This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 10 December 2014, At: 08:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Jewish EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujje20

The Jewish Day School and theJewish CommunityAlvin I. SchiffPublished online: 23 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Alvin I. Schiff (1962) The Jewish Day School and the Jewish Community,Journal of Jewish Education, 33:1, 29-41, DOI: 10.1080/0021642620330104

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0021642620330104

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ALVIN I. SCHIFF

The Jewish Day School and theJewish Community

J EWISH DAY SCHOOL education,until now the vital concern of a smallsegment of the Jewish community, hasbecome a public Jewish issue evoking in-terest from all groups in Jewish life. Thebroad communal interest in the financingof this type of institution is evidenced bythe session devoted to the day school atthe Annual Convention of the Council ofJewish Federations and Welfare Fundslast November in Dallas. Catalytic to thesudden concern for the financial statusof the day schools is the issue of Federalaid to education. President Kennedy'snumerous pronouncements on Federalaid, and the emergence of a strong posi-tive stand by day school adherents (whichran counter to the position taken by themajority of organized Jewish groups inthe country on the question of Federalaid to private schools) focused greatattention on the relationship of the Jew-ish community towards the day schools.

DR. SCHIFF is a consultant on the staff ofthe Jewish Education Committee of New YorkCity. This paper was read before the AnnualConference of the NCJE, held in AtlanticCity on May 31, 1962.

Formal recognition by the NationalCouncil for Jewish Education of thegrowth and significance of the Jewishday school is contained in the NCJEResolution for Community Support forDay School Education adopted by lastyear's convention and formulated by theExecutive Board (1). Although late incoming, in light of the continuous growthof this movement in the 1940's and1950's, and the contribution of the dayschool to the cause of intensive Jewisheducation, the resolution is, nevertheless,timely. This paper is, in a sense, an ela-boration, documentation and projectionof the NCJE resolution.

THE GROWTH OF THE DAY SCHOOLS

The rapid three-dimensional growth ofthe day school movement is indeed re-markable. During the past two decadesthere have been continuous increases (1)in the number of day schools (there arenow 271 day schools in this country,and 19 day schools in Canada), (2) inthe number of pupils (the school enroll-ment is approximately 50,000), and (3)in the number of communities where dayschools are found. There are 102 suchcommunities spread over 29 states and

[29]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

30 JEWISH EDUCATION

the District of Columbia, and 6 com-munities in Canada. The recency andrapidity of the growth of this movementare underscored by the fact that over 90percent of the existing day schools wereestablished after 1940.

Accompanying this development therehas been the steady growth in the size ofthe individual Jewish day schools duringthe last decade and a half. Although manynew schools were organized during thelast 15 years, greater strides were madeduring this period towards enlarging theenrollments of existing schools than inthe direction of founding new schools.Between 1940 and 1948, for example,there was a 251 percent increase in thenumber of schools as compared to a 152percent increase in enrollment, while theyears between 1948 and 1960 showed a100 percent increase in the number ofschools as compared to an increase of126 percent in enrollment. In 1948 theaverage school enrollment was 150, andin 1960 it grew to 190 pupils.

Parenthetically, it might be stated thatthe decline in the percentage of smallschools is a good sign for the day schoolmovement. Larger schools are necessaryfor stabilization and are a better guaran-tee of permanence. The size of a schoolis one of the most fundamental determi-nants (if not the most important one)of the per pupil cost of its operation.Moreover, a sizeable enrollment is basicfor adequate programming.

Reasons for GrowthThere are many reasons for the rapid

spread of Jewish day schools in America.The initial spurt in the growth of the

day school movement during the 1940'swas the result of the vision and selflessefforts of a few Jewish leaders dedicatedto the ideals of intensive Jewish educa-tion as a means of insuring the continuityof Jewish traditional life in America.

Dissatisfaction with the accomplish-ment of supplementary Jewish education,in the wake of the disappearance of the

communal Talmud Torah, and the sub-sequent lowering of educational stand-ards, accelerated the founding of newday schools.

The Nazi holocaust and the establish-ment of the State of Israel motivatedgreater interest in intensive Jewish edu-caion.

The relatively large influx of Jewishimmigrants immediately following WorldWar II resulted in the founding of sev-eral yeshivoth, particularly in New YorkCity.

Juvenile delinquency, crowded condi-tions, double sessions, and the deteriora-tion of the public school in some of thelarger urban neighborhoods, as well asthe change of the ethnic composition ofthe pupil enrollment in some publicschools, have led many parents to sendtheir children to Jewish day schools.

Many parents, who, for various rea-sons, initially intended to send their chil-dren to the day school kindergarten only,or to kindergarten and Grade 1 only,continue them in the day school becauseof their satisfaction with their children'sadjustment and progress.

Some non-day school minded parentssend their children to a Jewish day schoolbecause they want a Jewish educationfor their offspring, and are not inclinedto have their youngsters attend a sup-plementary afternoon Hebrew schoolafter a rather long day in the publicschool. Working mothers often prefer tosend their children to a day school be-cause of longer hours of instruction andthe lunch and snack programs offered inthese schools.

