Good grief, ubiq. Your reading comprehension, indeed, is poor. Is that why you blame “The Yeshivas” for your subpar understanding? I’m not convinced the failing isn’t your own rather than those you blame. (Said only with the greatest brotherly love… really.)
Did you bother to read what you quoted or did you simply fail to understand the import of the words you copy and pasted? From your quotations: “allows… to choose from various pathways… through one of the following pathways…”
Regents is just one of multiple options to prove it. They can choose an option without Regents. Taking the Regents exams will prove equivalency is the subject of the Regent exam. Not in other subjects that are required. There are subjects that do not have a Regents exam.
Currently there ARE NO REGULATIONS defining how a school can prove equivalency. These new regs do that for the first time.
Giving the Regents exams will now demonstrate substantially equivalent instruction to students in the subject of the Regents. But not all subjects have a Regents exam. The law, as it has been for the last 100 plus years, requires substantially equivalent instruction to students that is given in the local public school system. That remains unchanged. They still require equivalent instruction in substantially all public school subjects. If you deny this fact, then any school can say we choose not to teach math. If you argue they must teach math, you’ll also have to concede that they must teach music and sex education, just as they do in public school. If you can say they can skip sex education even though it’s taught in public school, they’ll be able to then say in that case we can skip math too, even though it is taught in public schools.