by Richard A. Marker
March 2002

The growth of the Day School movement is an achievement to be celebrated. Much of this growth has been a result of innovative ventures, such as PEJE, DeLeT, inter alia, that have captured the attention of philanthropists and foundations, including ours, and the Jewish community. Their commitment to expand the opportunities, particularly in the non-Orthodox world, for enrollment, teacher recruitment, teacher and principal training, and enhanced commitment to quality have combined to give credibility to Day Schools as an indispensable component in the renaissance of Jewish life. The growing number of schools and enrollees attest to the belief that many hold that this is one of the institutions which will make the difference.

However, as our community puts increasing resources into Day Schools, we must also articulate our assumptions about Day Schools and examine them carefully. It would be most sobering to awaken a generation hence to discover that our interventions were off the mark, or that our energies could have been more effectively directed. These observations are an attempt to begin that process:

Assumption I - Day Schools are the most effective way to convey Jewish knowledge.

Questions:
Undoubtedly, the earlier a child learns Hebrew language and related skills, the more deeply internalized that knowledge and skill becomes. But does pre-adolescent knowledge truly equip one for life-long/adult decisions, especially since most non-Orthodox children attend Day School only through 8th grade? Or will they need to un-learn or re-learn much of what they have been taught when they reach adolescence and adulthood? Should the Jewish community put more emphasis on High School level Day School attendance rather than elementary, even at the cost of extensive remediation?

In Day Schools, Judaism is often taught as if the rest of the world were as protected and insulated as the Day School. Are Day Schools the optimal way to teach young people how to apply Jewish learning in an open society and in real life? And, indeed which "knowledge" about Judaism is most applicable in adult life? For example, I have seen many graduates of fine Jewish Day Schools who are very knowledgeable of dinim [specific laws] but do not understand halachah [the law as a system]. In a more closed environment, the specific dinim are sufficient; in an open society, where one must learn how to apply Jewish law, understanding the reasoning that underlies halachah is indispensable. An informed examination of what knowledge and when conveyed should have an impact on Day School effectiveness.

Assumption II - Day Schools inculcate a viable and portable Jewish identity which will enable Jewish adults to make SOCIAL decisions.

Questions:
The overwhelming majority of Diaspora Jews reject self-ghettoization and parochialism. Are Day Schools preparing their graduates to live as Jews in a non-Jewish society? Or, have our best educated Jews internalized a vision of a Jewish life which requires aliyah or immersion in self absorbed Jewish communities? The integrated curriculum may be one answer to this challenge. Have the Day Schools which have developed integrated curricula had more success in addressing this question than those which have maintained the traditional parallel track? Are there other approaches which have been successful in addressing this?

It would be constructive to compare the effectiveness of the Day School model with informal educational models, such as teen and camping programs or Hillel. These models emphasize informal socialization rather than classroom education. If social choices are made in the informal realm, have we found the best way to insure that formally structured education provides these same benefits?

Assumption III: Jewish education and identity- building can only be successful if provided by HIGH QUALITY Day Schools.

Questions:
PEJE and others have identified the characteristics of high quality schools. But do we know that educational quality is what makes the difference? As I read some of the earlier data, it appears that the quantity of Jewish education is the most meaningful variable. Intuitively, it seems that the quality of the Day School must matter. But what is intuitive is not always true. If it were to turn out (I hope it does not) that quantity matters more than quality, might it not be better to do everything possible to subvent continued enrollment in lieu of other "luxuries" such as curriculum development and teacher training? While all of my professional experience would suggest that this should not be the case, we owe it to ourselves to explore this question.

Assumption IV- Cost is the limiting factor in enrollment.

Questions:
Are those who raise this question truly speaking of cost or cost/benefit? Admittedly large numbers of North American Jews find tuitions of $10,000 - $20,000 per year per student prohibitive and choose not to send their children to Day School. But there are 50,000 American Jewish students who attend secular (non-Jewish) independent schools at the same or a higher price point. For a not insignificant number, price is not the primary variable in school choice. [We believe this significant population should not be ignored; several foundations, including ours, have joined to support The Curriculum Initiative which addresses the Jewish needs in secular independent schools].

On the other hand, the Israel Birthright experience demonstrates that a gift from the Jewish community can make a difference. A number of local and national initiatives are experimenting with offering a lower price to all families to learn whether this does make a difference in their willingness to choose a Jewish Day School education for their children. It is worth more rigorous examination of the true role of finances in Day School attendance and choice.

Assumption V- Increased salary and prestige will allow us to recruit and retain a sufficient number of high quality Day School teachers and principals.

Question:
Of course it is true that teachers are underpaid and undervalued. But the same is true of every field of service in Jewish life. We must recognize that the community is not large enough nor rich enough to sustain the number of highly compensated professionals that we feel we need. Such a ratio of communal professionals to volunteers would not be financially sustainable. Therefore, it may be time to think imaginatively about alternative, and perhaps more integrated, models of how we provide excellent staffing for our communal institutions. This is not a Day School problem alone, but with the growth and demand for Day School teachers, wonderful programs such as DeLeT will make a meaningful dent in the need, but will not alone fully solve the problem.

Assumption VI - A new generation of Day School educated adults will revitalize the Jewish Community.

Question:
Will the growing group of well educated, inspired, committed Day School graduates find their place within the community? Are the institutions (synagogues, JCC's, etc.) prepared for such a population or will we see a further dichotomy of Jewish life, not based on denominationalism but on educationalism? Will Day School graduates demand that the community change or will they create a separate parallel track of Jewish involvement? A study of how the graduates of Ramah, NFTY, and Day Schools have challenged, changed, or rejected their parent institutions might help us to prepare for the future.

All of these questions are raised in the context of a commitment to Day School education and a belief that Day Schools, do, and will, make a significant difference in the fabric and future of North American Jewry. But we must challenge ourselves to think critically about Day Schools as we commit our communal resources to their growth. We must insure that the Day School movement fulfills its potential to the future of Jewish life.

Back to top