What school did you go to?

amother

↑ Cerise ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:20 pm

amother wrote:

What kind of science classes do these accredited schools offer?

And you need physics and A&P for ST but chemistry is acceptable for some programs as well.

Biology- living environment, and Earth Science, and Advanced biology
There is one school that I know of that offers Physics as well. (Not a heimish school).
Some offer all of these but allow the students to choose which ones to take. Others just offer some of them. Three years of Science are required but only one Regent is required for a diploma. (Two for an advanced dioloma.)

I don't know what Speech programs you looked into but Touro requires one Science. Any Science that you choose. It can even be Biology for non Science majors. You definitely don't need the ones you mentioned.

Eta; OOC I checked out Brooklyn College and LIU's SLP programs and neither of them require specific Sciences.

↑ amother ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:20 pm

Article 26, section 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights:

"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."

Signed,

A Satmar Williamsburg graduate who learned the details of the UN Declaration in college Smile

P.S. I got my GED (TASC) with minimal studying, spent several hours on this and paid zero. I felt completely prepared by my education, especially after reading the preparation book and refreshing my rusty math skills.

The school put tremendous effort into teaching English literacy, especially considering the resistence they face from the parent body. Shoutout to Mrs. Neuman and Mrs. Becker for their hard work setting the standard.

There is no limit to knowledge. If Satmar would spend ten hours a day teaching all kinds of subjects, something somehow would still not have been covered (Greek mythology for example.) For that matter, isn't the idea of electives unfair to students? Why shouldn't they all become thoroughly 'well-rounded'? What does that term even mean? Who decided that trigonometry and calculus are not equally vital to all students' futures?

The job of an educator is to teach children how to learn. I most certainly learned that.

amother

↑ Mint ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:22 pm

amother wrote:

Many of the things you have grievances about are not unique to Satmar nor to chassidish schools. I am well acquainted with many Bais Yaakov schools and know of almost none that offer a significant amount of electives.

Those who wanted more got more on their own. It didn't stop anyone from pursuing the higher education of their choice.

Like I said upthread, I went to Bais Brocho, which certainly doesn't offer electives. That didn't stop me from pursuing my own interests, such as reading the classics we didn't read in school, learning music theory and composing songs, watching movies and documentaries, listening to classical music, learning all about different eras in history which I found fascinating and which weren't covered in depth in history class. When I went to college, I was able to hold my own in liberal arts classes.

I'm not saying this to invalidate your experience. I was bored in class and found school very unstimulating.

But what I want to bring out is that you aren't trapped at whatever level your school was on. Many times, the things you learn and discover on your own are much more meaningful than receiving those lessons.

I think we ventured off a bit too far so let me go back to what I said originally:

1-Girls should graduate high school with an accredited and/or regents diploma. Did your school give you that opportunity?

2-Girls should learn Chumash, Rashi, etc if they attend a religious school. Did your school give you that opportunity?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then your school is not comparable to Satmar so everything else you said is irrelevant.

↑ amother ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:25 pm

amother wrote:

Just Google Suree Perl

Then check out the threads here about Pearl Perri Reich from Vien BP. They tortured her in school because she was creative and artsy and danced to her own tune. Except they didn't like her music. The hanhalla was NASTY and I pin the blame for her unhappiness with frumkeit directly on Mrs. K's shoulders.

There are many other girls they were disgusting to, and degrading, but I'm only posting her name because she became a public figure in her fight to regain custody of her kids. She was on the Dr. Phil show. The other girls have a right to their privacy.

I wish I had the courage to post under my SN.

↑ amother ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:27 pm

amother wrote:

I think we ventured off a bit too far so let me go back to what I said originally:

1-Girls should graduate high school with an accredited and/or regents diploma. Did your school give you that opportunity? (Your parents have the right to decide what they believe you should graduate with or without.)

2-Girls should learn Chumash, Rashi, etc if they attend a religious school. Did your school give you that opportunity? (See number 1. If your religious group's leader did not believe girls need this opportunity and your parents subscribed to this belief, what other members of other groups of this religion do or don't do is completely irrelevant. When it comes to religion, there is no "should" because outside of halacha, it's all subjective.)

