Introductory thoughts
The overall focus of this Education issue of the JOFA Journal is on topics relating to gender and education. As we worked on the journal, it became apparent that a critical subject that affects so many Jewish families—and, therefore, so many JOFA Journal readers—is the high cost of day school education for all our children. We considered that we would be remiss if we did not give some attention to the “affordability issue,” which is on the minds of so many. What the gender implications of the economic situation might be for schools, communities, parents, and children is not clear at this point. It is unlikely that Orthodox Jewish parents will return to the days of long ago, when Jewish education was considered important only for males and not for females. Fortunately, we are way past that. But the question of how parents are going to be able to afford day school tuition in the current economic climate is a serious one. If they turn elsewhere for their children’s education, what are going to be the consequences for the children and for the American Jewish community?
Many possible “solutions” to the crisis are being discussed, such as campaigning for increased federal and state funds for nonpublic schools in the form of tax credits and the funding of specific programs; vouchers; schools joining together to reduce costs through shared services; building up individual and family philanthropic endowment funds; and shifting the financial burden of day school education to the community as a whole. Many Jewish national organizations are now focused on the affordability issue, including the AVI CHAI Foundation, the Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education (PEJE), the Jewish Community Day School Network (RAVSAK), Yeshiva University’s Institute for University–School Partnership, and the Jewish Funders Network. The Orthodox Union has recently created a Task Force on Jewish Education Affordability.
Jerome Chanes writes in this issue that the solution to the crisis lies with the Federation system and its allocation of funds. As he points out, Federations around the country vary in the support they give to day school education. Many Federations are expanding their support of Jewish day schools; some give per-capita amounts to schools in their community according to the number of students; others work to catalyze community endowments dedicated to education, while others do not consider it a priority.
PEJE, using a grant from the AVI CHAI Foundation, is partnering with Jewish institutions in Baltimore and Los Angeles, and is in discussion with UJA-Federation of New York to work with twenty schools to build endowments that will pay at least $20,000 per student. Day schools around the country are receiving training to raise funds for endowments. The aim is for the schools to develop their own capacity to raise endowment funds and to obtain matching grants from outside the parent body. Schools well realize that if tuition scholarships are left to be paid solely by full-tuition parents, this will just push more families into the scholarship pool as tuition is raised.
We need to raise funds outside the parent pool and extend the responsibility for bearing the costs of day school education to the whole community. As such, schools are reaching out to alumni and local families, and synagogues are setting up programs to award supplementary scholarships. Foundation grants have also been awarded to schools to provide scholarships to middle-class families—often large families—who are struggling to pay multiple tuitions, but who do not qualify for financial aid. Other grants focus on improving programs within day schools for students with special learning needs.
… to ensure that no family be prevented from choosing a day school education for their children for financial reasons.
Among different efforts to reduce the costs of day school education, there are also plans to create lowercost day schools that charge less tuition. One method is to use parent volunteers for many administrative functions. Another approach is to use online learning. Proponents of this strategy are aware that cutting services and costs entails the risk that the educational product will no longer be considered satisfactory to parents, and therefore they will lose students, especially those who have special needs of different sorts.
The aim of all these strategies is to ensure that no family be prevented from choosing a day school education for their children for financial reasons. It is nevertheless the case that some families are turning to public schools and home schooling because of economic considerations. Charter schools add a new aspect to the mix. There are now a number of Hebrew language charter schools in different parts of the country (including one, the Shalom Academy, projected to open in the fall in Englewood, New Jersey, although now apparently it will not open until the fall of 2012).These are proving attractive to some Orthodox parents, who are planning to supplement the Hebrew-based curriculum with religious instruction on their own initiative. Critics rightly point out the serious differences between what the Hebrew language charter schools can provide “Jewishly” and a day school education. The complexity and deeply felt anxiety around these issues have led us to include in this JOFA Journal the perspective of an Orthodox mother who is planning to send her children to the new charter school in Englewood, as well as a d’var Torah by Shmuel Herzfeld, a congregational rabbi from Washington, DC, who expresses his strong concern about the potential loss of Jewish content and spirit in alternative forms of education, and explores some of the issues to be considered by parents looking at charter schools as an educational alternative.