Among the other reasons why parentschoose the Jewish day school are prefer-ence for small classes and individualattention to pupils, and, in a few in-stances, the prestige value of a privateschool. Concern about the dualism cre-ated by attendance at two schools, mal-adjustment of some children attendingpublic school, compensation for parents'

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

DAY SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 31

lack of Jewish training and knowledge,and the location of the day school affectthe choice of some parents.

While many grass roots stimuli havecontributed to the rapid growth of theday school, national educational organi-zations have helped channel these in-terests.

Torah Umesorah and the NationalCouncil for Torah Education have playedan important role in establishing newschools and in promoting greater enroll-ment. Similarly, the efforts of the UnitedLubavitcher Yeshivoth, and the Inter-Yeshiva Student Council have stimulatedday school growth. The Labor-Zionistmovement is responsible for the foundingof a number of day schools, particularlyin Canada. Since 1957 the United Syna-gogue Commission on Jewish Educationhas been encouraging the establishment ofday schools in various communities. In thegreater New York area the Jewish Edu-cation Committee, through its variousservices, has facilitated the spread andexpansion of day schools.

Finally, one must not discount theinfluence of local rabbis and educators,and the forthright public support of Jew-ish lay leaders, on the birth and develop-ment of this educational movement.

THE JEWISH DAY SCHOOLIN THE AMERICAN SETTING

The Jewish day school enjoys the roleof a private educational institution in thepluralistic American setting. This settinghas made possible the rapid developmentof the day school movement. From earlytimes the non-public or independentschool has played an important role inAmerican education. Today, the privateschools are still important not only to thepeople who believe in them but to the na-tion as a whole. Where they are, theyassure diversity and initiative. Moreover,they are a vigorous complement to thepublic schools. The importance of theprivate school to the American way of

life has been clearly stated by a formerpresident of Princeton University, whoemphasized: "When it is no longer pos-sible for a man to find a school for hisboy except within a universal state sys-tem, it will be too late to worry aboutfreedom(2).

Many federal and state provisions de-monstrate the favorable attitude thatexists in this country towards the non-public school. A recent bulletin of theUnited States Office of Education statesthe government attitude towards the non-public school quite clearly: "In providingfor their government the people [of theUnited States] have recognized by con-stitutional provisions that there are cer-tain private ventures that should be en-couraged. Non-public schools have longbeen recognized as one such venture, es-pecially when these schools are not con-ducted for profit"(3). This is adequatelyunderscored by the education laws inevery state which recognize the legiti-macy of such schooling, and make pro-visions for its supervision. Higher schoolsof learning — both public and private —accredit the education in these privateand denominational schools. Finally, theFederal Government and many Statesauthorize tax exemptions for non-public,non-profit educational purposes.

Jewish day schools, established andconducted by autonomous, self-governinglay boards, were not founded in opposi-tion to public education. As Dr. Nardiput it some 20 years ago, "Jews organizeAll-Day Schools not because they denythe right of the State to educate theirchildren, but rather because they findthe public school insufficient for the edu-cational needs of their children"(6). TheJewish day schools do not alter or modi-fy the basic general studies curricula inuse in public education. The same syllabi,textbooks and educational realia used inthe public schools are employed in thegeneral studies departments of the dayschools.

Day school education implies speciali-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

32 JEWISH EDUCATION

zation. The day school helps to meetbasic educational needs in much the sameway as the exclusive private school, thelanguage school and the music and artschool play specific roles in the Americancommunity. "Withdrawal from the un-differentiated mass life for special reli-gious or educational purposes," wroteLudwig Lewisohn on this subject, "isthe very mark and sign, the symbol andbanner of a free society, and a free so-ciety's blessings"(7). Like other publicand non-public specialized schools, theJewish day school, to use Ludwig Lewis-ohn's apt term, "withdraws" pupils for6 or 7 hours during 180 days of the year.

The American setting seeks for eachminority group to maintain its own inte-grity and identity, and contribute fromits creative togetherness to the mainstreamof American life. The day school is oneof the avenues through which the Jewishcommunity maintains its integrity andencourages its own singular creativity.

THE EFFECT OF THE DAY SCHOOLUPON THE JEWISH COMMUNITY

Heterogeneity is a feature of the dayschool movement. There are a variety ofcurricular emphases in the instructionalprogram of the schools as well as differ-ences in levels of achievement. Whilesome exceptions may occur, the follow-ing observations about the effect of theday school upon the Jewish communitycan be made.

The Effect of the Day School upon theTeaching Profession

The influence of the Jewish day schoolhas been felt, in varying degrees, onvarious levels of the American Jewishcommunity. To begin with, the day schoolhas exerted a salutary effect upon theJewish teaching force. To borrow thewords of one educator, "the Jewish all-day school has already [in 1950] donemuch to foster a spirit of confidenceamong teachers and parents in the op-

portunities for more intensive Jewishstudies than has been believed possiblehitherto"(8). The day school movementrestored the hopes of the "old," dedicatedTalmud Torah teachers (who were grow-ing increasingly despondent over the fu-tility of their efforts in supplementaryJewish schools) in the future of Jewisheducation in this country. Often we hearthem, and other Hebrew teachers, speakof the sippuk nefesh their day schoolteaching affords them.