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then your school is not comparable to Satmar so everything else you said is irrelevant.

amother

↑ Oak ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:27 pm

amother wrote:

I think we ventured off a bit too far so let me go back to what I said originally:

1-Girls should graduate high school with an accredited and/or regents diploma. Did your school give you that opportunity?

2-Girls should learn Chumash, Rashi, etc if they attend a religious school. Did your school give you that opportunity?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then your school is not comparable to Satmar so everything else you said is irrelevant.

I was responding to a specific post of yours about electives.

I do agree with both of your points above.

amother

↑ Mint ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:37 pm

amother wrote:

I think we ventured off a bit too far so let me go back to what I said originally:

1-Girls should graduate high school with an accredited and/or regents diploma. Did your school give you that opportunity? (Your parents have the right to decide what they believe you should graduate with or without.)

2-Girls should learn Chumash, Rashi, etc if they attend a religious school. Did your school give you that opportunity? (See number 1. If your religious group's leader did not believe girls need this opportunity and your parents subscribed to this belief, what other members of other groups of this religion do or don't do is completely irrelevant. When it comes to religion, there is no "should" because outside of halacha, it's all subjective.)

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then your school is not comparable to Satmar so everything else you said is irrelevant.

Wisconsin v Yoder--
4-The State's claim that it is empowered, as parens patriae, to extend the benefit of secondary education to children regardless of the wishes of their parents cannot be sustained against a free exercise claim of the nature revealed by this record, for the Amish have introduced convincing evidence that accommodating their religious objections by forgoing one or two additional years of compulsory education will not impair the physical or mental health of the child, or result in an inability to be self-supporting or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially detract from the welfare of society.

Do you think that Satmar can say the same thing as the Amish, that they are self-supporting even without an appropriate education (meaning they don't accept any govt funding/benefits)?

https://supreme.justia.com/cas......html

↑ debsey ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:54 pm

amother wrote:

Wisconsin v Yoder--
4-The State's claim that it is empowered, as parens patriae, to extend the benefit of secondary education to children regardless of the wishes of their parents cannot be sustained against a free exercise claim of the nature revealed by this record, for the Amish have introduced convincing evidence that accommodating their religious objections by forgoing one or two additional years of compulsory education will not impair the physical or mental health of the child, or result in an inability to be self-supporting or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially detract from the welfare of society.

Do you think that Satmar can say the same thing as the Amish, that they are self-sufficient even without an appropriate education?

https://supreme.justia.com/cas......html

You do realize that Yoder won, right? Parents have a right to educate their children as they see fit. Children have a right to pursue alternative educational options once they grow up.

I really strongly suggest you take a class in case law, since you seem to have an interest in it. The claim that the Amish are self-sufficient without public education was not the claim that carried the day. (Just for background, whenever a case is brought before a court, the lawyers will prepare many arguments for their side. Only one argument has to actually carry the day, however.)

The whole point of citing Wisconsin v. Yoder is for the precedent that the parents' right to freedom of religion trumps the state's interest in educating children. Satmar parents have the same rights that Amish, Catholic, Muslim, or 7th Day Adventist parents do.

↑ debsey ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:57 pm

amother wrote:

I think we ventured off a bit too far so let me go back to what I said originally:

1-Girls should graduate high school with an accredited and/or regents diploma. Did your school give you that opportunity?

2-Girls should learn Chumash, Rashi, etc if they attend a religious school. Did your school give you that opportunity?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then your school is not comparable to Satmar so everything else you said is irrelevant.

Where do your "should"s come from? Says who? Maybe I say girls should leave school being fluent in Yiddish, and since BY didn't give me that, I'm at a disadvantage?

Schools are socialization tools for a culture. Schools should prepare children to take their place in that community's culture. My schooling didn't give me the ability to take my place in WASP culture, or inner city culture, or alternative culture. That's because my schooling wasn't socializing me for that culture.

If I want to learn to be a member of another culture, I can do that, but that's on me, not on the school.

amother

↑ Mint ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 5:57 pm

debsey wrote:

Yes, Yoder won. They won because of what I bolded, that they are self-supporting and don't accept govt funding/benefits even without their education. Do you understand that now?

