought: The whole high school football tradition is in dire peril. Stop the madness now!
On a more sober note, the good private schools we’d all like to send our kids to already have waiting lists a mile long. No public school kid is going to St. John’s in Houston or St. Mark’s in Dallas with a voucher clutched in his or her little hand; those schools cost $10,000 a year, and our little school voucher won’t cover half the cost.
Now maybe, just maybe, some upper-middle-class folks might be able to afford a fancy private school with a voucher to help, but working-class and middle-class kids are going to be stuck just where they always were. Why should we spend public money to help just that one thin slice of the population when it won’t improve the public schools?
The rural kids are really going to get burned by this idea. As you may have noticed, almost all private schools are in cities. Hundreds of rural school districts don’t have a single private school, but because of the way state education financing works, they’d still lose thousands of dollars from their budgets for the public schools without a single kid going to private school.
I realize this means nothing to our Legislature, but it should be mentioned that the whole idea is rankly unconstitutional.
All in all, this concept is so bad that it has an excellent chance of passing the Legislature. Much as we would like to help the rest of the nation by demonstrating once more just how stupid ideas work out in practice, couldn’t we give this one a miss?
In case you’re wondering who is pushing this dingbat notion, it’s the religious right, the same charmers who helped elect the right-wingers who now grace the state Board of Education. If you haven’t checked in on the state board lately, you really should. It’s a lot of fun—fruitcakes unlimited, flat-Earthers, creationists, all manner of remarkable specimens. In fact, it’s gotten so bad that there’s even a bill in the Lege to replace it with an appointed board again.
You may recall that we’ve had this fight before. In keeping with my Theory of Perpetual Reform, I now favor an appointed board. Last time, I favored an elected board. What I really favor is the idea that no matter what we try, in about ten years, it’s always a mess again and we need to try something else.
Speaking of matters educational, let me take on a sacred cow that is long past its prime: local control. Have you noticed that the people who consider local control of the schools a sanctified arrangement are the same people who are always complaining about how terrible the schools are? If local control is such a great idea, then how come the schools are so bad? Have we considered the possibility that maybe local control is the problem?
A truism of the everlasting education debates is that someone somewhere has already solved whatever the problem is. Someone somewhere is always doing a brilliant job of teaching physics to inner-city kids, or teaching music to a bunch of rural kids in the 4-H who have heretofore considered Loretta Lynn classical music, or getting bored suburban brats excited about Herman Melville.
The problem is that we can’t seem to replicate the successes in the schools across the board because there is no across the board. Instead, there’s local control. Sometimes it’s superb, granted. But often, it’s hopelessly knot-headed. Ask the folks in Dallas—they’ve had some lulus lately. It seems to me just possible that maybe what we need to do is take education out of the hands of insurance salesmen, Minute Women and other odd ephemera of the electoral process and put it in the hands of… well, educators.
On Friday June 20, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Louisiana’s law requiring that schools post the Ten Commandments in every classroom.
On Saturday June 21, Governor Greg Abbot of Texas announced that he had signed a law requiring that the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom in the state.
The goal of plastering the Ten Commandments in every schoolroom is promoted by Christian nationalists who want to see an official declaration that the U.S. is a Christian nation.
The Founding Fathers would be stunned to hear the assertion that the Constitution they wrote was influenced by the Ten Commandments. The First Amendment very clearly states the importance of freedom of religion, meaning that anyone could practice any religion or none at all. It also declares that government should not “establish” any religion, meaning that government should not sponsor or endorse or favor any religion.
CNN reported:
Texas’ law requires public schools to post in classrooms a 16-by-20-inch (41-by-51-centimeter) poster or framed copy of a specific English version of the commandments, even though translations and interpretations vary across denominations, faiths and languages and may differ in homes and houses of worship.
Supporters say the Ten Commandments are part of the foundation of the United States’ judicial and educational systems and should be displayed.
NPR reported on the decision striking down the Louisiana law.
Its supporters said that the Ten Commandments were the foundation of the American legal system. The state of Louisiana intends to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court’s ruling stems from a lawsuit filed last year by parents of Louisiana school children from various religious backgrounds, who said the law violates First Amendment language guaranteeing religious liberty and forbidding government establishment of religion.
The ruling also backs an order issued last fall by U.S. District Judge John deGravelles, who declared the mandate unconstitutional and ordered state education officials not to enforce it and to notify all local school boards in the state of his decision.
