For this issue of the journal we turned to two groups of day school leaders, current and former, to draw from their wisdom and insight into complex issues facing decision-makers and leaders. Each group was presented with one question at a time, and in some questions generated not only responses but dialogue. Over the course of four weeks they responded to four ethical dilemmas, and we are thankful for their thoughtful contributions.

Michael Berger is Associate Professor of Religion at Emory University’s Department of Religion, and also serves as a program officer for the AVI CHAI Foundation in the area of day school leadership and teacher development and support. In 2004-06, he headed Yeshiva Atlanta High School in Atlanta, Georgia.

Steven M. Brown, Ed.D. has headed Jewish educational institutions for 41 years. For many years Rabbi Brown served as director of supplementary and day schools, staff member and educational trainer at Ramah camps, and in recent years was Director of the Melton Research Center for Jewish Education and Dean of the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education at JTS. He is currently a Chaplin Intern at the Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.

Cheryl Finkel is an independent leadership consultant helping heads of Jewish day schools achieve extraordinary results. For twenty years she led The Epstein School (Atlanta, GA) after which she served as Senior Consultant at PEJE. Dr. Finkel was also involved in the formation of the Day School Leadership Training Institute (DSLTI) and is a recipient of The Covenant Foundation’s award for Exceptional Jewish Educators. Tzivia Garfinkel is the head of Jewish studies at Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School in Chicago.

Beverly Gribetz founded Tehilla High School (Jerusalem) which merged with the Evelina de Rothschild Secondary School (Jerusalem), where she is currently principal. Formerly Dr. Gribetz taught at the Ramaz School (NYC), and has been teaching Talmud for nearly thirty years.

Barry Kislowicz, Ed.D. is Head of School at Fuchs Mizrachi School in Cleveland. Rabbi Kislowicz holds semicha from Yeshiva University and a doctorate in education from Columbia University Teachers College. A Wexner Fellow and Covenant Foundation Pomegranate prize recipient, Rabbi Kislowicz will be making Aliyah in July 2016.

Bruce Powell is founder and current Head of School of the de Toledo High School (dTHS), formerly New Community Jewish High School (West Hills, CA). Dr. Powell has also helped to found, develop, and lead two other Jewish high schools in the Los Angeles area over the past 37 years including the Milken Community High School, and Yeshiva University of Los Angeles High School. He has also consulted on the development of 23 Jewish high schools in cities throughout the United States. Dr. Powell holds a Ph.D. in Education from the University of Southern California, and has won both the Milken Family Foundation Jewish Educator Award (2005) and the Covenant Award (2008) for his contributions to Jewish education.

Dilemma#1

After a series of allegations and thorough investigation a prizewinning student on the cusp of graduation has admitted to cheating. What should the school’s response be? Would it make a difference if the information were publicly known or a secret acknowledged by only a few? What would the response be if it were discovered that the student did not cheat for himself but that he was helping another student who was struggling because a family crisis was interfering with his performance?

Steven Brown

I am a bit hesitant to wade into this issue, because it is the stuff of Head of School nightmares. It reminds me of an incident in the high school I led, many years before my coming, in which a senior, now a very well-known correspondent (formerly of ABC and now on CNN), as editor of the school yearbook figured out a way to manipulate the pictures so that if the pages were refolded correctly, a giant [obscene picture] appeared. The Head of School decided to allow him to graduate, but he did not get his diploma until he finished a certain number of hours of community service. Now this certainly was not cheating, but it was offensive to the school’s culture and image. In the case that has been presented to us about cheating I would say there are a number of options:

1. Cheating is cheating is cheating. If the school has a clear policy against cheating and the facts are provable that both students have been involved in cheating, then they probably should be expelled and not graduate.

2. If there is some mitigating circumstance, such as the one portrayed to us, then perhaps the students could be barred from graduation or not receive their diplomas at graduation and have to do a certain amount of community service, after being retested with a different exam before they would get their diplomas.