↑ happybeingamom ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 6:09 pm

amother wrote:

I think we ventured off a bit too far so let me go back to what I said originally:

1-Girls should graduate high school with an accredited and/or regents diploma. Did your school give you that opportunity?

2-Girls should learn Chumash, Rashi, etc if they attend a religious school. Did your school give you that opportunity?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then your school is not comparable to Satmar so everything else you said is irrelevant.

I agree that it is very important to know textual skills. Not knowing how to learn leaves you open to being manipulated by those who twist the Torah and Halacha to suit their needs.

However this is my opinion and hashkafa. Satmar has a different opinion and they have the right to raise their children hashkafkly as they see it. Even though I disagree I can't impose my views on them.

I don't know the law about accredited diplomas if that is the law that schools must do. If it is not the law, you have to accept their choice even if we disagree.

↑ debsey ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 6:11 pm

amother wrote:

Yes, Yoder won. They won because of what I bolded, that they are self-supporting and don't accept govt funding/benefits even without their education. Do you understand that now?

No, you really need to learn how to read case law. You are right, your education did not cover this. Neither did mine, till grad school (NOT blaming BY, Constitutional and Case Law isn't really covered in most high-school curricula) The precedent set by the Yoder case is that freedom of religion trumps the state's interest in education. Extraneous arguments are nice. But they are extraneous.

And any Satmar graduate can take on any minimum wage job, which is enough to keep body and soul together. That's the minimum standard for graduating - that you be able to support yourself. A secretary, store clerk, or teacher is self-supporting. Can you support 12 kids and make chassunahs with that type of salary? No, but if high school education had to prepare you for the kind of salary that could do that, we'd call it "graduate school." (oh, wait. We already have an institution called grad school. As several Chassidish posters on this thread said, it's the school they did/are attending, after GED and college)

↑ amother ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 6:13 pm

amother wrote:

I understood what Debsey was saying but do you think the court would have come to the same conclusion if the Amish were not self-supporting and actually did take government funding?

...and considering that Satmar does keep their kids in school as long as the law requires, and the girls' schools do meet many of the legal educational standards despite not taking regents? (I recall Maya posting that her diploma was accepted as fully credentialed even without having taken regents.)

The scenarios are completely different from both angles.

I am not sure how they would prove a connection between educational standards and self-support, especially considering the high rate of SAHMs as part of the culture.

Which comes back to the boys again.

amother

↑ Mint ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 6:22 pm

debsey wrote:

Do you think the Amish would have won if they would be accepting government funding instead of being self-supporting? Because that would have been supporting religion which is a violation of the first amendment (and goes against separation of church and state)..

↑ debsey ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 6:23 pm

debsey wrote:

Let me make myself clear. I am HAPPY that I graduated with a Regents diploma and the ability to learn Chumash/Rashi "invainik" I am not happy that I didn't learn Yiddish, since it's a language that would come in handy nowadays (actually, any foreign language that has a practical use would have been nice. Russian. Spanish. SOMETHING....)

I found my HS secular education spectacularly lacking in terms of breadth and scope, but adequate in terms of practical skills. But I send my kids to a similar TYPE of school, because I believe the socialization aspects are more important. I have one kid who is an intellectual, and who plans on pursuing a very ambitious course of higher education, and she will be free to do so, as an adult.

wondergirl ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 6:24 pm

amother wrote:

If I remember correctly, Maya's school committed fraud by granting her a fake high school diploma and the boys get an accredited BTL from their yeshiva so the girls get nothing.

Last edited by wondergirl on Wed, Jul 27 2016, 6:27 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ debsey ↓

Wed, Jul 27 2016, 6:26 pm

amother wrote:

Irrelevant speculation is not really something that carries the day in a court of law. There's no NYS vs. Yoel Klein case that is comparable. I believe there was a coalition of formerly frum kids who attempted to sue their educational institutions, but nothing came of it. (of course, to be fair, the courts move slowly, so even if this group is pursuing their case, we might not hear a result for 20 years!)