Joseph – In a prior comment you already engaged in nonsensical arguments that were clearly wrong, so I question the wisdom in responding to your nonsense. I will offer a few brief responses to your irrelevant points.
1. The Yoder case establishes very clearly that the State has a right to insist on minimum educational standards. That is what the discussion here is. In the Yoder decision due to the circumstances there, which don’t align with many of the Yeshivas, the State was limited as to what they can insist. Your comment about inalienable rights is simply rhetoric that does not address the specifics here. Further, cases subsequent to Yoder have lent credence to the idea that the child has rights as well that may supersede the parents rights to determine how they are educated. It is the child’s life after all that is at stake here.
2. The statistic I focused on was families living beneath the poverty line, which Lakewood, Williamsburg, New Square, and Kiryas Joel are above or far above the national averages. Impoverished families generally get social programs. That is enough for the State to argue that they have a vested interest in regulating the schools. Your point about larger families, etc, will not change this fundamental conclusion that there is a lack of self-sufficiency.
3. Your statistics about how some schools outperform is very nice. I think I mentioned this already that the State will address each school one by one. The rules will apply to all private schools, but if a school performs well, most likely there will be no significant changes required. On the other hand, the Yeshivas that underperform (e.g. especially the schools that don’t teach secular studies or teach very little) can expect to have to make big changes.
One last point. The concern expressed as to the regulations by many of the schools that perform well, likely is primarily due to their concern that the State may attempt to implement many hours of secular instruction. If the State can clarify the rules/standards so that the Yeshivas that provide an adequate education feel comfortable that they are not affected by this, then you would see very quickly that Satmar and few others would be out there on their own. The position of those that do not provide an adequate secular education is not something that a lot of the Rabbonim expressing concern here, actually support.
In any case, you will respond with irrelevant information that does not help the case you are making. When I look at legal cases in general, you see the losing side often clueless to the factors that made them lose. Instead they focus on various points that are external to the decision. All your points (assuming they are even valid, which I question based on your prior ignorant comments) are of minimal import to this issue and just won’t help.
Anyway, its been real. I will not bother with further comments beyond this. The issues are clear to many of us, and we should focus on the legitimate issues, such as what the standards actually require and if they are appropriate or not. For schools that don’t educate, as they go against the Talmud’s dictate to teach your child a parnassah, it is hard to see why I should be opposed to the State stepping in and doing the parent’s job. So long as the State does not use this to make unnecessary requirements that undermine our ability to practice and teach religion, it is hard to see what the big deal is.