3. If, however, the school wants to maintain its standards and the cheating scandal is known by other students and their parents, it leaves little room left but to disqualify these two students from graduating. Perhaps they can make up the courses involved in another setting, transferring credits or after doing the courses and community service, receiving a diploma sometime later from the school.

These kind of infractions are the most painful that a head of school can confront. They cause unbelievable anguish on many levels and there probably is no easy way out or clear solution for the fallout that the situation will precipitate. Hurting for this Head of School…

Bruce Powell

As Steve Brown indicates, this is a nightmare for a Head which most of us have had to handle over time.

Allow me to provide how we actually have handled such challenges at New Community Jewish High School (de Toledo High School as of July 1, 2015).

First, the research for the Josephson Institute of Ethics based in Los Angeles indicates that perhaps 70% of high school students have cheated to a greater or lesser degree during their high school careers. This might involve from copying someone else’s homework assignment to the lifting of an entire term paper from the Internet. Both are cheating, but the degree is quite different.

Second, at NCJHS, expulsion for such a one or even two-time incidence of cheating would never be on the table. It would not matter who knew about it. Our value system and our understanding that the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 25 in the area of judgment-making mitigates against anything that even resembles expulsion. Moreover, our value system sees such an event as an educational opportunity to teach about the long-term consequences of “cheating” in the “real world,” and also allows a child to exercise the Jewish process of teshuvah. The teshuvah process would be created within a full discussion with the students, his/her parents, and our school’s grade-level dean and principal. The Head is not involved unless it involves an expulsion, which, as indicated above, it would not.

Third, our school’s policy is that any incidence of cheating in grades 11 or 12 must be reported to the colleges to which a student has applied. This consequence, in the minds of parents and students, is exceptionally severe. Everyone knows far in advance that this is what will happen, and it does. Both the child and the school report; the child provides a full explanation to the college for his/her actions. What is most interesting, however, is that a student’s admission to a college has never been revoked due to this reporting. The colleges often comment that the teshuvah process we require of the students shows integrity on the part of the school and the student. The colleges appreciate our honesty and thereby tend to trust all of our reporting, i.e. transcripts, letters, etc., even more so.

Fourth, the in-house consequence is pretty simple: the student receives a “zero” on the assignment and that grade is averaged in to his/her final grade for the course. This often results in a student losing one full grade point in that course, i.e. an A to a B, B to a C, etc. If a child is cheating by helping another child, my sense is that is still construed as cheating and the consequences remain across the board.

Finally, the reality of all such situations is very individual. Our school’s ethos involves “one mind at a time,” and we see no inconsistency in having one student receive consequence X while another gets consequence Y. Our culture understands that this may happen, albeit infrequently; however, there can be so many other contexts for a child that one must consider all scenarios.

As with most things in life, there is no black and white, only a massive amount of grey.

The final question God asks of us when we pass from this world is “Did you understand a big thing from a small thing?” The Head’s job is to figure this out and make the right ethical call for that child, for that moment, causing the least harm and doing the most good, until 120.

Steve Brown

Bruce: Your school is much more magnanimous than I. I think your approach makes a lot of sense. Thanks for this menschlich approach!

Cheryl Finkel

I am inspired by the approach to cheating Bruce has described. It is realistic about the facts and probabilities (70% of kids cheat so we should expect that a lot of our kids will cheat and we should prepare ourselves for that). It takes an educational stance – we are here to guide, teach, and ensure that our students learn, not primarily to police and punish. And it has a dramatic consequence for the cheating behavior in the high stakes junior and senior years – school and student informing the college during the admissions process.

I like a discussion of ethical behavior that takes this developmental approach. Students are in school to learn how to live ethical lives. Lots of them will make poor choices. Dealing with poor choices is a process of individual guidance rather than only trying to think up and enforce good policies for everyone. Not that you can’t use a good policy if you’re smart enough to come up with one, like the reporting to colleges.

Bruce Powell

As usual, I agree with Cheryl!