At the same time, the day school pro-vided these teachers and many new-comers to the Jewish teaching professionwith an additional source of income, aneed aggravated by the degeneration ofHebrew school teaching into a part-timeprofession. In 1958, 23.4 percent of theestimated 7,000 teachers in the weekdayafternoon Hebrew schools were also em-ployed in Jewish day schools; and, con-versely, about two-thirds of the Hebrewteachers in the day schools worked alsoin supplementary schools(9). The com-bination of two teaching positions attractssome new teachers to Jewish educationwho otherwise may not have consideredthe Jewish teaching profession.

Parenthetically, it must be stated thatthis development of dual-employmentdoes not necessarily imply the desirabilityof two part-time positions. However, un-til drastic steps are taken by the Jewishcommunity to raise he economic statusof the Hebrew teacher, the possibilitiesfor combining two part-time teaching jobsto earn one livelihood must be regardedfavorably.

The Effect of the Day School on JewishEducation

The Jewish day school has had afavorable effect on other forms of Jewisheducation in the United States. In hisreport A Mid-Century of Jewish Educa-tion, Dr. Blumenfield observes that theday school has "exerted a salutary in-fluence upon supplementary Jewish edu-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

DAY SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 33

cation in the congregational Hebrew andSunday school for it stemmed the tideof minimum instruction which threatenedto undermine and dissolve the Jewishschool altogether"(10). It is due, in goodmeasure, to the growth of the Jewish dayschool that the National Study was ableto note, "There seems to be a ratherconstant general trend toward more in-tensive Jewish education for an increas-ing number of children"(ll).

Continuation is a major Jewish educa-tional concern. The National Study ob-serves that the problem "is no longerthat of getting our children to Jewishschools, but rather of having them stayin the school long enough to make thateducation valuable" (12). In this area,too, the Jewish day school has been ef-fective. Normally, in a day school, allpupils continue for 6, 8 or 9 years, untilgraduation. Some elementary day schoolseven demonstrate 100 percent continua-tion to Jewish day high schools. This,indeed, sets an example in the greaterAmerican Jewish community which isseeking to achieve similar results for theweekday afternoon Hebrew schools,where, according to the National Study,the majority of pupils receive 3 years ofinstruction, or less, and where, more than15 percent of the pupil enrollment is'found in the first three grades (13).

The high school units of the Jewishday school, where one would expect asmaller percentage of the school enroll-ment, because of the relative newnessof the movement, comprised, in 1957,about 13 percent of the total day schoolpupil population as compared to 2.5 per-cent of the total supplementary schoolenrollment in the afternoon highschool(14). The growing emphasis oncontinuation through high school is re-flected in the marked increase in thenumber of Jewish day high schools dur-ing the past decade. While there was a91 percent increase in the number ofelementary day schools from 1948 (105

schools) to 1961 (201 schools), thejunior and senior high schools showed anincrease of 283 percent during thisperiod — from 18 junior and seniorhigh schools in 1948 to 69 junior andsenior high schools in 1961.*

The day schools also set a formidableexample at the other end of the educa-tional ladder. Children are initiated intothe day school between ages 4-6 in pre-school classes and first grade. The Na-tional Study estimates that 12.6 percentof the day school population is betweenthe ages of 4-7(16).

Achievement in Jewish StudiesThe quality of education spells out

the most vital feature of the day schools.It is because of its educational potentialthat the NCJE Resolution notes "theunique promise it holds for training andproviding an intellectual-spiritual leader-ship for the American Jewish Communi-ty" (17). The consistency of the superiorachievement of day school pupils shownrecently by the Qualitative Survey of Jew-ish Education in New York is, indeed, notsurprising. Accomplishment in Jewishstudies cannot be gained without ade-quate time for formal instruction. TheNational Study notes "a striking differ-ence in the time allotment." The dayschools "devote from an average of iV/shours in the first grade to an average of20 hours weekly in the top grade to Jew-ish studies . . ." (18). The time allottedby supplementary Jewish schools variesbetween 2 and iy2 hours weekly, thelatter figure representing the total hoursin the communal afternoon school, whichcaters to but 10 percent of the afternoon

* It should be noted here that in manycommunities, a marked increase in afternoonhigh school enrollment is already discernable,particularly in New York, where concentratedefforts by the Jewish Education Committeehave brought the percentage of the high schoolpupil population over the 10 percent mark ofthe total afternoon Hebrew school enroll-ment(15).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

34 JEWISH EDUCATION

Hebrew school population(19). More-over, as the report points out, "there arenumerous opportunities also for usingJewish themes and experiences in theGeneral Studies Department" of the dayschool(20).

"Indeed," observes Isaac Toubin inhis survey of Welfare Funds executivesopinion, to which we will refer later, "thenumber of student hours in Jewish educa-tion in the day schools for 50,000 [pupils]equals the number of student hoursavailable in [all] other schools com-b ined"^ )t

Regarding the results of the New Yorksurvey(22) in Hebrew language, JewishHistory and Current Events, and Holidaysand Observances, the National Study ob-serves that not only is the achievementin the day schools "very much higherthan in the afternoon schools (the aver-age nine-year-old in the day school doesmuch better than the average thirteen-year-old in the afternoon schools) butalso that the achievement progresses moreregularly"(23).

