Jonathan S. Woocher is Chief Ideas Officer of JESNA and heads its Lippman Kanfer Institute: An Action-oriented Think Tank for Innovation in Jewish Learning and Engagement. Dr. Woocher previously served on the faculty of Carleton College in Minnesota and Brandeis University and is the author of Sacred Survival: The Civil Religion of American Jews. This paper is based on a comprehensive study, Day School Education in Challenging Times: Examining the Strategic Options. The full study can be downloaded from the JESNA website at http://www.jesna.org/program-centers/lippman-kanfer-institute/our-projects. The Design Team for that study consisted of: Elaine Cohen, Josh Elkin, Claire Ellman, Seymour Epstein, Cheryl Finkel, Scott Goldberg, Deborah Joselow, Jan Katzew, Martin Kaminer, Marc Kramer, Jeffrey Lasday, Bill Robinson, Renee Rubin Ross, Rebecca Spilke, Max Stark, Leon Weisberg, Arnee Winshall, and Michael Zeldin. Although their input was invaluable, the members of the Design Team are not responsible, either individually or collectively, for the positions taken in the Report or in this paper.
The Situation of Day School Education Today
Jewish day schools are one of the great success stories of the last decades of the twentieth century. At mid-century, few would have predicted that by the year 2000, there would be more than 200,000 young people enrolled in Jewish day schools and Yeshivot in the United States and Canada. The growth of day school education is both a product of and a prime contributor to the “coming of age” of North American Jewry. Jews on this continent feel sufficiently secure in both their Americanness/Canadianness and their Jewishness to be willing, in significant numbers, to educate their children, often at a substantial cost, in environments that are overtly Jewish. As a result there are now over 800 Jewish day schools located throughout the continent and spanning the spectrum of Jewish ideologies, the majority of which proudly embrace a dual mission of combining secular academic excellence with serious Jewish learning, identity-development, and community-building. Spurred on by rising enrollments, greater philanthropic support and the emergence of a set of new or reinvigorated frameworks for advocacy, capacity-building, and educational, leadership, and financial development, day school education moved, in a relatively brief period of time, from the periphery to the center of the community’s consciousness and agenda.
Nonetheless, today, at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the situation of the North American day school movement is not entirely sanguine. The global economic recession, combined with underlying demographic factors, has slowed, if not halted or reversed, the growth of day schools in many parts of the continent. Although vigorous efforts to support and strengthen day schools are being made, including new financial resource development initiatives being spearheaded by federations and private philanthropists, no one doubts that the economic pressure on schools and families has grown. Years of rising tuitions, aimed at ensuring educational quality and unlimited access to day schools for those who want it, are now pricing day schools out of reach of many middle class families, especially those who have suffered their own economic reverses. In some communities, shrinking populations of Jewish children add to the challenge of maintaining sufficient enrollment for economic viability. The double whammy of stretched schools and stretched families threatens to undo decades of progress, and while most schools and communities appear to have escaped catastrophe thus far, there is no guarantee that schools and the day school enterprise generally can simply “muddle through” this period without sustaining permanent damage.
So, what is to be done? More than a year and a half ago, even before the worst of the economic shockwave had hit, JESNA’s Lippman Kanfer Institute, which operates as a think tank to identify, develop, and disseminate innovative policies and practices for Jewish education, was commissioned to look at the situation of day schools facing persistent enrollment and financial challenges. Aided by a distinguished “design team” of day school leaders and activists from a range of settings, the Institute set out to analyze options for day schools and the communities in which they operate, first and foremost, to strengthen existing schools, and secondarily, if maintaining a traditional day school is simply not feasible, to preserve as much of what makes day schools such powerful and successful vehicles for Jewish learning and socialization as is possible in alternative formats.
