religious education secular assault

Religious Education under Secular Assault – Part 1

Rick Plasterer on September 20, 2021

The kind of education available in a society says much about the kind of society that exists and is thought desirable. A society in which religious freedom prevails, where people are free to practice any religion or no religion at all, reasonably would have either religious or secular education available. Such is the case in the United States, but as religious freedom is a point of controversy today, so is religious education a point of controversy.

The Heritage Foundation presented a panel discussion of contributors to a new book Religious Liberty and Education: a Case Study of Yeshivas vs. New York, on September 14, which examined the justification and value of religious education in today’s society, in light of current efforts to mandate some common denominator in all forms of education in the nation, and in particular, with respect to orthodox Jewish schools, called yeshivas, in New York City.

Jay P. Greene of the Center for Education Policy moderated the panel. He initiated the discussion by observing that in view of court cases in recent years, there is a legal line of defense for religious liberty in education, but at this point in American history, it shouldn’t be “the main line of defense for people interested in protecting religious liberty.”  People shouldn’t depend on the courts to protect them. “The prior court cases it seems to me make clear, that the government can go pretty far in regulating the content of education in general, including religious education.” For those who want to protect religious education, “the real protection I think, is political, not legal.” The strategy for success should be to “organize around this issue, and actively fight for it.”

Jason Bedrick, Director of Policy for EdChoice, an organization advocating for educational alternatives, said that Jewish thought has been long divided over whether or not religious education should be separate from general education. But he said that Judaism has always made room for those who believe in a purely religious education. The question today is whether or not the United States will continue to make room for such people as well. He noted that “about 170,000 students are currently enrolled in Jewish private schools, also called yeshivas, in the State, in the City of New York, a figure that surpasses even Catholic school enrollments. Of those, about 110,000 belong to Haredi or Hasidic schools.” These are termed “ultra-Orthodox” Jews. These students “spend most of the day studying the canon of Jewish texts.” They study ancient and medieval commentaries on these texts, but coursework “more closely resemble[s] upper level humanities coursework,” rather than either secular education or seminary education. Students read texts in their original languages, and discuss their meaning in pairs. Bedrick said that these skills of discussion and debate are generally useful in society. However, the adequacy of this education has been challenged by students from ultraorthodox backgrounds who believe yeshiva education is inferior to secular education. They organized and pressed the State of New York to regulate yeshivas. Their objective was to require the yeshivas to “teach more robust secular education.” They used a late nineteenth century law designed to control Catholic education to claim that yeshiva education as it exists is not “substantially equivalent” to public education. Since this law had been “mostly dormant for the last century,” there was little understanding as to what the requirement that religious education be “substantially equivalent” to secular education meant.

The response from the state was to require all private and religious schools “to teach 11 different subjects with 17.5 hours per week or about 3 ½ hours per day” teaching these subjects. “They would also be subject to government inspections to be sure that they were in compliance with the law.” Any school not in compliance would lose government money and benefits, and could effectively be closed. The state could direct parents to send their children elsewhere for education. Parents not complying with this order could be fined or imprisoned, and lose custody of their children.

Bedrick said that placing these Orthodox Jewish children in public schools in New York was of dubious value. For many, Yiddish is their first language, and English language proficiency rates for English language learners in schools in the Williamsburg area of New York City, where many of the yeshivas are located, is extremely low.

This led to a “fierce” reaction, not only from yeshivas, but from religious and private schools generally “in the court of public opinion and in the courts of law.” Coalitions of these schools were formed, and legislative and state officials appealed to. Op-eds in the press opposed the regulations. By the spring of 2019, three lawsuits against the new regulations had prevailed, but “on statutory grounds, not on the merits.”

Regulatory action against religious education thus was delayed. A revised regulation received more negative comments than any other state regulation ever had. A later Department of Education review of the schools targeted by the regulations showed that some were deficient by the secular criteria applied and some were not. The review did conclude that there is “real learning” and development of “critical skills” by students. At least some schools were responding to the legal need for “substantial equivalence.” Revised regulations have not been imposed on the yeshivas, but remain a threat. If they are imposed, it “would set a really terrible precedent.” Bedrick pointed to contemporary experience in Britain, where Ofsted, the British equivalent of the U.S. Department of Education, gave failing grades to religious schools with high student achievement that did not teach gender ideology, including one school that only taught children through the third grade. He concluded by saying “as always, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

Later in the panel discussion, Howard Slugh of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty reviewed the difficult legal situation for religious education, which he said, has somewhat improved in the last couple of years. He characterized the present situation as “murkier in a positive direction.” He said that the first option to defend religious education (and perhaps the most basic, to set the framework in secular law) is the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. He pointed out a common misconception that many Americans have that “the free exercise clause will protect them from laws that burden their religious faith. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.” This, he said, is largely the result of the Employment Division vs. Smith decision in 1990, which said that there is no free exercise defense against “neutral, generally applicable law.” This was recognized by the Supreme Court as causing problems for minorities, who must now defend their religious liberty in the political sphere, but the Supreme Court held that this was preferable to courts deciding what religious liberty to protect. Therefore, Slugh believes people committed to religious liberty should “advocate for overturning Smith.”