To achieve a more accurate picture ofthe qualitative variance between the dayschool and the supplementary school, onemust note, also, the areas in which com-parisons were not made. These are: Bible(Pentateuch, Prophets and Writings inthe original unabridged text, with Rashiand other commentaries). Talmud (Mish-nah and Gemara), Shulhan Arukh (asdistinguished from Holidays and Observ-ances), Prayer reading and Prayer com-prehension. Add up the differences inachievement in all these areas of studyand the true qualitative superiority of theday school will be established.*

* At this point I would like to observe thatthe comparisons which are made here are notintended as criticisms of supplementary Jew-ish education. It is quite apparent that theadditional time spent in learning will yieldgreater achievement. The comparisons aremade rather to underscore the full potential ofan intensive all-day Jewish educational system.

Attitude of Day School PupilsAttitude towards study and towards

school is crucial to the success of educa-tion. In this area, too, day schools demon-strate their effectiveness. This is borneout by the reesults of a poll of formerNew York City Jewish school pupilsconcerning their attitudes towards theirrespective Alma Maters. The poll, con-ducted by the New York survey, showsthat of all types of schools studied "theAll-Day School was the most ac-cep t ed"^ ) . The day school exponentsrated highest in two other significantareas: (a) in the importance they at-tached to Jewish education, and (b) intheir favorable attitude to their Jewishstudies as compared to their attitude totheir general education(25). Many rea-sons for which children in other typesof Jewish schools leave their respectiveinstitutions before graduation are eithernon-existent or occur infrequently in theJewish day schools. For example, causessuch as "lost interest," "Bar Mitzvah"and "friends stopped" are much rarerin the day schools than in other Jewishschools (26). In this light it is interestingto note the sentiment of the authors of theNational Study (which incorporates someof the data of the New York survey) thatthis positive attitude "is connected morewith intensity of school and the ensuringsense of achievement than with any otherfactor"(27).

Impact on the HomeOne of the significant features of the

Jewish day school is the impact it hashad on the Jewish home. It has helped,in reality, to restore Jewish values andcustoms to many homes devoid of Jewishlife.

Story upon story can be told of theinfluence that the day school has had,via the children, on the Jewish conscious-ness of parents. Very often one sees dayschool parents without a Jewish back-ground take great pride in their children'sJudeo-Hebraic accomplishments. Fre-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

DAY SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 35

quently these parents become interestedin Jewish life, in the Hebrew language,in Bible, in Israel and in Jewish history,and begin serious study themselves.

It has been charged that the day schoolprovokes a religious conflict in the home.Perhaps it is true for some homes in thesame way that it may be that the dynamicsynagogue provokes religious conflicts inmany homes. Many of the great leadersand teachers of Judaism from the dawnof our history stirred the soul of the peo-ple. Moses provoked conflict, Isaiah pro-voked conflict, as do many of our rabbis,leaders and teachers today.

The communal Talmud Torah, of old,and the congregational school of today,very often have found themselves at vari-ance with their general environment. Likethe synagogue, ideologies notwithstand-ing, they always have refused, and, tothis day refuse, to make peace with thelower level of Jewish knowledge and ob-servance found in the home, in the street,and in the market place. It has alwaysbeen their objective to set educationalgoals on a high level and they continuallyhave sought to raise the various segmentsof the communiy to that level.

The afternoon school refused to mirrorwhat it found, but rather sought to changeand to intensify the level of Jewish learn-ing and commitment. The Jewish dayschool has followed this pattern, and hasmerely added depth and intensity to it.

Whatever the degree and extent of con-flict engendered by Jewish education, thehome-school relationships are generallyfavorable. The day school, particularly,enjoys the results of good home-schoolrapport.

THE FINANCIAL PROBLEM

The Jewish day school is a matter ofJewish communal concern because of itsgrowth and impact upon the community,and the heated interest generated by thequestion of Federal aid to education.Underlying this interest and deepeningthe concern are the growing financial

needs of the Jewish day school whichare, essentially, two-fold: the capital ex-penditures and the operational budgetThe sharp increase in need for capitaloutlay is due to (1) escalating enroll-ments and continuation on a secondarylevel which require additional facilities,and (2) to rising construction costs. Theincrease in operational budgets derivesfrom the growing enrollments and therise in per-pupil instructional costs.

Though individual parents and mem-bers have contributed generously to thegrowth of the day school, their supporthas been insufficient to meet the growingcommunal appetite for this form of edu-cation. The parents have absorbed muchof the rise of the operational budgetthrough increased tuition payments.Friends of the day school movementcontributed even more. Nevertheless, thegap between the cost of education andincome is far from being closed.

Despite increases in the collection oftuition fees, only a small percentage ofparents pay full tuition, which rangesfrom $200 to $1,000 per annum. Par-tial, one-half, three-quarter, and fullscholarships are granted by almost everyschool to needy pupils. Income from par-ents usually covers from 30 to 60 per-cent of the annual budget. In 1959 theaverage amount of the budget coveredby tuition in day schools was 42 per-cent(28).