Lessons Learned
Several clear lessons emerged from the Institute’s work:
1. There are many actions day schools and those who support them can undertake to enhance their viability and vitality that already have proven track records of success. For well over a decade, organizations like PEJE, the Avi Chai Foundation, and the several day school associations have been working with day schools to help them strengthen themselves educationally, administratively, and financially. From these efforts have come important lessons about the range of strategies that schools have available to them today in order to grow their enrollments and achieve greater financial sustainability. (Note: The Institute’s report lists a total of forty-two such strategies, some of which are already being used widely and others of which may be appropriate in more limited circumstances.) These fall into several broad categories:
A. Improving recruitment – including overall marketing efforts, focused attempts to connect with and serve families with pre-school age children, and developing special programs for students entering later in their academic careers
B. Strengthening retention – including offering special incentives for students to remain at key points where drop-outs often occur and intensifying contacts with parents
C. Expanding community outreach and relationships – for example, joining other organizations in efforts to engage unaffiliated families
D. Enhancing the educational program – including, strengthening the program in key areas like math and science, investing in faculty development, offering more individualized instruction, or making greater use of technology
E. Strengthening school leadership – both professional, especially school heads, and lay leadership (the board)
F. Implementing measures to reduce costs and increase revenues – including outsourcing some operations, adjusting tuition to optimize revenues, expanding fundraising (including endowment development), taking full advantage of available public funding, and developing non-tuition revenue sources (e.g., from renting out facilities).
In each of these areas there are models of “good practice” in the day school world and in the world of private education generally. There are opportunities for schools not only to read about these examples, and about practice standards derived from these, but increasingly to be part of “communities of practice” where they can learn from one another and engage in collaborative problem solving (PEJE in particular has pioneered the extensive use of these CoPs to increase schools’ and their leaders’ capacities in a number of arenas, from arts and Israel education to development and financial management.)
Day schools today also have access to a variety of tools to assist them in implementing strategies in marketing, managing enrollment, managing their finances, developing their boards, improving their educational product, developing their educational leaders and faculties, and increasing revenues from non-tuition sources (annual giving, endowments, and earned income). If all schools incorporated the “good practices” that some embody today, they, and the entire field, would be immeasurably strengthened.
This is, of course, easier said than done. Not all of the potential strategies are appropriate for every school. Adopting some may make it impossible to adopt others (e.g., both raising tuition and lowering tuition are appropriate strategies for improving schools’ financial situations under certain circumstances – but not in the same school at the same time!). The challenge for each school is to examine the full array of options available to it in the variety of areas that affect a school’s viability and vitality and select those that make the most sense and offer the best chance of success under its particular circumstances.
Even doing this may not be easy. Many of the strategies that schools could and should be pursuing in these areas require up front investment, sophisticated leadership, and persistence in order to realize long-term gains. This kind of investment capital and patience are especially difficult to mobilize when crisis looms around the corner (or is already at hand). This is where external support, whether from public or private Jewish philanthropy, becomes critical. Giving schools the wherewithal to take steps that may not produce immediate net gains in revenue, but that will pay off over the long run, is a sound investment that schools themselves are often not in a position to make.
It is true as well that there is no single formula for success even in those areas where considerable experience and wisdom has been accumulated. Schools will need to fine tune any strategy – whether professional development for their head or more aggressive recruitment from likely pools of prospective students – to their own specific circumstances. What we can ask of schools is that they recognize that there are practices that should be normative in a wide range of areas and that they make the effort to acquaint themselves with these and adapt as many and as much as they can in a thoughtful and systemic fashion.
2. Beyond these well-attested approaches to strengthening schools, there are other potential areas for initiative that may help schools reposition themselves and find new pathways to sustainability and success. Day schools face a host of challenges in their core operations. It is not surprising, therefore, that relatively few have or take advantage of the luxury of being able to think expansively about alternative approaches to how they define themselves, their academic programs, and their relationships. But, such “outside the box” thinking will be increasingly important going forward.
