Received from a reader
The facts about the Fielder law

The old law indeed did not spell out which secular subjects, or how much of them, each institution must teach, because there was no need to!
The law clearly wrote that the studies in the institutions must be 'substantially equivalent', which in Yiddish is translated as 'more or less the same' or 'very similar' to the studies in the public schools.

For many years the government looked away from the fact that these subjects were not being taught, and the institutions taught only the minimum, as our Rebbeim of holy memory taught us.

But, unfortunately, the verse 'Your enemies shall descend upon you, from you and among you' was fulfilled, and the government began receiving complaints against 28 institutions, supposedly in the name of parents who have children in the institutions, that not all the subjects required by law are being taught.
After receiving the complaints, the government could no longer look away, and had to take up the matter with the Torah institutions and ask them why they are not complying with the law by teaching all the subjects.
Here is how it turned out:
1) The law requires that 'more or less' the same secular studies as the public schools be taught.
2) The authority over this is the Education Department.
The askanim were of course shaken by the new decrees against the chinuch of our children, but after a short conversation with attorneys it became clear that the government has the legal power to demand all the subjects, and the askanim were at a loss.
This is where the 'Fielder Amendment' came in, which established that with the chasidic institutions one should not look at whether the 'studies' are 'substantially equivalent', but rather whether the 'results' are 'substantially equivalent'. That is:
1) One should look at whether, from the entire learning program together (Yiddish and English), the students emerge with normal common sense to make rational decisions (critical thinking), which the Gemara provides, and there is no need to add more secular studies.
2) They learn to read English.
3) They learn arithmetic.
4) They learn history.
5) Science.
For yeshivos ketanos, it requires looking at whether they provide a 'basic education'.
The original wording of the law demanded two more things which unfortunately did not succeed,
1) That the government should not be able to demand more subjects from the Torah institutions (in the actual law the words 'but not limited to' were inserted [but not restricted to (the subjects), meaning the government 'may' demand more]
2) They wanted to establish an extra body to oversee the Torah institutions so that it would not lie in the hands of the Education Department. [In practice this was changed so that it remains with the Education Department.]
Now let us look at the claims of the dreamer.
1) The law says what must be taught: it always used to say so (not as clearly because there was no need; it demanded exactly like the public schools and that was it, there was no need to write out all the details)
2) Same thing
3) It gives power to the commissioner: she always had it.
4) It says they are not limited to demanding only the subjects: they were never limited.
5) Same as number 3
But if you look you will see that claim number 4 contradicts claim number 1, because the law states that she is not obligated to consider only the subjects, but 'she may also demand everything that is demanded by the general law!!!' (the Fielder law is not a law unto itself; it is an addition to the general education law and says that the Torah institutions need not teach everything the general law requires [which until now was indeed required by law], and the added words said that the institutions may also be obligated to teach what is required by the general law [which is exactly as until now])
In short, it comes out like this: the law demands 'less' of the institutions than until now, and adds that if the government wants, it can demand 'more' than the Fielder law and 'add' also the 'law until now', so it turns out that most of the previous law was removed and the government was given the possibility of returning to the previous law, but no power or
subjects were added.
I could have begun this piece with a headline: Horror! See etc. etc. etc., but since these are clearly words of truth, there is no need to add drama like those who try to sell noodles together with the Washington Bridge, who must write dramatic words to confuse minds so that people will not catch what nonsense they are writing, because otherwise they have no chance that the public will buy their noodles against the clear reality.
Now, the reason they are so agitated is that they thought they were winners either way: if R' Aharon (Mahara) Mittstein joined them in the struggle, good, and if he did not join, he would be added to the long list of 'anti-people' and they would smear him and tear him down for lining up with the Sikrikim [although in this respect they are in fact experienced, and we must understand them, because they still eat the leftovers of Mittstein with the Sikrikim in matters of the draft, technology, eiruv, matzos, meat, etc., since they know of no middle path; if the Steinmanists say there is no trace of the draft, they shout that people are being grabbed in the streets, although the reality is neither this nor that; if there is a problem with technology, they think there is no choice but to go to the Kinus Klal Yisroel, aside from the problems, etc.] Therefore, when Mahara took the path that goes with reality, not extreme right or left, they jumped out of their skin.
But in jumping out of their skin they deviated from the usual rule for a liar, namely: he needs a good memory. They forgot how they explained with such freshness that those who claim that the rabbonim or askanim do not mean Yiddishkeit are completely twisted; they even published a whole Purim booklet to prove this (where they could not write what Common Core is, only what it is not...)
Incidentally, they write there in the booklet that 'no single non-Jewish standard is any good' and that 'no one ever looked at which standard the book was written to'. Well, if so, what was the uproar about? Why must all of Klal Yisroel be dragged into a commotion over books if it does not apply to anyone? Let us say it is not heresy; well, if some idlers decided that it is heresy to switch books, there is no difference to which standard one teaches, is there? Why, when a gadol b'Yisroel came out against Common Core, did you come out against him? There is no difference at all, and moreover! You claim there in the booklet that today's books are exactly like the books until now; well, that is exactly what Mahara said, that nothing will be changed!!!