eJewish Philanthropy

Your Jewish Philanthropy Resource

You are here: Home / Jewish Education Today / Should Jewish Day Schools Have Investment Prospectuses?

Should Jewish Day Schools Have Investment Prospectuses?

By

By Nanette Fridman, MPP, JD

A generous day school donor called me a few months ago to talk about the numerous requests for donations he received from schools both in his home state and across the country (actually North America). What he wanted to know is which day schools were good investments in my opinion. To him, good investments were schools that were viable long-term. I was not in a position to provide answers, but I had a lot of questions (occupational hazard!) that he could ask of the schools to help him answer his question.

This got me thinking. Should day schools provide standard information to donors? If so, what factors are most useful in evaluating a school’s likelihood for sustainability? And is that the right outcome or return on investment?

To start the conversation off, here are some possible, key indicators of school vitality. To be sure, this list is not exhaustive nor definitive.

Key Criteria (Not necessarily in order)

1. Clarity of Mission, Vision and Values

  • Defined shared vision, mission and values
  • Articulation of school’s unique value proposition

2. Governance

  • Strong leadership
  • Succession planning
  • Parent and community members represented
  • Strong financial oversight
  • Board involved in fundraising

3. School professional leadership

  • Strong and consistent educational leadership
  • Strong management
  • Talented teachers
  • Long tenured teachers

4. Enrollment

  • Current and historical enrollment
  • Class sizes
  • Percentage of families that tour who enroll
  • Retention rates

5. Demographics of the surrounding area

  • Number of people in the catchment area that are possible customers
  • Trends of housing prices and religious life in area

6. Quality and class sizes of alternative public schools

  • For non-Orthodox and some modern-Orthodox schools, secular and other day schools.
  • For Orthodox schools, some secular schools, other day schools both locally and in other cities with boarding and home hospitality.

7. Quality and price of other private or day school options

  • Competitive pricing that takes into account facility, faculty, opportunities, etc.

8. Affordability

  • Current tuition
  • Rate and percentage of tuition increases projected
  • Numbers, percentage and total amount of financial aid given and trends
  • Current endowment

9. Social opportunities

  • School size
  • Gender ratios
  • Class size

10. Quality of secular academics

  • Current and innovative curriculum
  • Variety of subjects for older grades
  • Language offerings
  • STEAM, design labs etc.
  • Evidence of alumni success

11. Quality and quantity of Judaic and Israel studies and Hebrew learning

  • Market will dictate what is desired

12. Quality of school facility and technology

  • Physical education facilities and fields
  • Theater and arts
  • Computers, iPads, whiteboards and current classroom technology
  • Maker spaces
  • Science labs

13. Community Impact

  • Community feel and engagement internally
  • Engagement by school and families in the larger Jewish community
  • Evidence of alumni and families’ leadership in the Jewish community

14. Calendar and schedule to meet working parents needs (may be in collaboration with other providers). For example:

  • Busing
  • Before school or after school programming
  • Provision of lunch
  • Vacation camps
  • Summer programming

15. Ability to meet diverse student needs

  • Different learning abilities and styles

16. Collaboration

  • Current collaboration
  • Openness of school to consider collaborations with other community organizations and schools

To be sure, getting a consensus on the right criteria would be difficult. But should it be a goal? And who should do this? Prizmah? JFNA? JFN?

We are at a tipping point for day schools across the nation. Not all-day schools are going to survive. Is the responsible thing to do for communal leadership to work with schools to prepare investment prospectuses? With consistent and transparent data and analysis, would more donors (communal and individual) direct investment dollars to schools that have the most demand or potential, the least other options, the biggest impact on their community, or the best odds to be sustainable? (To be sure, not every donor is going to care about this information. Many donors support schools based on history, relationships and/or emotion.) Could a by-product of transparent information be that schools become more open to collaborating or consolidating with others in their ecosystems?

I have more questions than answers. I do know though that for those of us who love day schools there is a tsunami coming, and it’s one recession away. If donors rallied around to capitalize and buoy some of our day schools, maybe they will not only withstand the storm but thrive and be here for generations to come. Maybe standard, transparent investor prospectuses can help this happen. Maybe not. What do you think?

Nanette Fridman, MPP, JD, is a catalyst for values-driven organizations and a proud day school parent. She is the founder and principal of Fridman Strategies, a consulting firm specializing in strategic planning, financial resource development, governance and leadership coaching for values-driven organizations. Nanette is the author of On Board: What Current and Aspiring Board Members Must Know About Nonprofits & Board Service. She can be reached at fridmanstrategies@gmail.com.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Another insightful piece from one of our most creative strategic thinkers! Interested in understanding why listed specific criteria for secular studies but say Judaic studies are market driven. Would also add that styles of learning, both secular and Judaic, differ significantly and are as important to a school’s success as the underlying material being taught. Thank you Nanette for this thoughtful analysis.

  2. Hi Laura,

    Thanks for your comments. I agree that styles of learning, both secular and Judaic, differ and can be as important to the school’s success as the underlying materials. Good point.