Republican Gov. Jeff Landry signed the mandate into law last June.
Landry said in a statement Friday that he supports the attorney general’s plans to appeal.
“The Ten Commandments are the foundation of our laws — serving both an educational and historical purpose in our classrooms,” Landry said.
The Founding Fathers would laugh at Governor Abbot and Landry. And Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who shepherded a similar law in Arkansas. It’s especially funny that the leader of their party has broken almost every one of the Ten Commandments. Perhaps the place to start posting them is in the Oval Office.
The U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 on the Oklahoma religious charter school issue. St. Isadore of Seville Catholic School applied for public funding to sponsor an online religious school. The tie decision means that the last decision–which ruled against the proposal–stands.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself because of a previous relationship with one of the school’s founders.
The decision was unsigned, but one of the Court’s conservative Justices voted with the three liberal Justices to produce a tie vote.
Remember, this is a Court whose conservative Justices claim to be originalists. Their decisions on matters of church and states indicate a flexible, if not hypocritical, application of “originalism.” Over more than two centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court has struggled to maintain separation of church and state. They have found exceptions to Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation, allowing public funds for textbooks and state-mandated services, but over the years the courts attempted to avoid the state paying for tuition or teachers’ salaries.
Yet this Court seems to laying the groundwork for tearing that Wall down completely. In previous decisions, the conservative majority has ruled that failure to fund religious schools was a denial of religious freedom.
Such a conclusion does not align with Originalism. No matter how hard Justice Clarence Thomas or Justice Sam Alito scours the historical record, they are unable to build a case that the Founding Fathers or the Supreme Court want the public to subsidize the cost of religious or private schools.
The only thing “original” about their recent decisions requiring states to pay tuition at religious schools in Maine and Montana and capital costs at a religious school in Missouri is their conclusion. They invented a right out of whole cloth.
www.instagram.com/reel/DJkOywKPU2u/
Josh Cowen of Michigan State University read the latest GOP tax bill closely. He explains what it contains for schools. It’s a plan to set up tax havens in every state for the wealthiest Americans. It forces vouchers for religious and private schools into every state, even states that don’t want them. It allows every voucher school to determine its own admissions policy.
It enables discrimination. It enriches those who are already rich.
It is a spike in the heart of public schools, which admit everyone and bring people from different backgrounds together.
Cowen is the author of the recently published book about vouchers, called THE PRIVATEERS: HOW BILLIONAIRES CREATED A CULTURE WAR AND SOLD SCHOOL VOUCHERS.
Writing in The Progressive, Carol Burris explains why the charter lobby is worried about how the Supreme Court will rule on the case of a religious charter school. They don’t want religious schools to be identified as charter schools. Burris, who is executive director of the Network for Public Education, explains their concern.
She writes:
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools never met a charter school it did not like—until it met St. Isidore of Seville in Oklahoma City. St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School is the proposed Oklahoma charter school whose fate is currently being consideredby the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to issue its decision before summer’s end.
The Alliance’s objection to St. Isidore being allowed to open what would be the nation’s first religious charter is not because the school would be religious—an argument the Alliance’s CEO Starlee Coleman characterizes as an “ivory tower” question—but because, should the Court rule in favor of the religious charter, the decision could jeopardize charter schools having access to public funding, something all charter schools currently depend on. According to the Alliance, every state with charter school laws mandates that charter schools operate as public schools, and the federal Charter School Program, which finances charter expansion, can only fund public charter schools by law. But St. Isidore argues that it should be allowed to open a religious charter because it is a private organization.
So to settle the question of whether St. Isidore can open a religious school, the Supreme Court must decide whether charter schools are public actors, like district schools, or private contractors that provide educational services. Those arguing in favor of St. Isidore claim that, at least in the state of Oklahoma, charter schools are not truly public schools, despite the public label assigned to them by the legislature. But a Court ruling in favor of that argument could set a legal precedent going forward that the public status—and therefore the public funding—of charter schools everywhere is in question.
Oklahoma is one of thirty-four states that require all charter schools to have a private charter school operator—some entity that enters into the agreement to open the school and has a board which governs its operations. Most of these states require the operator to be an incorporated nonprofit, except for Arizona and Delaware, which also permit for-profit charter school governance. In the case of St. Isidore, the nonprofit operator is St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School, Inc.
