And What About Next Year?

I don't care to be critical, but I'm getting a bit worried if this is the creative thinking being promoted in regards to the very real "tuition crisis." Perhaps I'm not particularly astute and am therefore missing the train of thought in this 5TJT article "The Yeshiva Bailout Proposal," but if the current pattern being experienced in regional day schools and Yeshivot is "a sharp reduction in on-time tuition payments to private schools and a sharp increase in requests for tuition assistance and scholarships," than pray tell, how do we expect a community to provide a meaningful and lasting bailout?

The author proposes the following:

It is with all this in mind that I propose a bailout for the yeshivos and day schools of our community. The bailout goes like this: Every family in the Far Rockaway/Five Towns Jewish community (approximately 15,000) makes a commitment to give a contribution, according to its means, of between $100 and $500 to the yeshiva or day school of its choice. In order for it to count, this has to be on top of any other dues like the dinner or capital fund; that money is already part of the school’s budget. If the bailout averages a contribution of $250 per family, it would result in nearly $4 million infused into the Five Towns/Far Rockaway yeshiva/day school system.

Pardon me for doing a little math. I can't help myself and I seem to always have a calculator at arm's reach. First of all, the math does not result in a nearly $4 million dollar infusion, but rather in a $3.75 million dollar infusion, best case scenario. I don't round up to the nearest million when I multiply. Secondly, I hate to be doom and gloom, but does anyone have any idea of what the annual expenses for all 5 Towns/Far Rockaway schools is. Well, I don't. But I once saw a school budget, and this was about 5 years ago, and the somewhat large school was spending just about $10 million dollars a year.

Third, lets get real about how many households can or will donate. The author mentions 15,000 households in the area. I have no idea how many households in the area are current tuition payers, but let's assume 50%. This is probably a bit high, but given that so many grandparents already help with tuition, it might be a bit low. So, I'm sticking with 50% unless someone can provide a better estimate. A miracle could happen and 7,500 non-tuition paying households commit an average of $250 to local schools, resulting in a cash infusion of $1.875 million. Articles on the "tuition crisis" state that somewhere between 1/3 to 3/4 of all Orthodox day school students receive some type of tuition assistance. This of course does not mean that 1/3 to 3/4 of tuition paying households receive assistance, but I think we can fairly say that among tuition paying household, collecting an average increased donation of $250 on top of all other pledges and obligations, resulting in $937,500, would be good.

If this campaign were to result in a total of $2,812,500 spread amongst however many schools are in the area (?), the question is how long would such an infusion help hold area schools over until the next infusion is needed?

Answer: Not long. And herein lies the problem. Unless there are real changes and new thinking, a "The Yeshiva Bailout Proposal" won't get some schools through 2009. Recently, I've been receiving a number of emails from readers. One reader told me about a letter that went home from his children's school regarding the serious financial situation and asking for increased donations. That letter went out shortly after the start of the school year. Another reader told me about one school that has notified teachers that a payment will be delayed, as well as two other schools that have been missing payments.

We just read parshat Miketz where Yosef put together a financial plan for Mitzrayim during the years of plenty. Unfortunately, the general financial behavior during our years of plenty was to consume more. Now we have to play catch up while the pot of available funds decreases. It is not going to be easy. We tried to increase our donations to our own local schools for a time, but at this point, it is no longer possible because we have to meet our own tuition obligations. I've pushed increasing donations to schools in the past, but I'm not ready to endorse a "bailout package" because I simply don't think concentrating solely on the income side of the balance sheet is going to get any school (public or private) through a recession.

Using Credit Plays Games with Your Mind

The more I read, learn, and even work with people on budgets who have fallen victim to credit cards and other consumer debt, the more I loathe credit. I made a comment in the last post that credit doesn't slow consumption, it fuels it. And I believe such more and more every day.

Since it is at least tangentially related to my last post, I thought I would point out a back and forth I had with Ezzie on the the use of credit personal credit to make money (note: I am not addressing using credit for legitimate business purposes, which is a different discussion than this one) .

Ezzie advocates the idea of using student loans to build assets in his post Guaranteed Gains. I'm not familiar with all of the ins and outs of student loans, but I know people who do something similar with credit cards, i.e. taking a large cash advance, putting the money is a savings or CD account, and planning to pay back the money before interest on the card kicks in.

Those who recommend these ideas, of course, only recommend them to the "responsible." But something I have learned in life is that few view themselves as irresponsible. And herein lies the problem.

