Mobilizing Resources for a National Jewish Day School Movement: the Challenges, the Players

Mobilizing Resources for a National Jewish Day School Movement: The Challenges, The Players, and a Strategy for Success

Presented to Dr. Richard Parker for his seminar on Religion, Politics, and Public Policy, The John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Alan Leifer May 19, 2000.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 2

Introduction 3

A History of the Jewish School Movement 4

The Organization of American Jewish Life – The Synagogue and Religious School 6

The Organization of American Jewish Life – The Federation 8

The Role of the “Defense” Agencies of Jewish Life 9

The Rise of Independent Actors and the Splintering of Jewish Resources 12

The 1990’s – Demographic Change, Evidence and Analysis, 14

The Question of Proof 17

Transforming Communal Organizations – The Boston Experience 18

Day School Finances 21

A Changing Orthodoxy 22

A Plan for Action 24

Appendix 1 – A List of Available Support from State Governments 27

Appendix 2- The American Jewish Day School-A Brief Retrospective 28

List of Sources 31

Introduction

Intensive, formal Jewish education, long a back burner issue for the organized American Jewish community, took center stage in the 1990’s. Little progress has been made since the “continuity crisis" erupted in 1992: the issues raised are complex and threaten the status quo of organized Jewish life in America. American Jews today maintain an educational system that costs $1.5 billion annually for 3000 schools staffed by 50,000 teachers; this network is primarily organized and financed by the congregational and denominational structures of Jewish life. By and large, the 2000 congregational schools that serve 80% of the Jewish children receiving religious instruction are underresourced and are perceived as bastions of mediocrity [Wertheimer 1999 – AJYB]. The trends of disaffiliation and “dropping-out” of Judaism among 25-45 year olds who went through the system has led many demographers to predict the shrinking of the population of American Jews by 50% and the demise of Conservative and Reform Judaism within three generations [Goldberg 1992].

The strikingly different affiliation patterns of graduates of Jewish day schools has led to a call for a dramatically larger national day school movement [Schiff]. A call has come out to the North American Jewish federation network – the 189 member United Jewish Communities – to reorder its priorities to address these issues. This paper examines the role that the planners and funders of American Jewish life have played in this drama, the resources they bring to address the issues and the constraints they face in providing solutions to this continuity crisis. I examine case studies from the Boston Jewish community to obtain insight into this process. I outline a strategy to develop a network of independent policy entrepreneurs, funded by Jewish family foundations acting outside the framework of the organized Jewish community, to mobilize the community support necessary to achieve the mission of growing the number of non-Orthodox children in Jewish Day schools from 10% to 50% of all such children in the next 20 years.

A History of the Jewish School Movement

The Jewish school movement took its present shape after World War II. Before the war only a small minority of the community’s children got formal Jewish education. In 1937 there were 200,000 pupils enrolled in the schools with over 90% in the once a week Sunday school or three time a week afternoon school offered by their synagogue (most of the rest were in a day school). By 1962 the number of students peaked at 589,000 with nearly 100% of eligible students being served. The triumph of the congregational school as the model for delivering this service was aided by the widespread adoption of what historian Jonathan Sarna calls the “Protestant model” of education. This model “held that morality, universal values, patriotism, civics and critical skills all should be taught in state funded public schools to a mixed body of religiously diverse students, leaving only the fine points of religious doctrine and practice to be mastered by members of each faith in separate denominationally sponsored supplementary schools [Wertheimer 1999 –AJYB].”

Orthodox Jews, which the 1990 National Jewish Population Study measures at 6% of the American Jewish population (other estimates range up to 10%), rejected this model. They adopted the “Catholic model” and built a separate day school movement that allows for the observance of Jewish holidays, the provision of kosher food and daily prayer as well as a more intensive study of Jewish thought, texts, and history. Through the 1970’s in most Jewish communities an Orthodox sponsored day school was the only full-time option available to the community. Day school attendance rose from 20,000 in the early 1940’s to nearly 200,000 today in nearly 800 schools, the vast majority of which are still Orthodox sponsored [Goldberg 2000].

The great suburbanization of the liberal Jewish populations of the 1950’s and 1960’s led to a massive wave of synagogue building. The middle class, largely secular Jews that led this wave were looking for synagogues that would get their children through the bar and bat mitzvah rite of passage (at generally age 13). Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, a leading Conservative rabbi of the time observed that the synagogue in America had become, “to a large degree, a parent–teacher association of the religious school [Wertheimer 1999 – AJYB].”

The religious school became the lifeblood of the liberal synagogue. It became the source of membership and the primary tool for driving the collection of dues and fees to support the institution. It also was highly vulnerable to the wishes of the parent body for shorter hours and social promotion. The religious school followed the classic low stakes educational model – lack of uniform teacher certification, no high stakes tests, high use of part time teachers, and low parental involvement in the child’s education. Even though the Solomon Schechter Day School movement was founded in 1964 as an affiliate of Conservative Judaism, it got scant support from the community. It defied the prevailing view of the “Protestant model” among Conservative Jews and its mission clashed with the child-centered institution the Conservative and Reform suburban synagogue had become.

