As this issue of the JOFA Journal, focusing on Jewish education, came together, a topic of concern emerged—like an elephant in the room—that cried out for further investigation and analysis. This topic is the disparity in salaries between male and female teachers and heads of school in the day school/yeshiva system.
To be clear, these two categories of school personnel are different in significant ways. The head of a school is a unique position that cannot be compared precisely to the head of another school, as day schools differ widely in size, complexity, socio-economic level of the community, and wealth of major supporters. Within a school, however, many of the teachers have roughly the same job description and hours, with certain specialties— such as coaching a team or teaching children with special needs—involving some extra remuneration. Teachers’ salaries, presumably, come from one budget line that covers faculty compensation. However, within the limmudei kodesh faculty, it would seem (as we have no published data to present at this time) that rebbe’im and morot (female teachers) are compensated on different scales, even though they have roughly the same job description: teaching Torah to children in a classroom for equal numbers of hours a day.
This is not to say that the attainment of semikha should not be valued and compensated for, but because this degree is not available to Orthodox women teachers, their post-baccalaureate study should be evaluated on the same scale of years of higher education plus teaching experience as their male colleagues’ study in yeshiva. Advanced education at institutions such as the three-year Drisha Scholars Circle, the Stern College Graduate Program in Advanced Talmudic Studies (GPATS), Yeshivat Maharat, or the Pardes Educators Program in Jerusalem; post-BA degrees in Jewish studies; or study at women’s seminaries should be rewarded on a scale that looks at years and depth of study—not on scales that automatically start rebbe’im at a higher salary level than morot.
A Call for Data from the Day Schools
Because, to the best of our knowledge, there are no published data on teachers’ salaries in Jewish day schools, we cannot be sure that this inequity exists. Therefore, we are calling on the audience of the JOFA Journal, in their capacities as board members, administrative personnel, or concerned parents of day school students, to find out what salary policies exist within their schools and report the results to the JOFA office (see box on next page).
Although it is understandable that schools would want to keep their salary scales confidential, creating some transparency on the overall guidelines would promote a communal good. It may become evident that some or many schools do not have fixed teacher salary scale policies and that every teacher negotiates for himself or herself—which is not the healthiest of situations.
We do, however, have data about the relative compensation of male and female heads of school from a study done by Marvin Schick for the AVI CHAI Foundation in August 2007, titled A Survey of Day School Principals in the United States. That study found that “[g]ender is a powerful factor in salary determinations, with women principals being paid significantly below what men earn.” The data were based on 380 responses to a questionnaire (with a response rate of 75 percent), of which 42.5 percent of the principals said they were in Orthodox schools, while about 12 percent identified their school as belonging to the “yeshiva world.” Principals of Solomon Schechter, Reform, and community (nondenominational) schools comprised the remaining 57.5 percent. Even with the survey group skewed to the “modern” end of the spectrum, the survey found the following disparities among heads of school:
In the first year of service at their current school, no men earned below $60,000, while 10% of the women did. At the other end of the pay scale, there were men who earned above $180,000 in their first year, but no women. … For principals who have served between 5 [and] 10 years at their present school, one-quarter of the women were paid above $120,000, while for men the figure is close to 60%. A statistical analysis of the data demonstrates that there is a significant gender difference at p < .05.1
If so wide a differential exists at the head-of-school level, particularly in a survey sample weighted heavily toward the modern end of the spectrum, then one might expect that the salary spread between male and female limmudei kodesh teachers would be even greater. To prove this, however, we need data
Parsonage and Other Benefits
Compensation for teachers in Jewish day schools is usually constructed as a package that includes both outright salary and additional benefits, some of which may be worth as much as the stated salary. Among the benefits sometimes provided are babysitting for infants and young children of teachers, free tuition at the school for children of faculty, and parsonage. This last benefit, parsonage, is a tax exemption offered in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Section 107), to any “minister of the gospel” or rabbi, father, or imam. This tax benefit is generally made available to male but not female limmudei kodesh teachers, because the former are ordained but the latter are ineligible for ordination.
There has been considerable discussion in the legal literature as to the scope of the parsonage exemption and who comes within its definition. The IRS does not require ordination per se, but does insist that a minister provide “sacerdotal functions and the conduct of religious worship.” Thus, an unordained cantor employed by a congregation would be entitled to parsonage.2
Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, professor of law at Emory University Law School and member of the Beth Din of America, has suggested that female Orthodox teachers, despite their lack of ordination or formal certification, could be entitled to parsonage if they are hired to perform “sacerdotal functions.” He defines these functions thus:
[I]f the yeshiva expects a woman teacher to conduct what are core religious services, mandates that this teacher adhere to a specific level of religious conduct in her personal life, and expects this conduct to continue outside school grounds, that woman is engaging in conduct the functional equivalent of ordination. This “licensing” in a ministerial function by her employer is what allows the granting of parsonage, and the corresponding exclusion from gross income.3
Broyde specifies that this designation would apply only to “women who teach Judaic studies, supervise prayers, and provide religious counseling of the kind provided by rabbis in the school.”4 To prevent abuse, he suggests that some formal degree or certification of a theological nature (such as completion of the Stern Graduate Program in Advanced Talmudic Studies) might be required of the woman teacher.
The parsonage benefit is not universally recognized as appropriate to the day school setting (see your local attorney or tax advisor), but insofar as it is applicable to some religious studies teachers, it should be available to male and female teachers on an equitable basis.
The “Breadwinner” Argument
Some have argued that male yeshiva teachers (whether or not they have earned the title “rabbi”—and in some cases, unordained male Judaic studies teachers are loosely called “rabbi”) deserve to be paid more than female yeshiva teachers because they are the breadwinners of their families. The argument is ludicrous in this day and age, when many morot are the sole financial supports of their families, while their husbands study in kollel. Moreover, the necessity of the female teachers’ salaries to their family’s income is especially evident in the current economic climate. The myth of the sole male breadwinner deserves to be demolished.
On this issue, Jewish feminists may make common cause with right-wing traditional teachers. Because the economic fortunes of haredi families fall more and more on the shoulders of women, right-wing Orthodox morot may be willing to speak out on these bread-and-butter issues.
The “Kavod” Issue
Although gender differentials in salary are the most salient matter of fairness to be addressed, a Jewish feminist analysis must raise other, more subtle distinctions as well. In many schools, rabbis are addressed as “Rabbi [Last Name],” whereas female limmudei kodesh teachers (unlike, usually, their female secular studies counterparts) are addressed as “Morah [First Name].” Using a first name creates a sense of familiarity, often reflecting the custom in Israeli schools, but having different honorifics for male and female teachers suggests differing relationships of honor and respect. All teachers should be addressed in the same way—either with their title and their first name or their title and their last name.
“Kavod” is a hard-to-define and multifaceted concept within the culture of a school. It includes opportunities to expand one’s knowledge, to represent the school in public fora, to engage in supervisory roles, and to be given public honors. All of these forms of kavod should be equally available to male and female teachers.
When the kavod shown to rebbe’im and the kavod shown to morot mirror each other, then the goal of both groups of teachers—to increase the students’ appreciation for and giving of kavod to the Torah—will be achieved.