Although we are including only a few perspectives on the important issue of day school affordability and reducing the tuition burden, we hope that this section will stimulate discussion and understanding. May our commitment to Jewish education for all our children lead to the best choices on the part of communities, schools, and families as to the nature of that education, and the best methods of making that education available to all our children
Perspectives on Education in American Orthodoxy Today
by Jerome A. Chanes
JOFA Journal readers will look at a general overview of education in the American Orthodox Jewish community today for an understanding of gender issues. The situation is mixed. The good news is that, in an increasing number of schools, day school leadership is in the hands of women. A substantial pool of highly talented women is now being recognized and employed. Education for adult women, once a stepchild in the Orthodox world, is now a reality in many communities. Indeed, adaptation of the traditional Jewish model of education, the beit midrash model, has become more widespread, because of its successful use by New York’s Drisha Institute, a pioneering vehicle for sophisticated Jewish text study by women.
Gender pressures in Orthodox education continue to present themselves in a variety of forms. In many communities, there is a perception that coeducation in day schools is on the decline. This perception is fueled by the highly visible and vocal haredi community, which views “separate but equal”—and often “separate and entirely unequal”—as optimal. Even though the perception of an attack on coeducation in the modern Orthodox community is not supported by data, the perception is there. Additionally, gender pressures include unequal compensation of male and female teachers, lack of parity in some schools in the allocation of resources between boys and girls, and lingering stereotypes about gender roles for male and female students.
In my opinion, however, the major problem facing Jewish education today is the economic one. The education of our children, boys and girls, depends on the strength and expansion of the day school system. The remainder of this piece will focus on current economic factors affecting day school education in the United States.
The Basic Question: Who Pays for Jewish Education?
Middle-class Orthodox parents find themselves increasingly stuck between the Scylla of rising day school tuitions and the Charybdis of declining real dollar income. Add to this the continuing controversy surrounding the commitment to Jewish education by the Federation system around the country, an issue that has been with the Jewish community for decades.
Federation campaign stagnation is not the only cause for the dearth of support for Jewish education by the Jewish communal system. In fact, there is a continuing controversy about the level of commitment on the part of the Federation system to Jewish education at all. Particularly with respect to Orthodox day school tuitions, the question is why Federations should subsidize these schools when the money could and, arguably, should be used to help the needy—especially when we are in the midst of a recession; and whether the commonweal is truly enhanced by supporting institutions that, in large measure, support the most insular parts of the community. As one Federation director put it, “Many of those who are most vulnerable—both in terms of financial need and in terms of paucity of Jewish content—lie outside the Orthodox community.” The reality of nonfunding, though, is that non-Orthodox schools suffer too, as when the Conservative Solomon Schechter high school in northern New Jersey was forced to close three years ago.
Additionally, financial pressures come from within the education arena: support of supplementary schools, child care, camping and other forms of informal education and adult education all tug at the Jewish communal elbow for attention and support.
These two challenges—the stagnation of Federation campaigns and the very real controversy over whether hard-won dollars should be used to underwrite Jewish education—create economic pressures that are particularly intense within the Orthodox community at a time when many families are suffering from the current economic decline.
Long ago, the Orthodox community established two related norms for education: First, day school education is non-negotiable for Orthodox Jews. Second, Jewish education is, and has been for decades, a matter of right for every Jewish child, male and female. Today, many Orthodox families are paying $20,000 to $30,000 or more in tuition per child. Consider the possible implications of this financial burden.
First, Orthodox families may be forced to limit the number of children they have.
Second, a small number of families will retreat from the day school—not to public schools, but to charter schools and to home-schooling and tutoring.
Third, day schools will reduce faculty pay, increase class size, and eliminate “discretionary” education (the creative arts, gym) that enriches a curriculum.
It may be that the only schools that will manage to keep the financial lid on a boiling pot will do so by finding philanthropists to pay the bill. The day-school tuition crunch could very well be alleviated by philanthropic resources.