In the academic arena, the vast majority of schools, as we have noted, strive to offer high quality programs in both general and Jewish studies. But, as the overall educational environment moves toward providing consumers with a greater variety of choices among schools with more distinct identities, simply being a “good Jewish day school” may not be enough to make an institution the “school of choice” for some of those families it would like to attract. Day schools will likely be asking increasingly: How do we make ourselves truly distinctive and distinguished? The options available for answering this question are manifold, and many will probably be deemed unsuitable for any specific school for a variety of reasons. But, schools should at least be considering whether a good conventional academic program is good enough in today’s competitive educational marketplace. Specializations in the arts or sciences, foreign language (i.e., Hebrew) immersion, international baccalaureate type programs, intensive use of technology, individualized learning for all students – all of these suggest themselves as options for consideration. Some schools may want to augment their own academic programs by forging partnerships with other institutions outside the Jewish community – universities looking for “laboratories” for testing new approaches, museums, cultural institutions, and non-Jewish private schools. As always, day schools must be careful not to undercut the core of their value proposition for Jewish families – or promise more than they can realistically deliver. But, expanding the conventional value proposition may be vital for at least some schools to broaden their appeal and ensure their viability.
Schools ought to be thinking not only about what and how they teach, but who they teach as well. Currently, most day schools serve a limited population of children who enroll in the school and perhaps their families. However, day schools have resources that could be brought to bear to serve (and, therefore, amortized across) many other populations. Synagogue educational programs could often benefit from the high quality Judaic and Hebraic faculties that day schools employ. Adults might be interested in learning from the same teachers. General studies faculties could be serving as tutors in their areas of expertise, augmenting public school faculty and bringing the day school into contact with children and families in the wider community. Ambitious schools may choose to run full-fledged after school or summer programs for students not attending the day school (some of whom may become prospects for enrollment), or to create partnerships with other Jewish institutions like JCCs or senior residencies to provide learning and Jewish celebration programs.
Some day schools may evolve to become “community Jewish education centers,” serving multiple populations and leveraging their assets to do so. The gain here for schools is not only in the immediate revenue potential from new programs, but in repositioning themselves as community-wide resources, in touch with many more individuals and families, and, therefore, in a far better position to seek both individual and communal support for their work. There is a potential danger here as well, of spreading the school too thin and deflecting it from its primary mission. But, as with all of the options that schools now face, that of expanding the constituencies they serve and the types of educational services they offer should be carefully considered for its potential contribution to the schools’ long-term well-being as well as its suitability and feasibility.
3. Schools will need to work together and with other community institutions in order to operate more effectively and efficiently. One of the strengths of the North American Jewish day school movement has been the strong sense of pride and responsibility that stakeholders feel for “their” schools. The autonomy of individual schools has allowed diversity in educational and religious philosophies to flourish and grassroots leadership to develop. But, these benefits have come at a price: inefficiencies and wasted resources and opportunities due to a lack of scale and of cooperation across institutional lines. Put simply, this is a luxury we may no longer be able to afford.
Creating a more “systemic” approach to day school operations, both educational and administrative, one that involves greater coordination and collaboration among schools and between schools and other communal institutions such as federations, JCCs, and synagogues, has emerged as an important new element on the day school landscape. The Avi Chai Foundation recently funded pilot projects in which schools in six communities agreed to work together to reduce “back office” costs and, in one instance, to share a coordinator of alumni relations. One community, MetroWest, NJ, has accompanied an ambitious collaborative effort to raise endowment funds involving its three day schools, the Jewish Community Foundation, and Federation with a number of cooperative initiatives to strengthen the academic performance of all of the schools in areas such as science and Hebrew language through the use of shared consultants.
The possibilities for enhanced cooperation among day schools and between schools and other institutions are manifold without impinging on the schools’ unique identities and autonomy. Whether in the form of shared physical facilities, using community institutions like JCCs to deliver specialized program elements in areas like physical education or the arts, joint programming or sharing of faculty, schools can deliver greater value for their constituents at less cost. Such relationships can extend beyond the boundaries of the local community or even the Jewish community altogether. Small schools on the edge of viability may benefit from becoming “satellites” of larger schools in not-too-distant communities who could take on some of the administrative, curricular, and supervisory tasks that small schools often struggle with. Modern communications technology makes such relationships far easier and more practicable – it also makes it feasible for schools to literally share classes and teachers with one another regardless of the physical distance between them. Day schools may wish to consider partnerships with other private or public schools that have resources and programs the day school may not be able to afford on its own. The bottom line is that what we think of today as the day school “movement” can, and perhaps must, also become far more of a day school “system” if these schools are to continue to thrive.