The deficits of almost all day schoolsare growing despite vigorous local effortsto meet their yearly budgets. The annualaggregate budget of day schools is ap-proximately $25,000,000. Of this amountover $13,000,000 must be covered year-ly by deficit financing.

The by-products of the financial pre-dicament of day schools are very oftensevere. The lack of automatic, graduatedincrements extending over a substantialnumber of years, and reaching maximumssizeably larger than the initial salaries,contributes greatly to the unattractivenessof teaching positions in the day school.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

36 JEWISH EDUCATION

The problem of teacher shortage is re-lated not so much to securing personnelas it is to the inability of retaining teach-ers. Many young people look upon teach-ing as a stepping stone to other profes-sions. Also affecting teacher recruitmentin the day schools is the lack of consistentpractices regarding teacher welfare andsecurity. Although the instructional staffsof day schools may demonstrate greaterstability than the staffs of other types ofJewish schools, turnover is a matter forgrave concern. Attracting qualified peopleto supervisory posts is also a problemcreated, in large measure, by the school'sinability to pay adequate salaries.

Probably the most crucial problemcreated by the lack of funds is that ofadequate space and proper facilities. Ina report issued in 1955 by the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers, it was esti-mated that the day schools in New YorkCity alone needed $12,500,000 for re-pairs, remodelling land jnew construc-tion (29). This figure is probably closeto $20,000,000 today.

The seriousness of the shortage ofschool space is most acute on the highschool level. In New York City alone,the 9 major Jewish day high schools havealready turned away 2 out of 4 pupilsseeking admission to these schools forthe coming academic year (1962-63).More than half of the students desiringto continue their education on the highschool level must be denied that privilege.

It is not difficult to realize, what withinsufficient support coming from the Jew-ish community via the Welfare Funds,and what with the mounting deficits, thatmany day school leaders favor Federalaid to private educational institutions.This strong sentiment for Federal aid,growing as it does out of basic need, canonly be stemmed by adequate budgetaryassistance from the Jewish community.The burden of financing day schools,clearly beyond the capacity of the indi-vidual school to bear, can be solved only

by increased support from central com-munal agencies.

COMMUNAL RESPONSIBILITY FORJEWISH EDUCATION

In light of the educational and financialposition of the Jewish day school today,the historic responsibility of the Jewishcommunity for Jewish education faces atest of great moment during this comingyear.

At the outset, when the Federation ofJewish Philanthropies of New York wasorganized, its initial program excludedreligious educational activities. But, real-izing the place of Jewish education inthe fabric of Jewish life and understandngits consonance with the aims of goodAmerican citizenship, Federation madeits historic decision in 1917 in favor ofassuming responsibility for Jewish educa-tional activity. Since that time, consider-able progress has been made in the direc-tion of financial support for Jewish edu-cation by the Welfare Funds, as evidencedby the establishment and continued main-tenance of communally sponsored Bur-eaus of Jewish Education.

The National Study shows that between1937 and 1957 allocations for "All LocalNeeds" increased some 300 percent, whilethe increase in allocation for Jewish edu-cation during this same period, in thesame communities, was almost 600 per-cent. In 1937, about ten million dollars,($9,711,139) was budgeted for "AllLocal Needs" and only a half-million($528,831) to Jewish education. In 1957,on the other hand, almost four million dol-lars ($3,902,299) was allocated to Jew-ish education out of a total budget ofthirty-eight million dollars(30).

Washing out the increases caused byinflation, by the rise in the cost of livingindex and the decreased value of the dol-lar between 1936 and 1957, allocationsfor "All Local Needs" approximatelydoubled while the allocations for Jewisheducation actually tripled. The percentage

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

DAY SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 37

of the total budget allocated for Jewisheducation increased significantly from5.45 percent in 1937 to 10.15 percent in1957.

The step-by-step story of gradual in-clusion of Jewish education into the fam-ily of community welfare funds, and allthe attendant pressures, difficulties andnumerous disappointments are well-known to us. And we are well aware thatthe battle for proper recognition forJewish education by communal agenciesis, as yet, far from won. Jewish educa-tional enterprises are still the step-chil-dren of many communal fund-raising ef-forts(31).

Side by side with the problem of pro-per recognition of the role and impor-tance of Jewish education in AmericanJewish life is the acknowledgment of theplace of the Jewish day school in theframework of Jewish educational activity.

Getting adequate support for intensiveJewish education today is not unlike theinitial struggle for achieving financialsupport of Jewish education in 1917 andin the 1920's. And, in many ways itparallels our efforts today in getting wel-fare fund support for other Jewish edu-cational activities, including allocationsfor the supplementary Jewish school.

Federation and the Jewish Day SchoolToday

That there has been growing recogni-tion among Federation and Welfare Fundleadership, both lay and professional, ofthe Jewish day school and its claims forbudgetary support, is shown in the 1961AAJE survey of Welfare Fund executiveopinion made by Isaac Toubin. To beginwith, the survey notes that all 34 execu-tives (representing about 1,000,000 peo-ple outside of New York), from whomresponses were received, "supported theposition of the major national communityrelations and synagogal bodies in opposi-tion to Federal aid to parochial educa-t i o n " ^ ) . They are convinced that Fed-

eral aid to religious education is in viola-tion of the traditional American conceptof the separation of church and state. Acorollary of this conviction, it was noted,is that religious education is the responsi-bility of the parent, the home and spon-soring community.