In recent years, American mega-donors, represented by a handful of foundations, have engaged Jewish education with a vengeance; they are funding research, demonstration projects, and pilot programs. The single greatest— indeed, revolutionary—change in American Jewish life is the growth and impact of Jewish family foundations. Steven Bayme, the director of the American Jewish Committee’s Contemporary Jewish Life Department, asserts that mega-donor initiatives have nothing less than a “normative impact” on the Jewish community. The activities of mega-donors, says Bayme, constitute “a powerful statement that there is no greater priority in the Jewish community than the funding of Jewish education. This represents an unprecedented shift in philanthropic norms, and has in effect created a new agenda for American Jews.” Donors have begun having their own say on issues dear to them—including, in some cases, Jewish education— and, in response, Federations are creating “Federation foundations,” or Federation endowment funds designed to give the donors a voice.
In my opinion, the answer to the economic pressures of the day school system is not the philanthropist or the voucher. Vouchers—however fashionable at present— will never provide very much money, in any case. Many large donations from individuals or families come with strings attached. The answer to the tuition crunch and other economic pressures on Orthodox education needs to come from the Federations. The question of support by the Federation system—the network of associations responsible for most local communal allocations—is the real question.
Many Federations have committed to Jewish education in a serious way. Examples include the $300 million matching campaign awarded two years ago to the UJAFederation of New York to support Jewish education, and similar initiatives in Los Angeles and MetroWest, New Jersey. Notwithstanding the new focus on Jewish education, however, Federations in many communities continue to raise arguments against funding Orthodox schools.
Basically, it is a question of priorities: Is Orthodox Jewish education discretionary, or is it a necessity? The Federation system, more than a century old, continues with many of its old litanies: (a) “It’s not healthy to segregate”—a variation on the “insular” theme, supporting schools that may not be participating fully in the life of the community. (b) Public schools can fulfill the needs of our children. Indeed, for generations this was the Federation ideal: The Federation leadership was traditionally committed to a different vision of Jewish life—not to this “religion stuff,” which for decades was not taken seriously; theirs was a classic vision that involved doing good for others. These, of course, are arguments coming out of a universalist ethic of the past: Doing good, to be sure, is a good thing—but it is not clear that the issue is that of the stark alternative: fund the day school, or fund the soup kitchen.
It might well be worthwhile and legitimate, perhaps, rather than questioning whether to fund Orthodox schools, when evaluating funding requests, that the Federations ask questions about the quality of the education provided, the religious ideology, and commitment to Israel.
The bigger answer, of course, is for the Federations to look seriously at re-allocations: moving funds from less essential programs—and perhaps some for Israel— to Jewish education. But this is anathema to many within the Federations. The Federation model, one of consensus, does not lend itself to visionary approaches. Family foundations and Federation endowment funds go only so far without a consideration of the issue of reallocations by the Federations. The reality is that if the Federations do not “step up to the plate,” day schools will continue to remain on their own, or be limited to seeking out philanthropic angels. As always, it is a question of communal priorities.
Why I Will Send My Children to a Charter School
by Anonymous
First of all: Just because I am “pro-charter school” in no way means that I am anti-day school education. I have had children in various northern New Jersey Orthodox day schools for the past seven years, and I definitely see the benefits of a formal yeshiva or day school education. That being said, my husband and I have chosen to enroll our children in Shalom Academy—a charter school in Englewood, New Jersey that was to open in September 2011 but will probably now open in September 2012. This was in no way an easy decision for us, and we have faced criticism from both family and friends.
Several main factors influenced our decision to send our children to Shalom Academy—and the major one was financial. My husband I both work—in fact, I have both a full-time and a part-time job. We own a home that is priced well within our means. I drive a leased minivan, and my husband drives a car far older than I would like to admit. We do not go away for Pesah or Sukkot and go no farther than the beach for summer vacations. I work every weekend and holiday to lower our child-care costs; my children go to a “bare bones” camp only because I am at work and need child care; “haute couture” to my kids is Target. Despite living so frugally, we cannot even begin to cover our tuition bill, and every year we have to apply for financial aid. It is impossible to maintain one’s dignity during this process, which is often downright heartbreaking. I hate the guilty feeling that I get when I want to splurge on something small, like a weekend away that my children would love and that sometimes we just need, but agonize over spending extra money when I am asking for charity from their schools.
