OPINION: Justified criticism of Chasidic schools, but unnecessarily slanted

The Times newspaper has published a report entitled, “Scandal of unsafe schools where Jewish boys can barely read or write English”. Here, historian Derek Taylor argues that the bias against the Chasidic community in the report is obvious.

I am a great admirer of The Times, which has have just produced a scathing report on Chasidic schools. I would agree that many have room for improvement but Chinuch UK, which represents 86 registered Orthodox schools across Britain, say they “strive to meet the required standards” though it has “taken time for some of our schools to catch up to DfE (Department of Education) and Ofsted requirements”.

Its “extensive school improvement programme” resulted in improved inspection reports. Which is good, but hurry up.

That’s all in the major article The Times ran on 3 March, but the bias was pretty obvious. The headline, for instance read: “Beatings behind closed school doors.” Would it be alright if they were beaten in the playground? It is, of course, a serious condemnation but where is the evidence? It is justified by “a former Tashbar pupil…..said Tashbar teachers routinely punished boys by hitting them and continued to do so as recently as three years ago..” THREE YEARS AGO! What sort of proof is that of continuing ill treatment of the pupils. I got beaten by the art master 80 years ago; what does that prove?

What is so wrong about the minibus being unmarked? What is wrong with a large wooden gate? Why should the minibus depart slowly? I can’t see it bears even one hallmark of a clandestine operation.

The Times report is unnecessarily slanted. It starts: “The unmarked minibus pulls to a halt outside a large wooden gate. A group of young children run out, jump inside and the vehicle swiftly departs.  At half hour intervals from 4pm to 5.30pm the process is repeated. Each time the children are a little older. It bears all the hallmarks of a clandestine operation. The youngsters behave as though they are in hiding. Sometimes an adult keeps watch from just inside the gate.”

What is so wrong about the minibus being unmarked? What is wrong with a large wooden gate? Why should the minibus depart slowly? I can’t see it bears even one hallmark of a clandestine operation. In what way are the youngsters behaving as though they are in hiding? Is there any school where an adult watching from just inside the gate would be suspect?

It’s not up to the standard of The Times. There is justified criticism, however, of the children not being taught numeracy or literacy in some schools. The lessons are also given in Yiddish.

Now Yiddish has been the common language of the Ashkenazi for centuries. It has a fine literary tradition and a large number of supporters who do not want the language to disappear. There are also a large number of people who don’t want Welsh to disappear. Or Gaelic. The difference is that the Scottish and Welsh children are also taught English. The supporters of the Welsh language would like teachers to be able to communicate other subjects in Welsh. The teaching in Yiddish is an example they want to copy.

The Hasidim in Stamford Hill are not uniformly pro-Israel. There are demonstrations against the state. It’s a free country and you can make up your own mind on this.

The Times report accepts that the schools are chosen by the parents and, therefore, there is wide support for them. The report is confused about yeshivas, which are specifically colleges for the advanced teaching of the religion. They do not exist to teach secular subjects, but there seems a need to categorise institutions as yeshivas and then to bar them accepting children under a certain age.

If the Ofsted rules are ignored by certain Hasidic institutions, they should realise that they are disobeying the din, which is the last thing they want to do. The rule is perfectly clear; ‘dina de malchuta dina’ – the law of the country in which you live should be your law too. No “ifs” and “buts”. That been the din for 1,700 years and was, most famously followed in this country, on the advice of Haham Nieto in 1715, in telling the Sephardi Mahamad that they should support the government’s choice of George I as King, who was 45th in line but the first Protestant.

The Times report speaks of dilapidated and unsanitary buildings. That’s dreadful, but it also applies to any number of non-Jewish Ofsted schools. Many years ago Rabbi Dr. Schonfeld was given a lot of money for Hasmonean. He spent it on a  science block. There was no fire escape! Dilapidated building are on the list of complaints of every teachers’ organisation.

Chinuch UK have a difficult agenda. More strength to their arm.