In the light of this conviction whatdo the Welfare Fund executives and boardmembers feel about community responsi-bility for the support of the day school?

This question evoked a variety of re-sponses. Although noting that there isstill considerable opposition to givingfinancial assistance to the day school insome Jewish Welfare Fund quarters, thesurvey of community leader's opiniondemonstrated a "significant and growingshift in favor of Federation support ofthese schools"(33).

According to the Toubin survey, tneWelfare Fund executives, with some mi-nor deviations, "feel strongly that theDay School is a legitimate part of Jewisheducation; that more intensive Jewisheducation is vital; and that the Jewishcommunity, through its central bodies,must adopt a more favorable attitude to-wards the support and improvement ofthe Day School Movement." At the sametime, they recognize that the day schoolmovement will never reach more than afraction of the total number of Jewishchildren eligible for Jewish education.They do not regard this situation to bein conflict with their advocacy of thepublic school as a major instrument ofthe democratic process(34).

Diversity in Communal Responsibility

Some Jewish community leaders, andeducators too, would like to see a com-mon-core-type of Jewish educational in-stitution cutting across ideological lines.Ideological differences, born of a longhistory, cannot be erased by the swishof a pen or by the eloquent talk of acommunal preacher. The communitymust take into account legitimate differ-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

38 JEWISH EDUCATION

ences and encourage the growth of thevarious positive factors in Jewish life.So long as the Jewish community is ideo-logically rooted, there cannot be anyone view of Jewish education which alonewarrants communal support.

When we speak of Jewish communalresponsibility for Jewish education wedo not mean responsibility for one oranother Jewish educational activity. Nei-ther do we mean the support of a com-pletely communally-oriented non-ideolo-gical type of schooling. Such institutionssimply do not exist. Salo Baron makesthis very point. "Although the AmericanJewish community has been growing evermore homegeneous," he said, "it is farfrom — and I hope it will always remainfar from — completely uniform.

"In a democratic way there will al-ways be differences of opinion amongus . . . To prove effective, any com-munally sponsored education must con-tain a fairly strong dose of some sortof indoctrination . . .(35).

"Communally sponsored education,"he notes, "means that every constructiveeffort within the Jewish community mustbe encouraged. Every element within thecommunity should be helped by the com-munity to raise the standards of its ownJewish education program. It is onlythrough a total community effort, Prof.Baron emphasizes, "that the individualinstitutions can hope for continued exis-t e n c e " ^ ) . The Jewish day school de-serves the same recognition and supportfrom the organized Jewish communitythat the latter provides for other types ofschools, and in equal measure.

The Jewish Day School — a CommunalEnterprise

In a sense, the Jewish day school isheir to the communal Talmud Torah ofthe last generation. In the first instance,it is the major Jewish educational insti-tution presently providing intensive Jew-ish education. And, secondly, the dayschool is sponsored under much broader

communal auspices than the congrega-tional school, now the dominant formof Jewish educational institutions.

Day school parents who, by and large,are typical young Americans from avariety of socio-economic levels, run thegamut of American Jewish observance.The leadership and the school boards re-present many phases of the communitywhich they serve.

Dr. Isaac Berkson underscored the sig-nificance of the recent development ofthe day school because of its role as heirto the intensive communal Talmud Torah.He observed that by the very nature ofits organization and sponsorship the dayschool, whatever the ideological orienta-tion of its curriculum, is a communalschool(37).

There are those amongst us who feelthat the democratic setting in this countryplayed the major role in motivating com-munal assumption of financial support forJewish education.

Horace Kallen, for example, notes:"The impact of the American way withthe education of all American youth hasbrought it about that the entire Jewishcommunity to which a parent belongs iscoming more and more to share with himhis responsibility not only for teaching hisson, but his daughter as well." He goeson to make the following point, "Onemeasure of how the democratic ideal re-shapes responsibility for Jewish educationis the amount that Federations and Wel-fare Funds contribute to its costs. Theperfection of standards for housing, per-sonnel, curriculums and methods, andtheir adoption by communities andschools, depend very largely upon thefunds made available to this end. And thesurvival and growth of Jewish communi-ties, as units of our democratic society,depend on adopting and implementingsuch standards"(38).

It would, in effect, be undemocratic notto support Jewish educational endeavorthat strives for higher standards.

An argument advanced against com-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

DAY SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 39

munal support of the day school is thatit caters to less than 10 percent of theJewish school population. This is nota valid point. Shall the public witholdsupport from medical schools becausethey cater to a relatively small segmentof the college population? Should Fed-erations withdraw their funds from camp-ing projects because a relatively smallpercentage of children benefit from theseprograms? Shall the Bureau of JewishEducation not provide training and guid-ance for art and music teachers becausethey form a very small segment of theJewish teaching force? Should the Bureaudeny financial assistance to the afternoonHebrew high schools because their en-rollment comprises a very small propor-tion of the total Jewish pupil population?This argument of numbers and percen-tages is obviously anti-thetical to thepurpose and function of a communitycouncil and a welfare fund.