    For Judaic studies, there is so much variation across schools based on their missions, affiliation/denomination and markets, it is hard to create a standard set of criteria. In my experience, generally, there is more consensus on the specific criteria for secular programs; although it is true that there is variation by market as well.

    Best,
    Nanette

  3. Fortunately, there are data that can inform a discussion of the factors that contribute to the sustainability of Jewish day schools.

    ISM (Independent School Management, the premier management consulting firm for independent schools) has developed a list of Stability Markers, which they define as variables that are most strongly associated with a school’s ability to sustain excellence in its student programs over the long haul. This list of 18 factors is revised once every few years, based on the data gathered by their team of consultants.

    Measuring Success (both with PEJE’s support and since then) has also done considerable work on identifying factors that influence sustainability, which they have defined as enrollment stability and enrollment growth.

    These would be my two starting points for developing a definitive list of factors that promote sustainability in Jewish day schools.

  4. Huh?
    With all due respect. I know this is well-intended thinking.
    But it’s just more talk, more navel gazing, more time spent lost in the strategic wilderness. Another rabbits hole to explore, only to find out that donors don’t make decisions based on the criteria of consultants, who aspire for a perfect world of objective criteria-based, non-emotionally- motivated donors.
    Plus, it’s not like day schools need more work to (not) do. Like they have the capacity to fund consultants like the author to help them.
    If this is even a worthwhile endeavor, there are so many tools already out there.
    The Tsunami is coming (its advance floodwaters have been here for years) because the product has an insufficient market. The consultants know this, right?
    Jewish day schools have NEVER been the choice of 90% (probably more) of non-Orthodox Jews. Then we hit the continuity pandemic and day schools became the flavor of the month. Money was poured into non-Orthodox day schools. National Big Donors got involved, federations, too. Money was used to rescue Schechter (Conservative movement) schools, as the Conservative movement began to lose market share — as if Reform Jews and non-denominational Jews would make up for Conservative enrollment decline.
    But after all was said and done, and much was said and a lot even done (or at least attempted), nothing could change the dynamics of the market place. The non-Orthodox day school product was (and still is) NOT the choice of 90% of non-Orthodox Jews.
    I say this as a day school parent and a former day school, student. I say this with no blame or aspersions cast in any direction.
    In certain communities with a critical mass of Jews, the market place is of sufficient size to run a viable and sustainable day school. Of course fundraising and endowment is involved — few private schools run successfully on tuition and fees alone.
    Other locations, where enrollment is chronically challenged to provide a critical mass of tuition-paying students, need massive annual budget support. It can come from annual fundraising, it can come from a sizable endowment that throws off a large return, it can come from federation. It can even come from, at least partially, from state/federal funding (and I’m not here to get into the church/state and education funding policy issues — but it’s an option!).
    Where tuition doesn’t cover a sufficient percentage of the annual cost of running a school, the nut left over for these outside sources of budget support becomes significant if not overwhelming. This isn’t something that can be fixed by investment criteria (that even if created will be ignored by most donors). It’s a fundamental market place issue.

  6. Mr. Rosen….
    Wow, why all that negativity. Seems like it’s coming from a deep place.

    But please, don’t trash folks (albeit consultants) who care passionately about the subject and who are trying to prime the pump for great ideas.

    The word “Huh?” is not in the dictionary used by “consultants”.

  7. Thank you, Phil, for prioritizing Jewish day schools and giving your children a quality Jewish education.

    To clarify, I’m not a consultant and I’m not flacking for consultants. I am a believer in data as a more reliable guide to action than the loudest or most persistent voice in the room. (I’m also a believer in qualitative data, and so anecdotes and stories are important too, as they provide thickness and color and fill out the picture sketched by data.)

    Some of the findings of these (and other) consultants are readily available at no cost.

  8. Steve, to clarify, I fully agree with you. For me, too, data rules. But for most donors, data is at best an input. Most charitable contributions are made based on emotional factors. I don’t get to say what’s right or wrong, and I’m not sure there is such a thing anyway in this realm.
    Dr. Botwinick, your second comment is out of bounds and shameful. You’ve directed your comments at me, personally, and in doing so shoot the messenger while completely disregarding the obvious main thrust of my comments. I have an opinion that’s different than yours. Yes, I’m questioning the idea raised by the author. Surely good ideas can withstand a challenge. Ms. Fridman is no novice in these pages and is certainly capable of standing up for herself.
    I certainly did not question the good intentions of the author, though you question mine with an aspersion about my mental health? Some personal agenda? What exactly are you suggesting with “coming from a deep place”? What does that have to do with the substance of my comments, other than to delegitimize them with the aspersion you attempt to cast? You don’t know me at all. You have no idea where I’m coming from. And I didn’t trash anyone. I think a person of your impressive professional and educational background is better than that.

  9. Time for everyone to move on. It’s fine to discuss the merits of the article; let’s pass on other commentary.

  10. Thank you, Mr. Rosen. I was only responding to what I read

    My sincere apology for any unintended personal hurt or critisim…. it was not my intent, but rather to challenge the somewhat negative tone, tenor and substance of your post. I do now appreciate your intent and perspective.
    Again, my apology.
    The rest is commentary……
    Have an amazing Shabbat ?