This past Monday, April 2, 2018, New York State passed legislation which lowered secular curriculum requirements for private Orthodox Jewish Schools (or yeshivas) which emphasize strictly religious educations. The statute specifically broadened the criteria for assessing the "substantive equivalency" of private education. Substantive equivalency in layman's terms means the level of required uniformity in curriculum between private and public schools.
Outside of the large Hasidic Jewish communities in New York, many criticized the reduced state oversight of religious schools which some say already leaves students, "without a basic command of English, math, history or science." This is a common criticism among New Yorkers, many of whom have suggested that the poor secular educations at yeshivas have been ignored by school officials due to fear of political repercussions. In 2015, the Department of Education vowed to investigate the quality of education at the behest of the Young Advocates for Fair Education, with one member of the organization stating, "he had never heard of basic scientific concepts." However, no investigation has taken place as of 2018. Proponents of the change in policy argue, "parents should have the ability to decide what sort of education their children receive,” and that the current requirements have limited the effectiveness of the religious institutions.
The Constitutional question posed by this situation is a free exercise one, can the compelling state interest in maintaining a uniformly educated populace limit both the effective scope of religious private schools and their free exercise?
Without a doubt the state interest in maintaining an educated populace is compelling; however, there is constitutional precedent that helps provide an answer to this question. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) the Court ruled that Amish children could not be forced to attend public school past 8th grade because the individual interest in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the state interest in compelling education. Despite the apparent differences, there are some clear similarities between these two cases. Both cases deal with a state interest in a uniformly educated populace and the question of free exercise. The passed legislation deals primarily with the high school education at yeshivas with the majority of the secular education being completed by the end of middle school. One of the key components of the Yoder decision was the whether the additionally years of high school would produce enough benefit to justify the compulsory high school education and the answer to that question was no.
The Yoder precedent demonstrates that the court would likely rule that the New York statute is in fact constitutional and that the application of stricter requirements on religious private schools would presumably be in violation of the free exercise clause. I would argue that this would be the correct ruling because I too agree that the individual interest in the free exercise of religion outweighs the compelling state interest to maintain a uniformly educated populace. Parents should have the right to educate their children in a religious manner. The purpose of a private education is to allow parents to have influence in their children's education process, and as demonstrated by the Yoder precedent, heavy and restrictive government oversight in this process is incongruent with the free exercise clause of First Amendment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/nyregion/yeshivas-budget-new-york.html
http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/questions-over-felders-yeshiva-amendment/
Without a doubt the state interest in maintaining an educated populace is compelling; however, there is constitutional precedent that helps provide an answer to this question. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) the Court ruled that Amish children could not be forced to attend public school past 8th grade because the individual interest in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the state interest in compelling education. Despite the apparent differences, there are some clear similarities between these two cases. Both cases deal with a state interest in a uniformly educated populace and the question of free exercise. The passed legislation deals primarily with the high school education at yeshivas with the majority of the secular education being completed by the end of middle school. One of the key components of the Yoder decision was the whether the additionally years of high school would produce enough benefit to justify the compulsory high school education and the answer to that question was no.
The Yoder precedent demonstrates that the court would likely rule that the New York statute is in fact constitutional and that the application of stricter requirements on religious private schools would presumably be in violation of the free exercise clause. I would argue that this would be the correct ruling because I too agree that the individual interest in the free exercise of religion outweighs the compelling state interest to maintain a uniformly educated populace. Parents should have the right to educate their children in a religious manner. The purpose of a private education is to allow parents to have influence in their children's education process, and as demonstrated by the Yoder precedent, heavy and restrictive government oversight in this process is incongruent with the free exercise clause of First Amendment.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/nyregion/yeshivas-budget-new-york.html
http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/questions-over-felders-yeshiva-amendment/
4 comments:
I think that, staying true to the Yoder precedent, the court would have to rule in favor of the yeshivas. While I do think there is a compelling interest in educating the populace uniformly, I also do not believe that parent's rights to educate their children as they wish should be taken away. It is within the rights of parents to give their children a private education, religious or not. When parents chose an intense religious education as offered in yeshivas, I think there becomes a legitimate free exercise claim that should inhibit the government from placing further restrictions on the schools.
The question being posed in regards to placing a prominence upon the compelling state interest or religious freedom of the citizens is always debatable. I agree with your conclusion on this matter, particularly in regards to the Yoder case mentioned, as religious freedom exceptions were granted to the Amish. However, I do question whether the entire legislature should change in response to the Yeshiva regulations and views regarding education, or if that specific religious practice should be exempt from the education requirements in order to achieve their religious needs. This question is brought up due to the Yoder case as well, as the legislature regarding the general education of the state was not altered, rather the Amish were exempt.
When we debated in class about the Yoder case, many students said that the children should be consulted. The reasoning was that by 8th grade students are presumably old enough to make decisions about their future instead of simply following what their parents say. By allowing legislation that does not enforce secular material, the state would essentially be taking away the ability for children to have a say in their future. If the state allows this, by the time these students are done with high school and 18 they will be limited in their choices for further education because of their lack of secular knowledge. Perhaps they would be equipped to attend a religious college, but if they want to save up and attend a secular one against their parents wishes the state would have ill prepared them. I think that the state has a relevant interest in providing all children with a secular educational foundation because not doing could disadvantage some students later in life. This legislation would hinder that interest.
The decision made in Yoder was made due to the fact that if the Amish children attended the schools for high school, they would be learning ideals that went against their beliefs and ideals. Since the Supreme Court created the precedent in which religious freedoms outweighed the interest of the state, I believe that the conclusion you came to is correct. The state must feel that the argument to force an education on a child must be compelling enough to go against their free exercise rights, but the parents of these children have the right to decide for their families.
Post a Comment