Below is my [slightly edited] response to Ezzie:

I really dislike the idea of building both sides of the balance sheet. It convinces the borrower that they are making money, when they are really setting themselves up for a potentially sticky situation.

Many people I know who are debtors have themselves convinced that they are quite responsible. I would bet the more responsible go by the advice of chazal to never trust oneself until their dying day. While I believe chazal was looking at the issues of the yetzer in terms of keeping hilchot yichud, I think the advice could be extended to taking on debt, experimenting with gambling, etc.

I'm not going to fly into a tirade about credit cards. I do use a credit card, although I pay it off each month in full and I enjoy my cash back. However, like I said in the other comments, if you are going to use a credit card, I would wait until you have some established spending patterns, a budget, and an emergency fund. Too many people think of their credit card as an emergency fund.

Back to the student loan scenario (and you are not the first to promote the idea, nor the last. In fact, not too long ago my husband and I were asked out opinion of a similar "money making" scenario involving a credit card cash advance a 0% APR for 1 year).

I can see the following scenario happening:

An 18 year old hears of this idea and wants to make some cash. In his mind the potential thousand or few thousand is big money. And he thinks he will have no problem putting the money away, being paid interest, and then turning around and returning the principal. And interest free loan sounds great to him.

But let's imagine for a moment:

Sometime towards the end of college, he is introduced to a girl and they are headed to an engagement. He wants to impress her and takes her out for nice dinners, buys her jewelry for the engagement, etc. He feels like he has some cash to spare. After all, it is his senior year and he has been building up his assets. Our chatan even has taken on some work and has made a good amount of pocket money. He believes his investment income is tax free, but knows little about the tax system. As a dependent, he is surprised that his passive income pushed him over the line and now he owes taxes on money he thought was 'gravy.' Setback number one. But he pays up the taxes (state and city too. . .who knew that the state and city can eat money at a lower threshold than the feds?) and is back on track.

Now the wedding comes and, like many other chatanim, he and his kallah decide a one year stint in Israel at Yeshiva would be the best way to spend their shana rishona.

Student loans are deferable, right?

He will have a [small stipend] and she can work as a therapist with special needs kids.

They defer paying back their student loans. And the [loan] money is still in tact and is still growing.

But soon his wife is pregnant. And they need a bunch of stuff. And her job isn't working out quite as planned. His stipend doesn't seem to be stretching as far as they thought it would stretch. So they dip into their "savings."

After a year, they return to America. The student loans are still outstanding, and what is left in "savings" isn't enough to pay off the loans, plus put down a security deposit, 1st months rent, put down a deposit for the daycare, etc.

What seems like a good idea, might not seem like such a a great idea in hindsight. Oh. . . and the young couple returns to a down economy. Finding a job isn't so easy and there is a sizable gap, but the loans can't be deferred any longer, and the loan debt is now growing. It seemed like it would never accrue interest. That wasn't part of the plan. The money was going to be there to pay them off.

I never though I'd have something positive to say about credit card debt. . . . but here it goes: when debt is building on a credit card, it has its own line item and as the interest charges rack up, it can create an urgent situation [for some people].

Student loans, on the other hand, can be deferred and lack a sense of urgency [everyone has student loan debt, right?]. And, yes, I've seen couples defer them after they marry to spend a year in Israel. The part about ends not meeting in Israel is also something I've seen.

[Just something to think about before trying to beat the system].

Comments welcome, as always. If you have a true story to tell. Please do. The story I imagined above, I should add, isn't completely made up.

Yeshivas/Day Schools as Lenders: Yay or Nay?

In a previous post, a commentor asked about the idea of floating a bond to pay for Yeshiva Education, an idea brought up in a shiur. I've heard this idea forwarded before. I believe that under this plan, the Orthodox public would pour money into schools in the present through some type of bond, and be repaid a higher amount years in the future. I can say I would never make such an investment. There are plenty of cities, with large tax bases, already talking about defaulting on bonds because the money just isn't there. I can't even begin to imagine "investing" in a system that is less than transparent. I'll give a donation than you very much.

In a recent post, ProfK forwards a similar idea that she believes could help make Yeshiva Education more affordable, while giving schools a steady stream of income. The idea is for Yeshivas to go into contract with the yeshiva as lender over a longer time period, allowing parents to pay their obligations with far fewer discounts.