Dilemma #2

There is a board member who has obtained critical information about one of your competitor schools, information which can have a dramatic impact on your student recruitment strategy. That information, however, came via a disgruntled board member in the other school seeking to harm it. Your board member offers you this valuable information. Do you accept it? What would you do with the information if the board member revealed it publicly at a board meeting?

Bruce Powell

The Talmud, Shabbat 31a, it tells us that the first question God asks of us when we pass from this world is, “Were you honest in business?” Given this question and its implied mandate, use of insider information specifically to cause harm to a competitor seems to violate this value on many levels. What board whose core fiduciary responsibility is to operate a Jewish values-based institution could even contemplate such a move?

If the board member goes so far as to speak in public, I would ensure it is struck from the minutes, entertain a discussion about Jewish values, and perhaps have the board chair call a pause in the meeting, take the person outside privately, and educate him as to why we cannot discuss his information. We should not embarrass the person. The big problem here is that if it is said in a public forum, it will get back to the other school personnel. What a mess! At such a point the board chair would need to immediately call his/her counterpart at the other school and explain what happened and that the info will never be used.

Needless to say, the damage done is almost irreparable and it will take years to rebuild community trust.

Barry Kislowicz

Bruce has done an excellent job once again of outlining a powerful, ethical response to how this scenario might unfold in a public setting.

As I read his response, I certainly agree that the public sharing of insider information by a board member is egregious. At the same time, I think that the private sharing of such information could be even more dangerous as it presents a behindclosed- doors temptation.

Whether the violation occurs in private or public, I think that this is an ethical dilemma which points us to the necessity of setting proper cultural expectations in advance. Our school recently engaged in a branding initiative. The initiative as a whole was very beneficial, but in my mind one of the most important points came when a parent ambassador asked whether they could critique another school to convince a prospective parent to enroll her children. The branding consultant responded adamantly that leading brands (and great schools) do not critique others; rather, they focus on their own success. This gave me an opportunity to emphasize to the group that all of our school advancement efforts are focused on our success, not on detracting from others. On a pragmatic level, we do not believe that this is a zero-sum game, and this is indeed an instance of where we will do well by doing second. More importantly, on an ethical level if we ever lose sight of our values in an attempt to advance the school we have lost more than we could ever hope to gain.

I think this once again highlights the need for leaders to be proactive in establishing the ethical culture of their schools. This includes students and faculty, as well as parents and board members. The real question is not how we would respond if a board member shared insider information but rather how do we create a culture where no board member would consider violating the ethics of our community in public or in private.

Dilemma #3

You recently discovered that a teacher was involved in a nonschool related business venture which clearly crossed the lines of ethical behavior. The whole affair was reported in a local newspaper. Is it ethical for that news to affect the teacher’s standing in the school? What are the ethical implications if the school chooses to ignore the entire incident? Would it make a difference if the information had remained private?

Bruce Powell

For some of us, the hypothetical issue below is not hypothetical at all. Indeed, I am dealing with this situation at present.

Some thoughts:

First, any school ought to offer far more than an academic education, per se. And so much the more so for a Jewish school. Schools represent, both symbolically and practically, a standard of morality, integrity, and example of the highest ethical behavior. When, for example, a scandal of some sort happens in a school, the community outrage is far greater – as it should be – than when such behavior occurs in business. (This might also be true for medicine, law, and accounting.)

A recent incident in a large public school system where teachers and administrators were complicit in cheating on reporting standardized exam results to make their scores look better is a case in point. The outrage made news nation-wide and people shook their heads in disbelief and disgust.

Second, a school is only as good as its teachers, both educationally and morally. Every link in the educational chain must be without blemish.

Third, schools usually, and if they do not they should, include in their employment contracts language regarding ethical and moral behavior inside and outside of school time. The language may be lofty by saying that every teacher must comport him/herself at all times with the highest legal and moral values, or be more direct by saying that any dealings outside of school that are not legal or ethical are grounds for dismissal. This removes the legal issues that will surround firing an employee for unethical actions outside of school.