However, in five states—Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, and Virginia—the charter school operator is the public school district in which the school is located and the charter school is part of the public school district. In these states, charter schools exist as they were originally intended—as innovative schools largely free of restrictions so they’re better able to serve a purpose the local public school cannot. Alaska’s charter schools, rated by the pro-charter EdNext as the number one charter state for student performance, include Ayaprun Elitnaurvik, a Yugtun immersion charter school. These schools are part of the school district and their teachers enjoy all the rights and protections of being a public school employee.
Seven other states—Arkansas, California, Iowa, Louisiana, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin—allow both district-run and independent charters. School districts govern 75 percent of all Wisconsin charter schools. Twenty-one percent of California charter schools are dependent charter schools, meaning they are part of a public school district.
Because district-run charter schools are operated directly by the state without a private operator standing in between, these charter schools are government-run entities and would continue to receive public funding no matter the fate of St. Isidore.
An advantage of having charter schools run by public school districts is that they are less apt to be plagued by the fraud and mismanagement issues that are regular occurrences in the charter school sector operated by private entities, such asinsider deals, related party transactions, for-profit operations, and outright financial misappropriation. That’s because, unlike with private operators, school operations—such as procurement, employee compensation, and contracting—are as transparent as in any public school in the district. Teachers are professionally prepared and certified, and can claim the rights and protections of district employees. Parents and voters can voice complaints or concerns to an elected school board that governs all district-run schools, including charter schools.
And yet any suggestion to have charter schools governed exclusively by public school districts so they can continue to operate transparently and receive federal and state funding seems to be the Alliance’s worst nightmare. According to The 74,should the Supreme Court rule in favor of St. Isidore and prompt states to reevaluate the public/private status of charters, the Alliance fears “school districts could just absorb existing charter schools to keep them public, or at least add more government oversight.”
It is difficult to understand why profiteering, a lack of transparency, and the ability to commit fraud would be needed for school innovation. The states that operate charter schools publicly have developed stable and innovative schools responsive to the needs of their community. But the charter lobby will likely fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.
The powerful charter chains—with their high-salaried executives, for-profit operator owners, and the real estate empires that have emerged—have enormous sway over charter schools proponents like the Alliance. Within the first five years after the opening of the original charter schools in 1992, four for-profit chains emerged: Leona, Charter Schools U.S.A, National Heritage Academies, and Academica, soon followed by the giant for-profit online charter chains, K12/Stride and Connections Academy. And they, along with corporate nonprofit chains, will work around the clock to protect their interests if the Supreme Court rules in St. Isidore’s favor.
But there may be hope for those who fight for charter school accountability, transparency, and reform. As we contemplate the possibility of a ruling in favor of St. Isidore, we should think deeply about reforms that will restore charter schools to their original mission as places where educators and parents have the freedom to create new learning models in which public schooling is a reality, not just a label.
Ooops! State Commissioner Betty Rosa Did NOT write this great statement. It was written by a top deputy in her office named Jim Baldwin. She called to let me know after it was posted.
She sent the letter to me, and I assumed that she wrote it because she did not mention anyone else. I asked for her permission to post it, and she said yes. It never occurred to me that she was not the author. She does endorse the point of view!
Here is the original post:
Dr. Betty Rosa has a long career in education as a teacher, principal, District Supervisor, Chair of the New State Regents and now the New York Commissioner of Education, selected by the Regents. She believes strongly that all schools should meet state standards, including the politically powerful yeshivas run by ultra-Orthodox Jews. They are politically powerful because they vote as a bloc. Presently they are loyal to Trump because of his commitment to giving taxpayer dollars to religious schools. At the state level, the yeshivas want to be free of the state requirement that they teach their students in English.
The Hasidic community was eager to persuade legislators to lower the standards for their schools. The State Education Department demanded that they comply with state law and provide a “substantially equivalent” education to their students. They prefer to teach in Hebrew or Yiddish or both. Yesterday the New York Times reported that Hochul was going along with the Hasidim. Terrible! She wants to run again, and she wants their support in 2026.
Jim Baldwin, who is a deputy to State Commissioner of Education Dr. Betty Rosa, wrote the following letter to Governor Hochul:
Governor Hochul – you and legislative leaders have sold out children attending private schools in a most cynical manner- to curry favor with religious sects for purely political reasons.
The deficiencies in these schools are well documented by the State Education Department and in the media – most notably the New York Times. I know you are well aware of those findings.
