Gary Rosenblatt writing in The Jewish Week:
Tough Choice: School Scholarship Or Summer Camp
Parents already reeling from the high cost of active Jewish life may soon be facing a difficult choice for their high school children between tuition scholarship for day school and a summer camp or summer-in-Israel experience.
The scholarship committees from two Modern Orthodox day schools in Teaneck, NJ have sent out similarly-worded letters to parents in recent days making it clear that “if a family currently receiving a needs-based scholarship award spends money on discretionary expenses or sends a child in grades 10-12 to attend a summer program” – including Israel programs – “that family is jeopardizing its scholarship.”
The letters explain that the schools’ “core value” is that no student be turned away because of financial circumstances, and that families should “pay the maximum amount they can afford, with the understanding that tuition payments are part of the basic expenses of the family – taking priority over discretionary expenses such as home renovations, family vacations, new cars, etc.”
Summer programs, including those taking place in Israel, are defined in the letters as “discretionary and not basic expenses.”
I know these schools are hurting, but it seems to me like a bad idea to lump together powerful Jewish experiential programs and lavish personal spending in one non-essential category.
Here’s Rosenblatt’s complete post, Tough Choice: School Scholarship Or Summer Camp.
Top
Two quick thoughts in response to this piece:
1. There is a substantive difference between “day schools” (implication: a field of over 600 Jewish educational institutions) and “two day schools in Teaneck, NJ.”
2. Day school leaders need to walk a fine line between encouraging families to engage fully in Jewish life and ensuring that their institutions remain solvent. There is no doubt that the vast majority of families seeking tuition assistance do so for authentic reasons.
That said, nearly every head of school in North America has stories of parents who appeal more modest financial aid packages by claiming that after making mortgage payments on their million dollar homes and car payments on their luxury vehicles, camp tuition, yoga classes, and what-have-you, that they really cannot afford day school. These families cannot (or choose not) to see that the day school – and the Jewish community more broadly- cannot shoulder the burden of their living beyond their means.
Surely families eager to see their children immersed in all that the Jewish community has to offer will take umbrage with these two schools defining summer programs as “discretionary” – and I have no doubt that these very schools, in fact, promote year-round Jewish engagement. Yet when understood from the schools’ perspective, reminding families that the schools cannot indirectly subsidize their summer plans is both the correct thing to do and just plain good business sense.
This is a complicated topic. Does the Jewish community (ie donors) owe a Jewish education to families choosing to have many kids without the financial capacity to pay for their education (or other Jewish experiences)? Isn’t that a lifestyle choice?
The fact is, so long as funds are limited, and of course they will forever be so, choices need to be made. Not a single Jewish (or other) private school charges the real cost of education kids (real cost being total cost divided by enrolled students). So donors fill the gap — with additional scholarship funds dedicated to students meeting certain income tests. In some cases, schools, as indicated by Mr. Kramer, schools are pressured for additional scholarships by families with means who simply don’t want to pay the set tuition. And we in the community have set up a system in which we care more about the Jewish education of such a child more than the parents do — hence their willingness to avoid any sacrifice in order to pay for Jewish education.
I’m willing to bet the same applies to Jewish camps. Obviously Birthright is such a system. As successful as it may be, it is something for nothing and therefore we can’t be surprised that a sense of entitlement is perpetuated.
It can be expensive to live a Jewish life (defined as synagogue, day school, camp, Israel experiences, JCC etc). Other options such as chavurot and minyanim seem to carry lower participation costs (and provide a lesser range of services). When funds are insufficient to meet all needs choices have to be made and we can’t be surprised when good (day schools) is pitted against good (camps).
The current situation begs for a collective solution. But it seems some/many institutions and donors would rather place their own interests above the collective good (which I concede would be a challenge to determine). If “making shabbos” on our own is more important than the collective good, then the marketplace alone should decide which programs live and which go under.