Fourth, for PR reasons and more substantive reasons such as morale of faculty and the example this teacher sets for the children, the school cannot ignore the situation. Had it remained a private matter, and no one at the school knew, then there would be no reason to act since there is nothing to act upon. Otherwise, since it is known, the school must take action. That could include paid or unpaid leave until all facts are worked out, immediate dismissal, or other actions not on my radar. What the school must absolutely do is consult a Human Resources attorney immediately for guidance. To do anything less, or to wait one more minute, would be unethical on the part of the school’s fiduciary obligations to the community, the employee, and the non-profit status of the school.

Finally, we should all recognize that short of clear unethical behavior, there may be more nuanced actions outside of school that are antithetical to a school’s values. This might include telling students you are living with your girlfriend outside of wedlock, using recreational marijuana, getting drunk on weekends, etc. There may also be activities where a teacher speaks in public, say on a radio show or some other public venue, denying the Holocaust, or vilifying Israel, or disparaging the school. Whereas I believe the school is within its rights and obligations to remove such employees from its midst, I am also keenly aware of the legal implications and thereby we must develop clear contractual guidelines for all employees, in writing, vetted by an attorney, in order to safeguard our school’s integrity, maintain the highest values, and “walk the talk” in the eyes of our communities.

Barry Kislowicz

Bruce has provided a very complete discussion of this issue, and I appreciate many of the points he has raised. (Also, I empathize with the unfortunate experience of having dealt with this as not merely a hypothetical issue.)

I wanted to expand on two points that Bruce raised.

First, he notes appropriately that schools should spell out clearly in employment contracts their expectations for a teacher’s ethical comportment and duty as a role model for the community.

My experience with many school contracts is that they are boilerplate items often produced by a school business manager and not an experienced educational leader. There is obviously a pragmatic reason to insure that our contracts are clear and well-written, however I believe there is an ethical imperative as well. Our schools are communities, and each member of the community bears the rights and responsibilities associated with membership. The school itself bears the responsibility to clarify what those rights and responsibilities entail, and it must do so as clearly as possible through the appropriate family, student, and faculty handbooks, as well as through employee contracts.

I believe this is particularly important as it relates to employees. Employees in particular schools straddle the divide between a business on the one hand and a community on the other. This leads to a greater chance of legitimate confusion on an employee’s part and can set them up for inappropriate expectations, both in terms of their own behavioral responsibilities and in terms of what they can expect from the school. (I have seen numerous cases where employees honestly felt that since a school was a community, employees should not be fired for anything short of truly egregious behavior.) Rather than waiting until confusion arises, the school community must act in a caring and fair manner towards all of its members by ensuring a mutual clarity of expectations.

Second, Bruce raises the realm of more nuanced actions outside of school that do not align with a school’s values. While Bruce notes actions that are truly antithetical to a school’s values, I would expand the discussion to include a broader array of actions. For example, I have been approached numerous times by parents who question actions such as a teacher’s choice of what to wear to synagogue (weekday or Shabbat), which presidential candidate to endorse, or what to share on social media. These parents were not asking for the teacher’s dismissal, nor is that an option the school would consider, but they were indeed suggesting that even relatively minor choices a teacher makes must conform to the expectation that a teacher serve as a role model for the community.

We all agree that teachers should indeed serve as role models, certainly as far as ethical issues and core values are concerned, but I believe that we still must preserve a realm of personal choice. While we bear a responsibility to preserve the ethical integrity of our school, we also bear a responsibility to preserve the dignity and individual freedoms of our teacher. We have found that this area as well must be discussed during the initial hiring process. As we outline our expectations for teachers we now take care to explain, as best we can, what the school will expect of their regular day to day conduct due to their position as communal role models.

Bruce Powell

Barry’s point about the tension between the school’s values and personal dignity and freedoms is very well taken! Perhaps the macro-ethical issue is where we take this discussion? Where, for example, might the case of a holocaust denier fall? Should teachers be able to use their “pulpit” to publicly encourage votes for political candidates? Or, in California, various ballot propositions? New taxes?

No easy answers.