The overwhelming denominational character of the system served to sever the needs of Jewish education from the communal and national institutions of organized Jewish life. American Jewish life was for the most part organized around the concept that the institutions that promoted Judaism – synagogues, schools, seminaries – were independently operated and financed by their members, while the institutions that promoted Jewish peoplehood and Jewish rights – the integration of the immigrant, the fight against anti-Semitism, the separation of church and state, the care of the elderly, and the establishment of the State of Israel – would be funded and planned collectively in the name of the Jewish community. Within American Judaism – almost unique in world Jewry – the growth of Conservative and Reform Judaism led to deep theological rifts among Jews that could not be papered over in joint action. Over the last thirty years a wide gulf between Orthodox, Conservative and Reform denominations developed on issues such as the literalness of Bible interpretation, the role of women in religious leadership, the question of “Who is a Jew?” and patrilineal descent, and the welcoming of Jewish homosexuals into the clergy and the community. These rifts reinforced the need for the schools to reflect their member’s views and for the consensus-bound community organizations of Jewish philanthropies to stay out of the fray. As late as 1994, federations were providing less than 15% of day school budgets nationwide, much of which is intended to enable poor students and recent immigrants to attend the schools on scholarship [Schick].

The Organization of American Jewish Life – The Synagogue and Religious School

Gerald Gamm in his landmark study, “Urban Exodus – Why the Jews Left Boston and the Catholics Stayed” quotes Daniel Elazar saying, “The American synagogue is a clear manifestation of the American free enterprise system. Any group that wishes to do so could create a synagogue entirely on its own initiative, neither seeking the assistance nor requesting the approval of any other body [pp. 146 -147]. By the 1930’s forty synagogues stood in Roxbury and Dorchester in the area of four Catholic parishes. Because the synagogue does not enjoy a territorial monopoly, each synagogue attempts to distinguish itself from other institutions to attract membership and financial support.

Gamm quotes Israel Goldstein, one of the nation’s leading Conservative Rabbis in 1929 saying, “Some of the worst real estate speculations have been in connection with the erection of synagogues. Even conservative businessmen, who would not venture such risks in their personal businesses, have built synagogue edifices with lavish reckless hand [p.152].” Mishkan Tefilah, the landmark Conservative synagogue of Boston, dedicated its new building in 1925 at a cost of $1,100,000. Members of the congregation donated $200,000; the rest was loans from financial institutions. By 1931 the temple had defaulted on its loans and most of its board members had moved to the suburbs [p. 150]. In all aspects of institutional authority the membership and its Board of Directors control their own religious community – the creation and dissolution of the institution, the control of funds and property, the determination of policy and doctrine, and the selection and dismissal of clergy. The rabbi’s effectiveness rests on his influence, not his authority, and in most congregations he needs to negotiate a new employment contract every 3 to 5 years. The curriculum, hours, and intensity of religious school education (as well as the congregation’s relationship with the local day school) are up to the membership. Only a highly secure rabbi is free to attempt to lobby for higher dues or tuition levels to improve the professionalism and rigor of his religious school staff or to foster attendance at the local day school for his congregation.

The Organization of American Jewish Life – The Federation

The Jewish federation movement, started by Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston (CJP) 105 years ago, is the North American Jewish community’s central organization for fundraising, community planning, and allocating funds to Jewish and secular causes worldwide. When it first began in the 1890’s, it was the community’s response to the great 40-year wave of Jewish refugees that was coming from Eastern Europe, the primary home of Jewish life in the Diaspora for a thousand years. Most Jewish families have a parent or grandparent that fled Europe in that wave. Almost all Jewish families have a relative that had to struggle out of poverty in the midst of anti-Semitism to build a new life in a new land. CJP’s role in this history is described in the 1998 report of its Strategic Planning Committee:

For a century … CJP served the community by providing a common vision, a sense of unity, the strength to confront real emergencies and, most importantly, by mobilizing the talents and resources of the community to facilitate the development of new services to meet the changing needs and aspirations of the Jewish people.

For the first half of that century, CJP focused on the all-consuming task of meeting the basic needs of our people and helping first and second generation immigrants successfully integrate into American society. During the second half, while committing to meet basic local needs, CJP directed its energies to the critical mission of rescuing Jews throughout the world and the miraculous adventure of establishing the State of Israel.

Historically, CJP limited its role to nondenominational activities. Poverty relief, elder care, job training, family counseling, and refugee resettlement were the largest parts of the mission.

CJP is the Boston affiliate of the United Jewish Communities of North America (UJC). UJC is an umbrella organization of the 189 local Jewish federations on the continent. CJP is part of the “Big Six”, the six governing members of the movement. UJC is the 5th largest philanthropy in North America, receiving $800 million in donations annually. The organization has been phenomenally successful at its historic mission. As a fundraising organization, UJC raises over 5 times as much per capita as other federated philanthropies (those that raise funds that are later disbursed to a wide range of organizations) such as United Way.

The Role of the “Defense” Agencies of Jewish Life

The ratification of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in 1791 marked the beginning of an organized campaign for Jewish rights. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause only applied at the time to the federal government; the states continued to do as they wished. Sarna and Dalin relate the story of Jonas Phillips, a German Jewish immigrant to Pennsylvania, appealing to the members of the Constitutional Convention in colonial Philadelphia to abolish Pennsylvania’s oath of allegiance to Christ as a requirement of holding public office. His petition stated, “The Israelites will think themselves happy to live under a government where all Religious societies are on an Equal footing [p. 1].” For the next two centuries American Jewish leaders have debated what equal footing means and how best to obtain it.

When it came to seeking rights for religious equality at the state level, Jews were able to successfully couch their demands in patriotic terms. They built coalitions with other minority faith groups and successfully appealed to the principles shared by Americans of all faiths. In the first 75 years of the nation Jews fought and secured the right to hold state office, to offer invocations at state legislatures and to win limited exemptions from Sunday “blue” laws. The Jewish population had risen from 15,000 to 150,000 by 1850 primarily from German Jewish immigration. Along with the German immigrants came the movement for “Reforming” Judaism and a new denomination was born.