As a former superintendent of schools and college president I encountered the deficiencies in yeshiva education first hand as we sought to help orthodox students achieve college degrees following “education” at a variety of yeshivas and seminaries. The yeshiva graduates were often illiterate, and could not demonstrate basic knowledge and skills let alone do college level studies. How could you allow this to continue?
Your failure to protect these children demonstrates lack of leadership and unwillingness to defend the basic rights of children to standards based educational opportunities that prepare them for life.
And then you have the audacity to pretend what you’ve done is just another option when it is a sham that will allow educational neglect to continue.
I have a long history of public service and educational leadership that put the interests of students first.
As a lifelong activist Democrat I am disgusted that you would not demonstrate principled leadership to stop this travesty.
Your attempt to appease the religious leaders who threaten your electoral success will almost certainly fail – and in the process you have alienated a significant number of us who would otherwise have voted for you once again.
Shame on you Governor.
Bravo, Dr. Rosa!
One of the most determined opponents of vouchers in Texas was the Pastors for Texas Children. While some faith leaders celebrated the opportunity to get public money for their religious schools, the PTC stood firm for separation of church and state. They believe it is the state’s responsibility to provide good public schools, and it is the duty of religious groups to support their own faith.
They know the research. They know that most of the $1 billion in vouchers will be used to subsidize students already enrolled in private schools. They know that many private schools will raise their tuition in response to the state subsidy. They know that the public schools, which serve the vast majority of students, will continue to be underfunded.
PTC sent out the following message:
The Signing of HB 3
An old preacher once said that God’s Justice was figuring out what belongs to whom and giving it to them.
Universal education for ALL children is God’s Justice. A $1 billion voucher subsidy program for children already in private schools— mostly religious schools that use Caesar to support their religion— is not.
Texans know that. They have rejected voucher programs for 30 years.
Gov. Greg Abbott had to rely on a Philadelphia billionaire to give him over $12 million dollars to defeat conservative, rural Republican state representatives who opposed vouchers on deep conviction and moral principle.
We take no pleasure in calling out our governor’s lies and bullying against these decent public servants. God is not mocked by Gov. Abbott’s corruption.
The voucher bill was signed on Saturday. Also on Saturday Texans all over the state overwhelmingly approved public school bond programs and elected pro-public ed trustees as a direct response to Abbott’s voucher scam.
We will have another opportunity to express our will on public education and against the privatization of it:
The 2026 primary and general elections.
PO Box 471155, Fort Worth, Texas, 76147
***************************************
What Happened After Passage of HB 3.
A statewide rejection of extremism.
In the aftermath of the passage of the voucher bill, voters in several districts responded by ousting hard-line conservative school board members. Texan Michelle H. Davis described the devastating losses of MAGA school board members across the state.
It was a tough night for MAGA-aligned candidates in Texas. In the May 3, 2025, local elections, voters across the state decisively rejected far-right candidates, particularly in school board and city council races. From Tarrant County to Collin County, and from San Antonio to Dallas, communities chose leaders who prioritize public education, inclusivity, and pragmatic governance over culture wars and partisan agendas. This widespread shift signals a growing resistance to extremist politics at the local level.
Last night, voters across Texas sent a message loud enough to rattle the far-right out of their echo chambers: we’re done with your culture wars, your book bans, and your crusade against public schools. Voters chose community over chaos, educators over agitators, and progress over extremism.
The local elections weren’t just a series of wins but a sweep. MAGA-backed candidates got absolutely trounced across the state. This was the result of deep organizing, years of work by local Democrats, and voters who are fed up with the far-right hijacking of school boards and city councils to push their agenda.
Texas isn’t turning blue overnight, but make no mistake: the MAGA movement had a very bad night, and the momentum is shifting.
Tarrant County.
The Republican Party poured money, endorsements, and out-of-state personalities into these Tarrant County races, and they got wiped. Every single candidate backed by Patriot Mobile, the far-right Christian nationalist group trying to take over school boards, lost. That’s losses in Mansfield ISD, Keller ISD, and Grapevine-Colleyville ISD. A clean sweep.
The Tarrant County GOP went 0-for-11 in the county’s three largest cities: Fort Worth, Arlington, and Mansfield. Let that sink in. They didn’t just lose a few races. They got shut out entirely. In Mansfield, Republican Rep. David Cook’s backyard, where Allen West himself came out to rally the troops, the GOP lost all five races they backed.