Michael Berger

Bruce’s and Barry’s thoughtful exchange covered the hypothetical case quite thoroughly. The devil, as we know, is in the details of application, which depends on the particular circumstances, including, I might add, the relative position of a school within a community (when I headed a school, its vulnerable situation at the time made us highly sensitive to what “storms” the institution could reasonably weather). That was implied in Bruce’s fourth point, but it’s worth highlighting how situational the response needs to be, especially when dealing with a clear PR issue. (This, by the way, is when the Head’s public communication skills are truly critical.) Bruce’s final declaration – “no easy answers” – sums it up well.

Dilemma #4

There is a very generous family whose child you are wooing to come to your school. In the course of your discussions, it emerges that this child has learning issues which your school is not equipped to handle, but at which a competitor school excels. Should you continue to try to enroll the child, knowing that his enrollment will bring great benefit to many other students? How do we balance the best interests of the individual student with the interests of the school?

Beverly Gribetz

Every school should learn to deal with learning disabilities. We must aim towards inclusion and not exclusion. We’ve been exclusivist and elitist for long enough.

Barry Kislowicz

I agree with Beverly that our schools need to make greater strides in enhancing our ability to serve all children. Unfortunately, in many cases there are, indeed, certain children a school cannot, at present, serve appropriately. At the same time, there are often compelling reasons to accept children whom we know might be better served elsewhere. These reasons range from wealthy donors to enrollment/sustainability issues to other political concerns.

Regardless of the competing concern, I would suggest that the decision to enroll a child must be based first and foremost on what is good for that child. School administrators are under tremendous pressures to provide for the needs of the many, but we can never allow ourselves to sacrifice the best interests of an individual child for the sake of the greater good. Assuming no creative solutions exist, a school faced with this quandary should guide the family towards the school that is in the best interests of the child and pursue funding streams in other manners.

As a follow up, one clarifying question came to mind: the question notes that there is a competing school which excels at serving children of this particular profile. Is that competitor also a Jewish day school? If not, how do we determine whether the child’s best interests are truly served more effectively at a non-Jewish school designed to support her learning profile or at a Jewish school which is not an ideal educational fit?

Cheryl Finkel

Barry states my own thoughts well. I try to frame a situation like this first in terms of the child’s educational needs: Where will his learning flourish? Next, I would think with the parents about psycho-social needs and religious/spiritual/community belonging needs? Can they get the whole package in the competing school? Then that’s where they should go. If the learning piece is best in a non-Jewish setting, how will they provide Jewish life and learning? Is there any way we could help?

I do think that a Jewish school can be a resource for thinking through these issues for any family who inquires, whether or not they choose to come. In this way, we can serve the entire community, not just the families of students who matriculate with us. The wealthy family might be able to help us expand our offerings to reach a greater variety of students. There’s nothing wrong with coming back to them later to request help in serving future students; they will understand the need better than most people.

Steven Brown

I want to respectfully, but strongly, disagree with Beverly. Too many day schools try to be all things to all people. The majority of day schools in this country have fewer than 100 students enrolled. While the notion of being inclusive is high-minded and certainly to be commended, it is often an aspiration and not a reality. It seems to me a question of ethics as to whether a school can really provide for the special needs of a child whose parents and the school all would like to have enrolled in a Jewish day school. Too often the schools do not have the staff or the training to provide for the very special learning needs that students with special proclivities so desperately deserve.

Parents are often promised the world, but the reality is very different. A child in a specialized classroom within a day school is often thrown back into the regular classroom when there are schedule disruptions or the special education teachers are absent, and has no idea what is going on in the regular classroom. Teachers are often not equipped or trained to deal with the unique challenges of special needs children who need to function within a larger class of students with many different learning abilities and levels.

As a parent of a very special needs child myself, who saw him all the way through day school, through high school, and into a college which helped provide for his needs, I wonder whether I did not sacrifice my own son on my personal altar of Jewish commitment to the day school, especially since I was the head of the school. Perhaps he would have been better served in a special needs school, and on the high school level been better off in a vocational setting where he could have been trained in a craft or trade that would have ensured him being able to make a living.

