by Jon Mitzmacher
I am sitting at JFK International Airport typing on my iPad, charging my iPhone, and missing my iFamily. But airports are sometimes ideal places for forced reflection, and these hours waiting for my flight home have provided me some much-needed time to reflect on the relationship between the recently held edJEWcon conference and a meeting I was privileged to attend this morning at the AVI CHAI Foundation.
edJEWcon, which was sponsored by AVI CHAI and the Schechter Day School Network, was an attempt to bring 21 Jewish day schools and 14 partner agencies together for an “Institute on Teaching & Learning.” If you look through all the sessions offered at edJEWcon, you will not find one that deals with “financial sustainability.”
So why would the good folks at PEJE ask me to blog about how edJEWcon impacts financial sustainability?
I believe it is because the field has been keenly interested in seeing how educational technology might positively impact the budgets of Jewish day schools, and not just the quality of instruction. If online, virtual, or blended learning can reduce the cost of Jewish day school education while increasing (or at least maintaining) the quality of Jewish day school education, we might find a so-called Unified Theory of Jewish Day School Affordability.
There are two assumptions about this theory and the AVI CHAI-sponsored meeting I attended this morning, to my surprise, challenged both.
- It could be that outsourcing content creation, including course instruction and assessment, to online vendors—either General or Jewish Studies – will in fact lead schools to reduce their faculties. It is not clear that Jewish day schools, unless they are start-ups that see outsourcing content creation as part of their core mission, are prepared to really reduce their faculties. It could be that the content is not yet sufficiently adequate. Or that the content is not yet sufficiently adaptable. Or that a lack of sufficient benchmarks across all forms of Jewish day schools allows for the creation of affordable content.
- And it could be that, when push comes to shove, we really do believe that teachers make a huge difference and we aren’t ready yet to make painful decisions.
Judging from today’s conversation, the answer appears to be all of the above.
If the rush to embrace 21st century learning and educational technology does not lead to cost-cutting for Jewish day schools, it’s hard to imagine it contributing meaningfully to a conversation about financial sustainability. In fact, if not managed appropriately, 21st century learning even runs the risk of making schools less financially sustainable because of increased technology costs.
My “a-ha” moment came in conversation with Rebecca Coen, founding head of a new high-tech Orthodox Yeshiva in Los Angeles called Yeshiva High Tech. We were talking after the meeting, and it occurred to me that part of the dissonance I experience in these meetings comes from different markets, given that non-Orthodox and Orthodox Jewish day schools are all scrambling to maintain and add to their student populations.
From Coen’s perspective, her population cannot afford the tuition of Jewish day school, period. They are choosing public school over Orthodox Jewish day school. Her only option is to provide the best possible education for the lowest possible price (that is my interpretation not her words) and educational technology may, indeed, allow her to do this.
For me, however, even though there are plenty of families who cannot afford our tuition and are choosing public school, there are also plenty of families who can afford our tuition (or more), but are choosing to spend it on elite secular independent schools. Lowering my tuition is not going to attract them. Increasing the quality of my school hopefully will. Investing in 21st century learning and educational technology may, indeed, allow me to do this.
These are just the experiences of two schools. I want to know more. Have birth rates changed this conversation? Do Orthodox families have more children to the degree that Jewish day school is simply not affordable regardless of the means of the family? What is the percentage of non-Orthodox families who have the means, but choose to spend it elsewhere?
Twenty-first century learning may indeed provide important paths toward the financial sustainability of Jewish day school, but it might take more than one form depending on the model or movement. These are exciting times, as schools, agencies, and foundations are ready to dream dreams. The crisis of day school affordability is very real. The promise of 21st century learning and educational technology is equally real. I look forward to more conversations, more experiments, more research, and more sharing. Whether there is one answer or many, it will take us all to discover them.