We are going to have to be extra diligent in making sure that our kids have supplemental religious education and truly reinforce it at home.
Another major factor for us in choosing a charter school is the response to special needs children in the day school system. Two of our four children have mild “special needs,” requiring a little extra learning help and some occupational and speech therapy. In response to these needs, we were asked by one day school to hire a “shadow” for one child at the additional cost of $900 a month; another school gave us the “option” of placing our child in the extra support program at the cost of an additional $12,000 a year or accepting that she might be unable to successfully complete the school year. I do understand that the extra resources required to help children who have greater needs than their peers is costly, but to charge a parent an additional tuition to meet these needs is unreasonable.
For the past three years, one of my children has been in public school to be able to receive additional support services, and I can see how he has benefited from the district-wide special services. I have come to recognize that if my children can receive the special services they are entitled to by law while still attending a Hebrew immersion program, without forcing us to shoulder the cost of a day school tuition as well as the additional cost of their services, I simply cannot refuse this option.
Another small factor for us, though not a major one, is the effect of school hours and the day school calendar on our professional lives and responsibilities. Most employees receive two to three weeks of vacation a year. With this time, we are expected to be home for all the Jewish holidays, hol hamo’ed, Christmas, New Year’s Day, winter vacation, and a bunch of randomly selected dates set aside for teachers’ professional development days. Two to three weeks’ vacation doesn’t even come close to covering all those days, and we are left with no vacation days for the rest of the year. Now you could say, “Well, then, take vacation when the kids are off for hol hamo’ed.” Sadly, I do not have the luxury of taking twelve days off in one month (which is what I would need to do to accommodate the hagim and a vacation during Elul). Indeed, why isn’t there school on hol hamo’ed anymore? When I went to yeshiva, we went to school on hol hamo’ed Sukkot; we all ate in the sukkah and went on trips, and more time was not lost from the school calendar.
We haven’t publicized our decision to send our children to Shalom Academy, mainly because of all the (for lack of a better term) “trash talk” from the community, including the day school parents and administration. The question that I hear most is: How can you put a price on a Jewish education? True, you cannot put a price on educating your children—and we want nothing more for our children than to grow up with strong roots in their faith. But even though our children are getting this strong background at school now, unfortunately I am not sure if it is being reinforced at home.
The main reason that I question our ability to reinforce Jewish education and values at home is because to pay for this education, for most of the school week my children are being cared for by our wonderful and loving—but not Jewish—babysitter. Unfortunately, there are some weeks during which I will not see my children for several days at a time, and my husband will only see them off in the morning and tuck them in at night. We work right up until the last minute before Shabbat and the holidays, and are so stressed by everything that we have to do that sometimes my full heart isn’t into Shabbat and yom tov, and I know that my children sense it. To be honest, I get downright hostile every September between having to juggle holiday preparations and covering child care on all the days off from school, especially every erev hag.
So, if you had the choice to cut back on your hours a little, be at home a couple of times a week when your children are doing homework, and not have to approach a holiday with a mix of resentment and exhaustion coming off a “work bender,” what would you choose? Yes, we are taking a step into the unknown, and we are going to have to be extra diligent in making sure that our kids have supplemental religious education and truly reinforce it at home—but at least we will be able to be there to do it.
This is a very personal and difficult decision for every family. I hope that the community understands that the charter school was not started to undermine the yeshiva or day school system, but rather to offer a choice to people who literally cannot keep afloat with the cost of day school education or have kids for whom day school is not an option for educational reasons. It is a choice that we have made and are happy with—and hey, at least, you won’t have to subsidize our financial aid anymore.
The writer of this piece has chosen to remain anonymous so as not to arouse strong feelings in her community.
Charter School or Day School?
by Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld
A Hebrew-language public charter school called the Shalom Academy is opening in Englewood, New Jersey. There are already a number of Hebrew-language charter schools in the country, but this will be the first one in an area with a large number of Jewish day school students. Many day school parents will now be able to choose between sending their children to day schools that they cannot afford and enrolling their child in an attractive, free Hebrew language school.