With regard to the question about the wealthy family, I think that is also an ethical issue. If the school cannot meet that child’s needs, it would be unethical to entice the family into the school with all kinds of promises that his/her needs would be met. If on the other hand the family might be willing to provide the resources to the school not only for its own child, but for other children as well, and pioneer a program to really meet the needs of special students who often need one-on-one staffing or small team staffing, then that would be a wonderful outcome highly to be desired. There are many ways that our children can learn to love to be Jewish, but the day school is not the answer to every problem. Often, for children who have serious special needs, the frenetic schedule, the cacophony of languages, subject matters, and fast pace of instruction may really be the wrong place for that child. So it seems to me the ethical issues here are what is right for a given child, what is right for a given school, and how we honestly confront the parameters of what any one school can provide for all of its children.

Tzivia Garfinkel

In reading this question over, I think the interests of the school are only served if the best interests of the student with special needs are met. No future financial support by a philanthropic family will outweigh failing to meet the needs of this child. During the admissions process, as the school’s awareness of the child’s unique needs became evident, it would be critical to have a complete diagnostic work-up of the student and his/her learning profile. This already builds partnership with the family and demonstrates the school’s interest in working with the family. If the school does not have the necessary learning service professional available, I wonder whether the family could be enticed to endow a position to address the special learning needs.

I know that even in our school, where we are fortunate to have a learning service department with four professionals, we have had to ask a small number of families to provide an aide to accompany their child and to support his/her learning. In my opinion, the bottom line is that the promise of generosity will probably not be realized if the child is admitted and as time goes on, his/her needs are not met.

Michael Berger

Hypotheticals (as opposed to, say, detailed case studies) tend to be general, thus inviting participants in the discussion, on the one hand, to clarify overarching values that govern the situation, but on the other hand, to raise relevant issues that are not explicitly mentioned in the question.

As Steve and Barry noted, leaders of educational institutions must always keep the interests of the individual child paramount (I believe Beverly wanted that as well, but as I read her, she felt that accepting the student could/would help push the school to be more inclusive, which is an ideal and a worthy goal). Often, that focus will be in the best interests of the school as well, as the institution will earn the reputation of being in the student’s corner, something many parents today cherish, and will hopefully bring more people to trust the school and entrust it with their children’s education.

However, the notion of “the child’s best interest” begs the question – what is the child’s best interest? Yes, a school is an educational institution, but it is also a social institution, and in the case of day schools, a religious institution. Some parents may feel that their child having a hevreh of local friends (especially on Shabbat – special needs kids often have limited social opportunities outside of school) is too important a value to sacrifice; for others, placing a child in the company of religiously like-minded peers and their families might be a primary value to socialize them into tefillah, kashrut, Shabbat, etc. In many cases – both special needs and typical – these are in some conflict or competition, and finding the right balance is a challenge.

I would therefore advocate total transparency in the loosely outlined case presented. To me, the Head of School ought to assemble a team of educators and specialists (both from within the school and without, as appropriate) to look at how this individual child with his/her particular needs would fare if s/he came to the school, offering a “prognosis” as best as possible (that will even involve looking at the particular grades and their students who would be this child’s hevreh). After that initial discussion, the parents should be brought in with the benefits and downsides – both near- and far-term – clearly explicated. I would want to show the parents in this case that we’ve thought this through thoroughly, and there’s no clear right or wrong here, but a delicate and far-fromscientific balancing of multiple values, that will need to be monitored (a system should be in place if regular assessment won’t do) and re-visited several times a year for adjustment. We would want to partner with the parents, realizing that there’s no ideal solution here. As I wrote earlier, I see this as an extension/elaboration on the helpful posts that have already appeared.

