So if the rule is that Jewish kids get preference, because they want to give Jewish kids the first chance at Jewish education, what is the reasoning for giving her preference?

I'm pretty sure on this ruling there is still a belief test. Attending Synagogue does not make it if you are not a believing Jew. (If she claimed to be a believer, that would get her into trouble with the Catholic church). Also she does not have to be allowed to attend Synagogue. It is specifically schools and secular institutions that can't discriminate. The Dutch Orthodox Church is allowed to discriminate as to who they allow to attend Church. And Jewish groups can still discriminate as to who they allow to attend Synagogue.

I'm pretty sure on this ruling there is still a belief test.

No, there isn't. You can see the form here: [link] It's synagogue attendance, prior Jewish education, and volunteering at a Jewish communal organization.

OK, I was looking at the ruling. The court still allowed the Rabbi to set definition, within the bounds of the ruling. This does meet the ruling requirements. And it would be a very rare non-Jew who met these requirements. As I said, I look forward to Catholic Schools being required to give women admission to priestly training on a non-discrimantory basis.

And it would be a very rare non-Jew who met that requirement.

However, there would also be plenty of people who are unquestionably Jews who do not meet it. People who stick more to the home observances, people who just haven't found a synagogue nearby that they feel comfortable with, people who don't have the free time to volunteer. I haven't gone to synagogue in months, because the one within walking distance has too many stairs and the one without stairs is too far away to walk. (The one with the stairs is Orthodox, which I'm not entirely comfortable with, but it's really nearby, so I was going there on a "it's good enough" basis until the stairs got too difficult. The one far away without stairs is an independent minyan which I like a whole lot better.) The more kids a family has, the less likely it is that they're going to get any of those kids to synagogue regularly.

Wow, they executed the DC sniper.

I was actually in DC when that happened, staying with meara no less.

Yeha, but if you know admission for your child to the preferred school is going to be based on your attendance, you'll be more likely to go, won't you?

Yeha, but if you know admission for your child to the preferred school is going to be based on your attendance, you'll be more likely to go, won't you?

Probably, but it seems counter-intuitive to require something that is not required under Jewish law as proof of Jewishness. All this stuff is really asking how involved the family is with the Jewish community socially.

Well again, the actual requirements were not set by the court. They were set by the school. This is not an uncommon form of resistance to a court ruling: given an order you don't want to obey, but must, obey in the way that will be hurt the largest number of people to make the ruling as unpopular as possible. There was a high school that had a a well lit boys field and unlit girls field. Title 9 required equal access. So rather than share both field, or add lighting to the second, the school chose to close both fields. Yeah that was the fault of nasty old title 9 rather than the school which deliberately chose to comply with it in a way that would hurt as many people as possible. This is the same thing. The school could have chosen any of a number of ways to comply with the ruling. They deliberately chose one that would piss people off and make life harder.

But I don't see any way to phrase it, other than just an "Are you Jewish?" question, that wouldn't exclude plenty of Jews.

It looks like the school is appealing. I wonder if the Supreme Court will agree with the first ruling or the appeal ruling.