Meanwhile, Democrats made real gains on the Fort Worth City Council. One of the biggest victories was Debrah Peoples’s victory in her race. A longtime activist and former Tarrant County Democratic Party Chair, Peoples gave progressive voters a reason to celebrate in a city that’s often overlooked on the statewide map.
Huge, huge shout out to the Tarrant County Young Democrats. They didn’t just show up, they organized, knocked on doors, made calls, and fought for every single school board seat they were targeting. And guess what? They swept them all. That’s the kind of ground game that wins elections. That’s the kind of energy we need to keep building.
Open the link to continue reading about the pushback in Texas against bookbanning rightwing MAGA culture warriors.
New York State law requires private and religious schools to offer an education that is substantially equivalent to what is offered at secular public schools. Some Orthodox Jewish schools refuse to comply. Repeated inspections have found that the recalcitrant Yeshivas do not teach English and do not teach math and science in English.
Dr. Betty Rosa, an experienced educator and New York State Commissioner of Education, has insisted that Yeshivas comply with the law. She fears that their students are graduating from high school without the language skills required for higher education and the workplace.
The Hasidim are a tight-knit group that often votes as a bloc to enhance their political power. They vote for whoever promises to support their interests. Both parties compete for their endorsement.
Eliza Shapiro and Benjamin Oreskes reported the story in the New York Times:
New York lawmakers are considering a measure that would dramatically weaken their oversight over religious schools, potentially a major victory for the state’s Hasidic Jewish community.
The proposal, which could become part of a state budget deal, has raised profound concern among education experts, including the state education commissioner, Betty Rosa, who said in an interview that such changes amount to a “travesty” for children who attend religious schools that do not offer a basic secular education.
“We would be truly compromising the future of these young people,” by weakening the law, Ms. Rosa said. “As the architect of education in this system, how could I possibly support that decision,” she added.
Gov. Kathy Hochul on Monday announced a $254 billion budget agreement but acknowledged many of the particulars are still being hashed out.
Behind the scenes, a major sticking point appears to be whether the governor and the Legislature will agree to the changes on private school oversight, according to several people with direct knowledge of the negotiations, which may include a delay in any potential consequences for private schools that receive enormous sums of taxpayer dollars but sometimes flout state education law by not offering basic education in English or math.
The state is also considering lowering the standards that a school would have to meet in order to demonstrate that it is following the law.
Though the potential changes in state education law would technically apply to all private schools, they are chiefly relevant to Hasidic schools, which largely conduct religious lessons in Yiddish and Hebrew in their all-boys schools, known as yeshivas.
The potential deal is the result of years of lobbying by Hasidic leaders and their political representatives…
The Hasidic community has long seen government oversight of their schools as an existential threat, and it has emerged as their top political issue in recent years.
It has taken on fresh urgency in recent months, as the state education department, led by Ms. Rosa, has moved for the first time to enforce the law, after years of deliberation and delay….
There is little dispute, even among Hasidic leaders, that many yeshivas across the lower Hudson Valley and parts of Brooklyn are failing to provide an adequate secular education. Some religious leaders have boasted about their refusal to comply with the law and have barred families from having English books in their homes.
Mayor Eric Adams’s administration, which has been closely aligned with the Hasidic community, found in 2023 that 18 Brooklyn yeshivas were not complying with state law, a finding that was backed up by state education officials.
A 2022 New York Times investigation found that scores of all-boys yeshivas collected about $1 billion in government funding over a four-year period but failed to provide a basic education, and that teachers in some of the schools used corporal punishment.
It is clear why Hasidic leaders, who are deeply skeptical of any government oversight, would want to weaken and delay consequences for the schools they help run.
It is less obvious why elected officials would concede to those demands during this particular budget season. There is widespread speculation in Albany that Ms. Hochul, facing what may be a tough re-election fight next year, is hoping to curry favor from Hasidic officials, who could improve her chances with an endorsement….
Hasidic voters are increasingly conservative and tend to favor Republicans in general election contests.…
New York’s state education law related to private schools, which is known as the substantial equivalency law, has been on the books for more than a century.
It was an obscure, uncontroversial rule up until a few years ago, when graduates of Hasidic yeshivas who said they were denied a basic education filed a complaint with the state, claiming that their education left them unprepared to navigate the secular world and find decent jobs.
Diane Ravitch's blog 