Communal Responsibility Is a Two-WayRoad

Community responsibility vis-a-vis fi-nancial support of Jewish education im-plies a reciprocal relationship betweenthe supporting organization and the re-ceiving institution.

On the one hand, schools receivingcommunal support have the responsibili-ty to live up to standards of proper schoolorganization, administration and main-tenance.

On the other hand, the community,through the Bureau of Jewish Education,has the responsibility of trying to helpeach school raise its standards withoutinfringement upon the philosophy andcurriculum of the school, and the spiritof its teaching. In these areas, the dayschool, like all other types of schools,must retain its autonomy.

There are certain basic common ele-ments of school function with which theWelfare Fund through the local Bureaushould be concerned. These are: (1)provision of adequate facilities; (2) re-

cruitment and retention of qualified per-sonnel by helping to provide a living wage,an adequate program of increments andfringe benefits; (3) provision of neces-sary texts and materials; (4) assistancefor efficient school operation, and (5)supervision to help meet the specific needsof the school.

In this light, the Bureau must have theproper personnel, professionally and ideo-logically oriented to provide supervisionfor the various schools including the dayschools.

Part of a Bureau's responsibility to itsschools is the disbursement of finan-cial assistance. As yet Welfare Fundshave not developed any commonpattern of budgeting aid to Jew-ish education. It is the responsibility ofthe Bureau to seek out the proper for-mula and to guide in its formulation. Andit is the responsibility of the WelfareFund to delegate such activity to the Bur-eau. There is no justification in by-passingBureaus of Jewish Education (where theyexist) in dealing with educational financ-ing.

The question of the disbursement offinancial assistance to the day school ispart and parcel of this larger problem ofthe channelling of allocations to Jewisheducation. While it is a desideratum thatallotments be made to the day school bythe Welfare Funds through the localBureaus of Jewish Education, this cannotpossibly be achieved as long as the Wel-fare Funds choose to disburse funds di-rectly to other types of schools, as is thecase in a number of communities.

Until this question has been resolvedfor all Jewish schools we cannot expectthe day school to be treated differently.What might be done at this time (in lightof NCJE's stand for Welfare Fund sup-port of day schools) is greater coordi-nated effort on part of the Bureaus —perhaps through the offices of the AAJE— for achieving a basic Bureau-centeredpattern for disbursement of all educationalallocations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

40 JEWISH EDUCATION

IN SUMMATION

The rapid growth of the Jewish dayschool is a most heartening developmentbecause it derives from basic Jewish com-munal needs. Its effect upon the Jewishcommunity has been profound and salu-tary. The impact of the day school hasbeen felt most keenly upon the Jewishteaching profeession, upon intensive Jew-ish education, and upon the Jewish home.

The American Jewish community hasa fundamental responsibility for main-taining and supporting this form of com-munal Jewish education. The escalatingenrollments coupled with rising construc-tion costs and increasing per-pupil in-structional expenditures have increasedthe budgetary needs of the day schoolclearly beyond the capacity of individualschools to bear. Adequate Welfare Fundallocations for day schools must becomea primary concern of the organized Jew-

ish community. Broad financial assistanceto the day school should be a naturaldevelopment resulting from the growingcommunal support for Jewish educationand the increasing recognition of the roleand significance of the Jewish day school.Where Bureaus of Jewish Education existthis aid should be channelled throughthese central agencies in the same wayother schools receive allocations.

The Jewish community has many vitalconcerns. Foremost among these con-cerns, and giving meaning and purposeto the increasing number of Jewish com-munal activities, is the fundamental con-cern for Jewish survival.

Basic to Jewish survival is the effective-ness of programs for intensive Jewisheducation. The day school, in demonstrat-ing its efficacy as an instrument for in-tensive Jewish education, reveals, too,its effectiveness as a creative means forJewish survival.

REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES

1. Isaac Toubin, ed. The Relationship of theJewish Welfare Fund to the Jewish Day School:An Informal Survey and Some Personal Ob-servations. New York: American Associationfor Jewish Education, 1961, p. 21.

2. Resolution on Community Support forDay School Education Adopted by the Execu-tive Board of the National Council for JewishEducation.

The National Council for Jewish Educationnotes with deep satisfaction the significantgrowth of the all-day school and its emeigence as a major form of Jewish educationin numerical strength and wide-spread appealmanifesting, as it does, the increasing commit-ment of a substantial segment of AmericanJewry to Jewish education in a greater degreeof depth than that which the predominant sup-plementary Jewish schools can offer. Recognizing the singular contribution of theall-day school to raising the sights and goalsof Jewish education and meeting this growingneed for more intensive Jewish education, and Considering the unique promise it holds fortraining and providing an intellectual spiritualleadership for the American Jewish communi-ty, and Taking into account the American demo-

cratic milieu which sanctions legally andmorally the fostering and maintenance of sucheducational programs for the prepetuation ofthe distinctive religious-cultural life of its di-verse religious and cultural groups and mindfulof the onerous financial burden borne by thegroups conducting all-day schools,

1) The Conference, therefore, calls uponFederation and Welfare Funds to extend finan-cial support to all-day schools through theauspices of central Bureaus of Jewish Educa-tion in communities where such central agen-cies exist; in others where central agencies donot exist, such support should be extendeddirectly through the Federation or WelfareFund. We further urge that policies for subventing all-day schools as well as other typesof schools be formulated with due regard tothe primary interest of the community at largein maintaining acceptable standards of schoolorganization and practice in Jewish schools aswell as to the legitimate needs and require-ments of the educational programs of suchinstitutions.