Jon Mitzmacher is the Head of the Martin J. Gottlieb Day School, in Jacksonville, Florida.
cross-posted with PEJE blog
Send to Kindle
I believe that Jon is correct. While the issue of curriculum/content creation is a project that is being addressed by a variety of institutions (both for and non-profit) schools are in a transitional stage. Students may be more prepared to accept the use of educational technology than their parents. Another generation may be needed before the current generation of 20 somethings who prefer texting over the phone rather than speaking on it are parents and board members who will feel fully comfortable with these ideas. In addition, using curriculum and materials that are neither fully formed and tested can seem “dangerous” in an industry built on standards.
Alternatively, the financial issues may just push day schools to be at the forefront of these changes, rather than, waiting to follow the lead of other non-private schools. Personally, I think this would be a new and exciting adventure that has the potential to move us from the industrial model of education to a cooperative model that better fits our 21st century society.
There is a peculiar side of life that thinks more expensive equals better (insert your choice of words). I don’t share that, probably because I come from the technology world mixed with the ability to see through the BS of others.
Making Jewish Day Schools out to be an elite effort may indeed attract some people, and at a higher price(I presume you are already abouve the $25K level since some of ours are close already to it) but a very high price else your school may not be sustainable.
All that is fine and good, but what about the rest of the people who want their kids to get their Jewish education but can’t possibly afford it anymore?
On teachers and teaching in general, what if this generation of kids can learn faster, better online? They need access to a teacher, but not 7.5 hours a day.
Should we have Jewish Phoenix schools? If it is all online, it should be cheaper, but as we have seen colleges, now charge almost as much for online degrees as class rooms.
Religion is taught at home, but for many that is not possible either, so they want it from schools. Schools don’t always do this well.
Sorry I could not attend the edjewcon conference, as a non-school related person, aside from being a parent, I did ask to attend but was not allowed. Unless I wanted to sponsor the event.
Parents don’t care what plan you have for education, what we ask is that for the faster kids you move faster and for the slower kids you take the time to help them. This defeats the purpose of the collective learning of a 20+ student class. But if everyone elarns differently, and we know they do, why do some jewish schools insist on going as fast as the slowest kids? Because they do not have multiple teachers or levels which can manage the education that way.
But if the kids were taught online they could move as fast as their abilities. Take less time and grasp more, and thus have more time for impotrant subjects which never get seen inside Jewish day schools like electrical wiring, woodworking, money management/business aspects, art, music or more.
And Captcha’s like this drive people insane. A simple line asking for an entry is better. 4 captchas later. Make commenting easier, reduce the barriers to true conversation.
Hi Jon,
Thanks for sharing this perspective. You raise an important question: what is the fit between the focus on of “day school affordability” and the alleged savings that technology might enable?
First, it is important to state that the jury is still out as to the degree to which technology saves money. For example, initially Apple claimed that e-readers would be less costly than textbooks. More recent studies have challenged this claim, particularly when factoring in the cost of hardware and software upgrades. Similarly, some students are enrolled in online schools or courses, and there is a cost saving in some cases. But schools and communities have also discovered hidden costs of this type of learning, as they need to modify courses or monitor students who are less engaged learning in this way.
And, as you mention, teachers are a central part of the equation. So much of the value of great schools comes from the relationships between teachers and students and the care and thought that teachers put into their classrooms. For teachers to continue to develop themselves (technologically and otherwise), there is a need for ongoing professional development, which also costs money.
One helpful way to frame this is two different ideas related to the cost of technology in Jewish education: “savings” and “value”. (I take this distinction from a recent conversation with Marc Kramer, Executive Director of Ravsak). In an effort to cut costs, day schools have recently been focusing on savings. But perhaps we should shift the conversation to the idea of value, acknowledging that, even as technology allows new modes of learning, it also creates new costs. Additionally, a school that prioritizes savings may have a less valuable experience for its students. And a school that focuses on a valuable learning experience may have a harder time cutting costs. Some schools and communities are only going to focus on savings; others should focus more on the value of students’ learning experiences.