4. Despite a clear preference for strengthening day schools so that they remain viable, we must be prepared in the current environment to consider potential alternative educational models as well. In light of the current demographic and economic circumstances, it is likely that some North American day schools will not be able to sustain themselves financially or provide the quality of education they aspire to despite their best efforts. It is also a reality that, in today’s consumer-driven educational marketplace, there will be families that seek options other than the traditional day school model for both economic and educational reasons. Thus, it is important to look carefully and candidly at alternatives that, while not offering everything that a good day school does, may represent viable and attractive options in place of or alongside conventional day schools.
In the course of its research, the Lippman Kanfer Institute identified eight such alternative models, each of which has both potential strengths and weaknesses in comparison with day schools as we are familiar with them. Two are extensions or modifications of the traditional model and were already mentioned above: a “community Jewish education center” that offers multiple programs for different populations, and a “partnership school,” in which other institutions, not necessarily Jewish, provide a portion of the educational program – perhaps all of the general studies – and the Jewish day school provides the Jewish component. Two are full-day programs with Jewish content, but in an environment clearly distinct from that of a traditional day school: the Hebrew language / culture charter school that has gained considerable recent attention, and a “multi-cultural” school, either private or charter, in which Jewish content is part of the curriculum and the school’s culture alongside that drawn from other cultural or religious traditions. Such a school might place a primary emphasis on values drawn from the Jewish and other traditions that are seen as complementing and connecting the various cultural strands being woven together in the school.
Each of these models offers the potential of engaging a broader population than might be attracted to a conventional day school and/or of providing a good portion of the content that day schools do at a reduced cost and, therefore, price. But, each poses as well significant challenges in its design and implementation that makes it far from certain that it can in fact deliver on that potential. And none, with the exception of the community Jewish education center (really a day school “on steroids”), can promise what a day school does in terms of offering an environment where a full spectrum of Jewish learning and practice can be embraced and woven into a holistic educational and socialization program.
Nonetheless, there are circumstances where these options will clearly have appeal. The Hebrew language and culture charter school model in particular, for the obvious reason that it is a free, public education, will almost surely command additional attention and support. It is not likely to be a viable option where it is perhaps most needed, in those communities that cannot sustain a tuition-based day school. But, it appears that it will be part of the educational landscape in a number of communities with substantial Jewish populations and will serve as an attractive alternative to traditional day schools for families who are willing (or even eager) to give up the “religious” dimension and the explicit focus on Jewish identity development that characterize most day schools for the opportunity to have their children educated in Hebrew and Jewish history at no cost.
For some of these families, the viability of the Hebrew charter school as a day school alternative is tied to the possibility of supplementing its curriculum with additional Jewish learning and activities in an after-school program. Supplementary Jewish education is already the primary alternative to day school for most Jewish families. In the current environment, some number of those currently sending their children to day school are re-examining the possibility of finding or creating supplementary programs that will provide a near-equivalent Jewish learning and socialization experience at a much reduced cost. Programs that supplement a Hebrew charter school education represent one such model, and there are at least three other such possibilities as well that are not tied to a specific general education model: 1) an intensive academically-oriented supplementary program much like the old 4 or 5-day a week Talmud Torah; 2) an after-school model like the Kesher program in Massachusetts that allows for expanded hours and integrates Hebrew and Jewish learning with other after-school activities; and 3) a multi-dimensional program that enriches (or replaces) traditional supplementary education with retreats, camp experiences, and other high intensity activities. These supplementary models stand on their own as attempts to enhance the impact of part-time Jewish education, but there is already evidence that if and as such programs become more widely available, they are likely to attract some families that might otherwise be sending their children to day school. And, some day school families, now facing the prospect of being forced to leave day school, are among those pushing for these new supplementary options.
