New York State Education Department Revokes Public Funding for Two Chassidic Schools in Brooklyn

State Action and Implications for Chassidic Schools

In a move that has sparked significant debate, the New York State Education Department (NYSED) notified two Chassidic schools in Brooklyn—Yeshiva Bnei Shimon Yisroel and Talmud Torah of Kasho—on February 11 that they would no longer receive public funding. This decision was made after the schools failed to demonstrate that they meet the state’s educational requirements, specifically the “substantial equivalence” standard outlined in Section 3204 of the New York State Education Law. The standard mandates that private schools provide an education that is at least as comprehensive as that offered in public schools. The state directed the schools to inform parents that they are no longer recognized as providing compulsory education and instructed families to enroll their children in alternative educational settings by July 1, 2025. As of June 30, 2025, all public funding, including transportation, textbooks, and child nutrition programs, will be discontinued for these schools.

Community Reaction and Educational Standards

The decision has been met with strong reactions from both supporters and critics. Moshe Krakowski, a professor at Yeshiva University’s Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education and Administration, argues that there is no evidence to suggest that Chassidic schools in New York City are failing to educate their students effectively. He highlights that many Chassidic schools provide rigorous religious education, which includes high-level critical thinking and analysis, as well as basic secular subjects like reading, writing, and arithmetic. Krakowski contends that the debate over Chassidic education is often fueled by misconceptions and prejudice against the Chassidic community. He emphasizes that these schools produce students who are literate in multiple languages, including Yiddish, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and that their educational model should not be dismissed simply because it differs from the public school system.

On the other hand, Adina Mermelstein Konikoff, executive director of Young Advocates for Fair Education (Yaffed), a nonprofit organization that advocates for improved secular education in Chassidic schools, welcomes the state’s action. She argues that the decision represents a necessary step to ensure that all children receive the basic education guaranteed under New York State law. Konikoff asserts that many Chassidic schools have long neglected to provide adequate instruction in secular subjects, leaving students unprepared for life beyond their religious education. She hopes that this action will serve as a wake-up call for other schools to comply with state standards.

The Legal and Historical Context of the "Substantial Equivalence" Standard

The “substantial equivalence” standard has been part of New York State law for over 100 years, requiring private schools to provide an education that is at least as comprehensive as that offered in public schools. In September 2022, the New York State Board of Regents approved new requirements for school districts to assess whether nonpublic schools meet this standard. The recent letters to the two Chassidic schools in Brooklyn mark the first time the state has revoked public funding for failing to comply with this standard. While some view this as an overdue enforcement of educational standards, others see it as an overreach that unfairly targets the Chassidic community.

Krakowski criticizes the state’s approach, arguing that the Chassidic community is being subjected to unfair scrutiny. He notes that many Chassidic schools provide a robust education, even if it differs from the secular-focused curriculum of public schools. He draws parallels to bilingual education programs in other communities, such as those for Hispanic students, which are widely accepted and even celebrated. Krakowski suggests that the Chassidic community’s commitment to religious education should be similarly respected, rather than pathologized.

The Broader Implications for the Chassidic Community

The NYSED’s decision has raised concerns about its potential impact on the broader Chassidic community. While the two schools in question may not be representative of all Chassidic schools in New York State, the action has been interpreted by some as a threat to the autonomy of religious education. An editorial in Yeshiva World News criticized the schools for their handling of the situation, arguing that they should have engaged more constructively with the state to demonstrate the value of their educational model. The editorial also expressed concern that the schools’ lack of cooperation could harm the reputation of Chassidic education as a whole, making it easier for critics to paint all such schools with the same brush.

Others, however, view the state’s action as a necessary intervention to protect the rights of students. Konikoff and Yaffed argue that the lack of adequate secular education in some Chassidic schools leaves students at a disadvantage in navigating the broader world. They emphasize that ensuring access to a basic education is not about undermining religious traditions but about preparing children for future opportunities. This perspective is shared by many who believe that the state has a responsibility to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, receive an education that prepares them for success in life.

The Ongoing Debate Over Educational Standards and Cultural Preservation

The debate over Chassidic education reflects a larger tension between cultural preservation and educational standards. Supporters of the state’s action argue that it is essential to ensure that all students receive a basic education that prepares them for life beyond their religious community. They point to the long-term consequences of inadequate secular education, such as limited career opportunities and social mobility. Critics, on the other hand, argue that the state is overstepping its authority and failing to recognize the value of religious education. They contend that the Chassidic community’s unique cultural and religious traditions are being unfairly maligned and that the state should respect the community’s right to define its own educational priorities.

Krakowski counters that the Chassidic community is not in crisis and that its members are thriving despite the perceived differences in their educational model. He argues that the debate over Chassidic education is often driven by misunderstandings and biases, rather than a genuine concern for the well-being of the students. Krakowski emphasizes that the Chassidic community’s commitment to religious education should not be dismissed as inadequate but rather recognized as a valid and enriching approach to learning.

Conclusion: A Call for Dialogue and Mutual Understanding

The NYSED’s decision to revoke public funding for the two Chassidic schools in Brooklyn has highlighted the need for greater dialogue and understanding between the state and the Chassidic community. While the state has a responsibility to ensure that all students receive an education that meets basic standards, it must also recognize the value of cultural and religious diversity. The Chassidic community, for its part, must engage more openly with the state to address concerns and demonstrate the strengths of its educational model.

As the legal challenge to the state’s “substantial equivalence” regulations makes its way through the courts, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for religious and private schools across New York State. In the meantime, the debate over Chassidic education serves as a reminder of the complexities of balancing educational standards with cultural and religious traditions. Ultimately, the goal should be to find a solution that respects the rights and needs of all students, regardless of their background or beliefs.