For many families, this difficult choice will be related to another dilemma that many Orthodox families are facing. It is an issue that strikes at the core of the future survival of Jews in America. Young, committed Orthodox Jewish families are saying to themselves every day: We want to have a large Jewish family, because it is a mitzvah to be fruitful and multiply and settle the earth; but we also can’t afford it. We make respectable salaries—but we can’t cover day school tuition.
Should people opt out of the day school model so that they can have more children? Or should people have fewer children and provide their children with their vision of an ideal Jewish education?
I think these issues are weighing heavily on families who would ordinarily never consider taking their children out of a Jewish day school and would ordinarily have much larger families. The public charter school model presents an attractive alternative to the yoke of high tuitions.
This is also why the Shalom Academy is seen by many as a great threat to the community. It has been accused by supporters of Jewish day schools of marketing itself as a viable alternative to day schools, as an attempt to draw people to the school who otherwise might attend Jewish day schools. This development has caused some faithful followers of the day school model to question the charter school model and nervously suggest that the development of Hebrew-language charter schools bodes ill for day schools.
It should be noted that not all Hebrew language charter schools are the same. However, it still seems fair to raise the question: Is it time for the Orthodox Jewish community to accept that the day school model is not the only paradigm of how we should raise and educate our children? Is the public charter school model a better paradigm, or an alternative one?
The public charter school model presents an attractive alternative to the yoke of high tuitions.
For every family and every student, this is a personal decision that requires a personal answer. It is not fair to give one answer for the whole community. For many people, the day school model would work really well, were it not for the high cost of tuition. Others, regardless of the tuition costs, feel that the day school model simply does not work for their family.
I want to make two general points about this whole debate that I hope will help both those families that are struggling with this question and our entire community
The last days of Pesah celebrate the occasion of the splitting of the sea. The sea was split on the seventh day of Pesah. This act is known as keri’at yam suf, and it is considered the most important miracle that God ever performed for the Jewish people.
Rabbi Shmuel Borensztain, the author of the Shem Mishmuel, asked a question about this in the name of his father, Rabbi Avraham Borensztain, the author of the Avnei Nezer.1 He asked: Why were the Jewish people not given any particular mitzvah to engage in prior to the splitting of the sea? We know that when the Jewish people left Egypt there was a specific mitzvah associated with it—namely, the paschal lamb and the eating of matzah. These mitzvot allowed the Jewish people to have the merit necessary to be redeemed in a miraculous manner. So why was no mitzvah recorded with respect to the splitting of the sea? In fact, at first glance, the seventh day of Pesah seems uniquely bereft of any mitzvot. It is the only holiday when the blessing of sheheheyanu is not even recited!
According to the Shem Mishmuel, there is a mitzvah associated with the splitting of the sea; it is the mitzvah of being moser nefesh, dedicating one’s life in toto to service of Hashem. The Jewish people walked into the sea up until their nostrils, believing fully that the sea would eventually split. They were ready to sacrifice their entire lives in order to achieve redemption. This act of being moser nefesh is a great mitzvah, and I think it is related to why there is no sheheheyanu on the last days of Pesah. The blessing of sheheheyanu is not said over something that is difficult or painful, only over something that is joyous.
When I think about parents who send their children to day schools, I am in awe of their mesirat nefesh. In most families, both parents must work very hard at demanding jobs. Both parents must be aggressive in trying to secure as much money as possible. And the money is all going to a Jewish education, not for frivolous consumption.
This mesirat nefesh of our community is inspiring to see, and also to live. And I believe that children see and appreciate the mesirat nefesh of their parents. This total and central focus and dedication is what is required for a successful transmission of Torah from one generation to the next. One of the most important things about providing our children with a Jewish day school education is that it shows the children how their parents prioritize the value of a Jewish education. It is the central motivating factor of many of our lives.
A day school model is not the only model, however; there are other ways in which one can give their children a proper Jewish education. Many parents deeply and successfully commit to a Jewish education and do not follow the day school model. In my view, the common denominator is that an educational experience that comes with mesirat nefesh of the parents is the only model. Only parents who make Torah first and foremost in their child’s life will be able to transmit the full breadth of Torah successfully. This can be done in a non–day school environment, but only if one’s life takes on that same totality of focus on the transmission of Torah values.