For those who believe in the efficacy and desirability of day school education (and the data from studies certainly support its effectiveness in nurturing Jewish identity), the question of whether Jewish communal policy should encourage the development of alternative options like those listed above may be a difficult one. Clearly, we have a strong interest as a community in seeing as many children as possible in day schools. Clearly, we also have a moral obligation to make day school education accessible and affordable to every family that desires it for its children. But, we must also acknowledge that not every family wants a day school education, that some day schools may not be able to maintain the quality of education we seek, that resources are not unlimited, and that other forms of Jewish education can also have a substantial positive impact. We need, therefore, to adopt a two-pronged strategy: 1) to encourage and assist day schools to embrace a broad range of strategies for strengthening themselves organizationally, educationally, and financially; and 2) to experiment with and where justified support alternative models that can meet well, if not perfectly, the needs and desires of families seeking a sound Jewish education for their children and do so in ways that are affordable for both the families and the community.
From Options to Decisions
As a broad principle of action, this two-pronged approach is sound. But, it does not necessarily solve the problem of what to do in any particular set of circumstances. Which strategies are likely to prove most effective and efficient for a day school seeking to strengthen itself? When is it appropriate to seek alternative models, and which ones represent the best choice in a specific situation?
There are no simple or universal answers to these questions. In the Lippman Kanfer Institute report, we did not make specific recommendations about which options to pursue, but rather offered analyses of potential strengths and weaknesses, contextual factors and implementation issues that school and community leaders should take into account as they determine what to try in their own circumstances. The role of leadership is precisely to step back from the current situation, identify and assess options, and guide the thoughtful implementation of those that seem to offer the best opportunities for success. To do so, they need to think carefully about not only the outcomes they’re seeking to achieve, but also under what conditions a strategy is appropriate, what cautions and limitations may affect its implementation, and what critical success factors need to be in place (e.g., resources that must be available, relationships that must be nurtured, personnel that must be available) for the particular strategy chosen to have the greatest likelihood of achieving the desired outcome. Similarly, in considering possible alternative models, leaders need to consider a wide range of elements that are associated with the success of any educational institution or program: its value proposition, for whom it is likely to be attractive, its impact on Jewish learning and identity development, its relationship to general academics, how those who participate will be recruited and enrolled, sponsorship and governance, the financial model and what is needed for sustainability, staffing and facilities required, how it will affect community relationships, and what implementation challenges are likely to be encountered. Clearly, identifying potential strategies for strengthening existing day schools or alternative models to day schools is only the first step in a process of sound decision-making and in many ways the least demanding.
For this reason, the Lippman Kanfer Institute report recommended a number of principles that should guide the decision-making that school and community leaders will engage in:
- The day school model as we have generally known it should be the “default” option and starting point for decision-making. As intriguing as some of the alternative models may be, none offers all of the benefits that the traditional day school does. Thus, strengthening day schools where they exist and opening them where they can be viable should be our first choice.
- As a practical matter, therefore, schools and communities should consider the full range of options for strengthening schools educationally, administratively and financially before they pursue alternatives.
- Nonetheless, at a time when we are seeking to grow Jewish educational participation in general and when “consumers” are both more diverse and more likely to exercise choice among educational options, the alternative models identified have merit in their own right, and not just as options when no day school is available. Communities should consider whether one or more ought to have a place on their Jewish educational landscape alongside their efforts to strengthen day schools.
- Leaders can take a number of practical steps to help them make good decisions: using a skilled consultant / facilitator; conducting a local scan to examine in detail both the situation of its day school(s) and the general environment for Jewish education; taking advantage of outside resources from organizations like PEJE, the day school associations, and foundations supporting day school education; involving key stakeholders throughout the decision-making process; developing explicit criteria to guide decision-making so that those involved understand and agree to the extent possible on what will define “success.”
- Schools and communities must accept the fact that there are unlikely to be “perfect” solutions to the challenges they face. Every option has strengths and weaknesses; each involves trade-offs; not all can be pursued simultaneously. Leaders and supporters of day school education should not be looking for magic bullets or quick fixes. They must be prepared to experiment and persist as they seek to optimize their strategies.
In the final analysis, what matters most is that all Jewish children receive the best education we can provide. For decades, day schools have been a major part of the effort to meet this mandate. They will continue to be so. Whatever we can do to strengthen these schools and to find ways to bring their benefits to as many children as possible – even, when necessary, in forms other than the conventional day school itself – will be a worthwhile investment, not only in our children, but in our collective future.