The Smith decision itself would allow prohibition of any religious practice, or the mandate any religiously forbidden action, as long as that is incidental to the law’s purpose. Subsequent decisions and laws have weakened the force of Smith, Slugh said, allowing courts to inquire into the true purpose of the law, prohibiting infringements of religious liberty that discriminate against religious institutions, providing statutory protection where constitutional protection was taken away, and by requiring that religious organizations be given exemptions from the law where the law provides any possibility of exemption. Importantly, last summer’s Fulton vs. the City of Philadelphia decision, which reached the “exemptions must be given if any are provided for” conclusion, said that however important antidiscrimination considerations are, reason must be given why even very narrow accommodations cannot be given to religious liberty where some possibility of exemption exists in law. “Antidiscrimination” cannot be a blanket objection to religious liberty. The effect, at least to this writer, seems to be that courts may come close to the pre-Smith standard of a general exemption for religious claims against law, but applied in particular cases where the law allows for any exemption.

Slugh said it is unclear what possible revised regulations applying to yeshivas will look like, but the government now must be careful not to issue regulations which are vulnerable to the requirement of religious accommodation in view of these recent court decisions. There is no state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that the federal RFRA applies only to federal law, and thus cannot help yeshivas against New York State regulations. Another line of defense for religious schools, he said, is “substantive due process,” in which courts decide on the basis of a general sense of justice what the outcome of a particular case is. Here, he cited the important Pierce vs. the Society of Sisters case (1925), in which the Supreme Court declared that parents have the right to direct the education of their children. He said that while substantive due process “may well work,” it is “totally unpredictable.” It is what conservatives derisively call “judicial activism.” He believes that the “best chance at winning” for yeshivas (and presumably other religious schools) would be if the Supreme Court should overturn the Smith decision. He also believes a state RFRA would be good in New York.

Jay Ferguson, Head of Grace Community School in Tyler, Texas spoke next. He said he had practiced law for ten years before becoming Head of the Grace Community School. He said that religious education is “fundamentally different” from public education. It is different “in its ways of knowing, different in its ends, different in its understanding of reality, and the meaning of life, and what it means to be human.” He said that a standard of being “substantially equivalent” should not be imposed on all schools. Imposing common educational standards would “fundamentally alter the nature of religious schools, but in the process undermine compelling state interests in a well-educated citizenry and effective civil discourse.” Ferguson said that the “extra-constitutional” doctrine of separation of church and state requires public education to be “from the broadest possible ecumenical philosophical base, and that is, from a secular, naturalistic epistemology.” Supernaturalism, the belief in an unseen world, belief that the visible world has its source with God in the unseen world, and that God is active “in all of creation,” deeply informs “the Christian mind,” and thus Christian education.

In particular, with respect to controversies today, the Christian mind “perceives identity as externally referenced.” Thus, “who I am” is determined by “who God claims or says that I am, rather than self-referenced – who I perceive and claim myself to be.” Indeed, all truth is rooted in an unchanging God, and is therefore there is absolute truth. From a secular perspective, “that’s not the case.” For physical reality, there is “an open system with a sovereign God being actively involved in creation.” This in contrast to the “closed system” of a “naturalistic perspective.” This all effects “school leadership, governance and training, professional development, and everything that makes up the ecology of a school community.” The fact that both public and Christian schools both teach English and math does not mean that they can be “substantially equivalent,” Ferguson said, any more than “a Subaru and a space shuttle are substantially equivalent vehicles because they both have tires and windows.”

Parents choose religious education, he said, precisely because “they do not want a substantially equivalent education for their children, and to force it on them isn’t freedom; it’s antithetical to the principles of the republic.” If the state wants to ensure quality of education, it can do so through the accreditation process, Ferguson said.

The strictly religious education of the Jewish Yeshivas discussed by Bedrick and Slugh and integrated Christian education discussed by Ferguson are markedly different, but neither sees religion as a problem for education or society at large. The secular liberal viewpoint advanced against religious education does. It was discussed by Rita Koganzon of the University of Virginia, to be reviewed along with concluding comments, in a subsequent article.

It can be viewed here.

  1. Comment by David on September 20, 2021 at 6:50 am

    There are very few who object to groups providing religious education for their members. However, the intent here is to limit knowledge of the secular world as a form of control. These communities are insular and avoid the use of English. TVs and radios are often forbidden. One is pressured to adopt a certain form of dress and hairstyle. The yeshivas have long been a scandal in NYC with “graduates” failing miserably in the normal school subjects of science, history, and English. This problem has persisted for years as politicians fear the block voting of these groups. Children have a right to a general education regardless of what their parents might think.