2) The Conference calls upon Bureaus ofJewish Education to foster and encourage thegrowth and development of all-day schools intheir respective communities by making avail-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

DAY SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 41

able to the latter such professional guidanceand other financial, technical, moral and edu-cational assistance as are usually offered bythem to other types or systems of Jewish edu-cation.

3. Directory of Hebrew Day Schools in theUS. and Canada 1960-61. (updated 1962).New York: Torah Umesorah.

4. Our Private Elementary and SecondarySchools and their Financial Support. New York:National Association of Manufacturers, n.d.,p. 4.

5. U.S. Office of Education. The State andNon-Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: Gov-ernment Printing Office, 1958, p. 19.

6. Noah Nardi. "A Survey of Jewish DaySchools in America," Jewish Education, 16:1,p. 3.

7. Ludwig Lewisohn. The American Jew,Character on Destiny. New York: Farrar,Strauss and Company, 1950.

8. Samuel Blumenfield. A Mid-Century ofJewish Education: Retrospect and Prospect.New York: American Association for JewishEducation, 1950, p. 8.

9. Alexander M. Dushkin and Uriah Z.Engelman. Jewish Education in the UnitedStates, Vol. 1, New York: American Associa-tion for Jewish Education, 1959, p. 117; seealso: Schiff, Alvin I. A Critical Study of thePolicies and Practices of Administration andSupervision of Teacher Personnel in SelectedJewish Elementary Day Schools. New York:Yeshiva University, 1959.10. Samuel Blumenfield. Op. cit., p. 8.11. Dushkin and Engelman. Op. cit., p. 266.12. Ibid., p. 65.13. Ibid., p. 67.14. Ibid., p. 52.15. Louis L. Ruffman. Jewish Education inNew York 1960-61—A Statistical Report. NewYork: Jewish Education Committee, 1961, pp.10-11. This figure includes 6th grade classesof afternoon schools.16. Dushkin and Engelman. Op. cit., p. 52.17. See footnote 1.18. Dushkin and Engelman. Op. cit., p. 178.These averages do not include greater NewYork schools. The national over-all averagenumber of hours scheduled for Hebrew studiesin day schools is considerably more than theabove figures indicate.19. Dushkin and Engelman. Op. cit., p. 179.20. Ibid., p. 180.

21. Isaac Toubin. Op. cit., p. 24; see alsoWilliam W. Brickman. "The State of JewishEducation in America," Jewish Life, December,1959, p. 36.

22. Louis L. Ruffman, ed. Qualitative Survey:1951-52. New York: Jewish Education Com-mittee, p. 53, Table 8.

23. Dushkin and Engelman. Op. cit., p. 206,207.

24. Louis L. Ruffman. Op. cit., p. 77.

25. Ibid.26. Ibid. p. 78.27. Dushkin and Engelman. Op. cit., p. 79.28. Uriah Z. Engelman. Unpublished statisti-cal data. New York: American Associationfor Jewish Education, Department of Infor-mation and Research, 1960.29. National Association of Manufacturers.Op. cit., p. 8.30. Dushkin and Engelman. Op. cit., p. 148.31. This reality is underscored by the factthat the rise in Federation support for Jewisheducation has by no means been constant.The report on Federation Allocations for Jew-ish Education (Uriah- Z. Engelman, AAJE,1962) demonstrates that the proportion offunds allocated for local educational purposesremained almost static in the six years priorto 1959, the year in which the study wasinitiated. (This is in the light of continuousenrollment increases during these years.) Tothis end Isaac Toubin notes in his introductionto the report, "This rigid relationship betweenthe Jewish education dollar and all other localphilanthropic dollars suggests what we havepreviously surmised: That financial support ofJewish education has not yet made a break-through consistent with the palpable needs ofthe field."32. Isaac Toubin, ed. Op. cit., p. 2.33. Ibid. In 1961, 36 Federations gave someform of support to Jewish day schools.34. Isaac Toubin, ed. Op. cit., p. 14.35. Salo Baron. The Jewish Community andJewish Education. New York: American As-sociation for Jewish Education, 1948, p. 8.36. Ibid. p. 13.37. Isaac Berkson, in an address delivered ata NCJE session in his honor, Atlantic City,June 2, 1962.38. Horace M. Kallen. "Foreword" in Fed-eration Allocations for Jewish Education, 1936-1951, by Uriah Z. Engelman and C. MorrisHorowitz. New York: American Associationfor Jewish Education, December, 1952, p. ii.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

56 1

0 D

ecem

ber

2014