That will be one of the main challenges of those who opt out of the day school paradigm: to show their children that they are being moser nefesh for the sake of a Jewish education. (The same challenge also exists for parents of day school children, but in a different way.) If a Hebrew-language charter school becomes a model with which people can take the easy way out of an enhanced Jewish education, then future generations of children will opt out. But if it becomes an alternative model with parents and children who are moser nefesh for Jewish education, dedicated to Torah, and fully engaged in the totality of Judaism, then it may succeed.
This leads me to my second point: There is another major advantage to the day school model. It is a model that encompasses a totality of life. Instilling a proper Jewish education in our children is not just about making sure that they gain technical skills and knowledge of Hebrew. It is about giving them a total and infinite love of Torah. We must never replace a total immersion in every aspect of Jewish spiritual life with an education that focuses on the more technical aspects of Jewish education.
Instilling a proper Jewish education in our children is not just making sure that they gain technical skills and knowledge of Hebrew.
This too is a lesson we learn from keri’at yam suf. After the splitting of the sea, the Torah tells us (Exodus 18:1) that when Yitro, the father-in-law of Moshe, heard what God had done for Moshe and the Jewish people, he traveled from his home in Midian and joined the Jewish people in the desert. What did Yitro hear? Rashi explains that Yitro heard about two things: keri’at yam suf and milhemet Amalek, the war against Amalek.
The problem with this approach is that after Yitro arrives in the presence of Moshe, the Torah says (Exodus 18:8) that Moshe told his father-in-law all that Hashem had done for the Jewish people. Thus, our commentators ask: If Yitro already knew about the splitting of the sea, as this was why he traveled to Moshe in the first place, then why did he need to hear from Moshe about the splitting of the sea a second time?2
The Noam Elimelech (the hasidic rabbi Elimelekh of Lyzhansk, 1717–1787), explains that even though Yitro knew the facts intellectually, he still needed to hear them from Moshe himself—it was through his proximity to Moshe that he became spiritually inspired.
One cannot compare hearing something from a spiritual mentor to hearing it in an academic setting. Even though Yitro had known about the splitting of the sea, he needed to travel and hear it directly from Moshe to arouse his own spirituality. In the same way, just learning the “facts” of Judaism is not sufficient. It is necessary to always have a spiritual mentor who can transmit the facts in an experiential manner.
The setting and context of our lives is so fundamental to the education we are trying to give our children. When we choose a day school model, we are not just choosing a curriculum; we are also choosing a life-style and a community that revolves around Torah and its teachings. If parents choose a charter school model, then they also need to choose a manner of spiritually supplementing their children’s education. By definition, a charter school is legally not permitted to teach spiritual Judaism. Therefore, parents need to figure out how to bridge that important gap. It can be done, but only with a sustained and conscious effort on the part of the parents.
Thus, when people send their children to a day school, in addition to the intellectual knowledge they gain, these are two additional aspects of their lives that people are committing to: mesirat nefesh on the part of the parents for a Jewish education and immersion in a spiritual life under the tutelage of spiritual mentors. For many people who are extremely serious about their love of Torah, the day school model is not working and they are planning on a switch to a charter school. These sincere parents must keep these two values at the forefront of their mind and at the center of their mission.
Our Torah commands us to recite the Shema in the morning and in the evening. The Shema begins with the commandment of veshinantam levanekha, you must teach your children, and ends with the paragraph about God leading us out of Egypt. If we want to successfully educate our children, we must remember to keep in mind these lessons of keri’at yam suf.
Above all, I want to emphasize what Rambam (Pirkei Avot 5:4) teaches in his discussion of keri’at yam suf. In his opinion, the Jewish people did not cross from one side of the sea to the other, but rather circled back to the same side: “The paths [of the tribes] were designed as rainbows, one within the other.” So too, with respect to receiving a proper Jewish education, as a community we must acknowledge that there are different paths that lead to the same place, and each family must struggle to decide on the proper path for itself.