  2. Comment by Jeff on September 20, 2021 at 11:12 am

    >> The yeshivas have long been a scandal in NYC with “graduates” failing miserably in the normal school subjects of science, history, and English.

    You’re prevaricating, David.

  3. Comment by Diane on September 20, 2021 at 1:19 pm

    As a public school teacher, The students in my classroom who transferred from private Christian schools into public schools always demonstrated poor proficiency in math and language arts (reading, composition, spelling, vocabulary, etc) skills.

    Additionally, a White friend of mine discovered too late that her twin daughters – both enrolled in private Christian schools from age 5-11 – were woefully unprepared for college success. Her husband had insisted their children be enrolled in Christian schools as children out of fear that his daughters might , date and eventually marry someone of color in the public schools.

    There are, of course, schools of excellence among faith-based private schools. I believe the state board of education should have some curriculum oversight, as it’s not a given that parents will keep their children in private schools until they’re eighteen. Private school students should be able to transfer to public schools with relative ease of academic success. Part of the problem when proficiency is lacking among private school students has to do with private school teachers’ not having adequate credentials/licensure to teach.

    Again, however, there are many exceptions where private schools are exemplary educational institutions. Often, their faculties are fully state-licensed and curriculum goals align with the state’s standards in regard to core academic subjects.

  4. Comment by David H. Fox on September 20, 2021 at 4:11 pm

    https://citylimits.org/2021/06/21/opinion-our-sons-are-among-nys-65k-ultra-orthodox-children-lacking-secular-education/

    https://www.thecity.nyc/education/2020/9/20/21448158/brooklyn-yeshivas-schools-nyc-secular-classes-deblasio

    chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fyaffed.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F01%2FYaffed-Report-FINAL-one-up.pdf&clen=8548854&chunk=true

    https://nypost.com/2018/05/12/these-taxpayer-funded-jewish-schools-are-dooming-young-men-to-poverty/

    https://allthatsinteresting.com/orthodox-jewish-schools

    https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2019/12/20/investigation-finds-just-2-of-28-yeshivas-meet-state-education-standards

    https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130122/crown-heights/english-is-absent-math-doesnt-count-at-brooklyns-biggest-yeshivas/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/nyregion/yeshivas-education-report-new-york.html

  5. Comment by David on September 20, 2021 at 5:22 pm

    “A 2019 New York City Department of Education (DOE) inquiry affirmed what we already knew from our own experiences: many yeshiva students are not learning English, math, history, science, or other secular subjects. Twenty-six out of the 28 schools in the investigation failed to meet the minimum standards for secular education. This means boys like ours never have the opportunity to learn about basic scientific principles, the civil rights movement, or even how to write an essay.”

    The list of similar articles is long if you bother to do Google search.

  6. Comment by Jeff on September 21, 2021 at 7:02 am

    David, that unsourced snippet of word salad you produced above nowhere near proves — or even evidences — your wild fantasy claim that (and I quote you):

    “The yeshivas have long been a scandal in NYC with “graduates” failing miserably in the normal school subjects of science, history, and English.”

    And, no, I will not do your Google leg work for you. That’s not how it works! You support your own claims with links to actual sources.

  7. Comment by David on September 21, 2021 at 7:52 am

    I put up a post with about 7 links and it was deleted—that is how it works. If this survives, here is one from a Jewish newspaper

    https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/437023/nyc-education-yeshiva-secular-subjects-report-substantial-equivalency/

  8. Comment by Jeff on September 21, 2021 at 3:14 pm

    Thanks for trying, David. I did read the “Forward” article you linked. It falls quite a bit short of fully supporting your somewhat over the top claims, though.

    And, being “fair and balanced”, the Forward article includes a counterclaim: “The yeshiva system continues to outperform the City’s public schools by every metric,” said a yeshiva spokesperson, Sam Goldstein, in a written statement. “As with all school systems, yeshivas always strive to improve and adopt best practices. They will continue to do so.”

  9. Comment by David on September 21, 2021 at 6:37 pm

    Here is a Times of Israel article link that was previously deleted.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/will-they-ever-learn-us-ultra-orthodox-still-failing-to-teach-math-and-science/

  10. Comment by George on September 25, 2021 at 12:07 am

    I know little about the yeshivas schools of NYC, but contrary to what others have said, my experience with religious schools is far different. They not only out perform the public schools scholastically, the kids are generally more respectful and better behaved. In the private schools, the teachers are not forced to put up with the disruptions and nonsense that those in public schools do. They do without the government money and produce a better result.

  11. Comment by Search4Truth on September 25, 2021 at 2:47 pm

    I would to challenge Diane’s statement “always demonstrated poor proficiency in…” I was one of those students who transferred for my 8th grade year. I was so far ahead of my classmates that I earned top grades with virtually no effort. I would have to question the quality of public education.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.