Bruce Powell

Here are my thoughts:

I believe we need to examine several variables in this situation:

The level of learning-disability of the particular child

The level of wealth of the prospective family

3. The public relations issues surrounding the possibility of the school becoming labeled the “LD” school

4. The size of the particular school 5. The number of Jewish schools in a particular community

6. The availability of resources outside the school

7. The mission/vision/philosophy of any given school

8. And, of course, as most have asked, “What is best for the child?”

And I am sure are there are ten more variables I have not included. For me, the question is both ethical and practical and we must ensure that the practical does not place us in the position of “moral hazard.”

If, for example, the family is able and willing to provide a $2-3 million endowment for special needs kids, special needs being defined as “light” needs such as dyslexia, ADHD, executive function processing, etc., and if the community-at-large has available LD professionals who can handle such needs, then the school should provide for the child/ren with no ethical qualms whatsoever, in my view. In such a situation, the moral hazard diminishes to almost zero, we are doing what is best for the child, and the school has made a friend who perhaps can help out many others in the future.

What the school may want to determine, however, is the PR impact of launching such a program as mentioned in point 3 above. If launching such a program, even with full funding labels the school in a negative way, then the Head/Board must determine if they wish to walk down that path.

Herein, however, may lie the real ethical issue of not helping a child because of concern for the overall reputation of the school, or should we help the child despite that challenge? Seventy years after the Shoah, the answer to this question sits heavily upon our hearts and historic memory. If we live in a large community, say Los Angeles or New York, where there are scores and even a hundred Jewish options, the challenge and onus for any individual school is far less. However, sometimes in these larger markets, the PR issues are far greater due to heavy competition for the “best” students. In a “single school” community, and given ample funding, the answer may be much simpler since that school may feel obligated to serve everyone.

To Dr. Steve Brown’s concern about trying to be all things to all people, the point is well taken, although I might agree or disagree depending upon the circumstances of the special needs. In the case of “light” needs, and where ample funding and LD professionals may be employed, the school can increase its portfolio to include these kids; however, if the LD needs are more serious, say wheel-chair bound kids with CP, deaf or blind children, Down’s syndrome children, and so forth, then an entirely new discussion may ensue. Even if the funding is now $5 million for endowment for a “heavy” special needs program, we must now examine the physical plant needs, availability of professionals in this area, cultural shift of the entire school, and a reexamination of a school’s mission. This situation rises to an entirely different ethical level, and no matter how much money is on the table, the dollars may never be enough, especially if a mission alteration is in order, to justify such a change in direction. This is especially true, in my view for a small school where the plant and personnel are simply not available. However, in a much larger school and community, adding a “heavy” LD program as a community service may be very attractive and fit into an already existing mission. Of course, again, funding is the key.

Finally, I’d like to add to this discussion a case in point – New Community Jewish High School (de Toledo High School effective July 1, 2015). Three years ago, we contracted with an outside vendor who specialized in learning challenges to provide a “light” special needs program on our campus. We teamed with the vendor to recruit students for the program. The students would be NCJHS students, receive all of our services, play on sports teams, be involved in theatre, clubs, student council, etc., but would receive a special course-bycourse program depending upon their particular needs. They could also take our regular courses as appropriate and their transcripts would reflect their special program.

Doing this was, in L.A., a big PR risk, one which we were willing to take. Over time, the vendor disbanded. This year we decided to keep the program, integrate it into our overall budget and offerings, and call it “Blended Learning.” We continued to embrace the students currently in the program and now offer the program to others who are applying for admission for the 2015-16 school year. We are fully funding the program’s director and special teachers.

Whereas we do not widely advertise the program because of PR and competition concerns (no other serious private school in L.A. would dare advertise such a program unless that was their primary mission, yet, everyone quietly makes accommodations for such kids), the program has been a boon to our culture and has had zero impact on our school’s overall reputation. We receive no extra funding for this program yet we are large enough to make it work financially. My angst and ethical issue arises from the question of, “When do we/should we go seriously public with our program?” Whereas our school can claim some high ethical ground for offering the program, we cannot yet be too self-righteous due to the fact we do not advertise the program in any significant way except for word-of-mouth.

Looking forward to continuing this discussion.