I don't quite have articulate thoughts, but I don't care for the idea at all. So, I will just list some of my thoughts and you can articulate your own:

*No Expertise: On top of the fact that I don't see schools as having the expertise and know-how to become a lender [insert bad joke about actual banks who have recently failed this role], more than a few parents have already mortgaged and remortgaged their homes, in addition to running up credit card bills to pay for Yeshiva Tuition. At least the burden of collection is on the bank, rather than the yeshiva, which probably has little ability to enforce payment.

*Credit is Being Used. . . and that is part of the problem: It isn't as if good number of parents are already using credit to pay for Yeshiva Education, via home equity lines of credit and credit cards, as well as personal loans. The overuse of credit has surely done damage to the Orthodox community, by weakening the financial foundations of too many people. And, despite ProfK's statement that "maybe if some parents knew that they were endangering their ownership they might rein in the type of spending that is making it impossible for some of them to meet their tuition bills," the overuse of credit has done nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the overuse of credit has caused hyper consumption as families "put it on the house." My opinion: credit does NOT slow consumption, it speeds it up.

Balance Sheets Stacked with Collectibles: As it stands now, many organizations already have a balance sheet packed with receivables, many of which will never be collected. Giving loans will just pack the balance sheet with even more collectibles (extremely long term collectives, backed by no collateral), many of which will ultimately go uncollected, yet will make many a finance committee member feel that the picture looks reasonable, when it is in fact not.

ProfK writes "Maybe we will have learned something from the sub-prime mortgage lending mess out in the secular world. Schools really cannot afford to be giving away something for nothing. . . . . " I am learning a different lesson: banks, credit card companies, retail stores offering credit, etc, are taking a huge hit and many are no longer going concerns because they lent money to consumers that had no business taking such loans. The overzealous consumers consumed, and the entire country, from the irresponsible to the responsible are taking a hit that will take decades to recover from.

Meanwhile, business expanded their operations (read: spend more and more money) as credit fueled over consumption. But eventually it became obvious that an overextended public could no longer keep spending because there was nothing left to spend, hence a collapse of many large stores. Like I said before, credit is more likely to speed up consumption, rather than slow consumption.

Lessens the Emergency that the Community should be Feeling: I'm not sure we want to make schools feel as if cash will keep pouring in for 30 years, when that is likely the case. I'd rather schools feel the "tuition crisis" IS the emergency that many believe it is and act accordingly. I'm not being particularly articulate, but I do NOT believe that trading in scholarships for loans due years later will help schools face reality head on. Public schools are currently under their own "credit crunch" as voters are no longer passing bond measures for schools. An education system that got overloaded is finally starting to look for real cost savings, rather than ask for more credit.

What I do Support: Minimum Tuitions, Bill for the Future(but don't stick it on the balance sheet as a receivable), Having an outside tzedakah organization deal with scholarships (an idea presented in the comments) as it would likely force greater transparency as an outside organization will have an interest in making sure they are getting bang for their buck.

What I do Not Support: Introducing more avenues to "put it on the house" in the Orthodox community. Frankly, we need to end this obsession with credit and get people to start operating mostly on a cash basis.

Let the comments fly.
In the previous few posts, I've had the opportunity to forward an idea, rather than say why it will never work. So I hope ProfK will forgive me for playing the opposite card today.

An Idea That Continues to Grow On Me

I wrote about public schools that are switching from the traditional 5 day a week schedule to a 4 day a week schedule in order to save costs on transportation, food, utilities, substitute teachers, and more. I did *not* write about the idea as a practical suggestion of what can be done to alleviate some of the costs of Orthodox schooling. I wrote about the idea basically because I found it interesting and it demonstrated cost saving, out of the box thinking that I can appreciate.

In the comments section, however, commentor TrilCat made a suggestion of a 4 day a week schedule with an extended school year for day schools schools (she obviously wasn't addressing schools that believe in a 6 day school schedule, but the schools who are still on a 5 day school week). No doubt, few schools, if any, would even be interested to experiment with such a schedule. But, the longer the idea sits in the back of the mind, the more I love it.

I have to wonder if a school willing to experiment for a year would find that they and the parents love the schedule. A person can dream, right?

Let's start with the cons:
*Lost opportunities for summer enrichment: Motivated students often try to get internships or take courses at the local junior college or University. Having school extend into the summer might make such opportunities impossible. Those who have extracurricular interests will have difficulty pursuing more intensive opportunities only available during the summer.

*The biggest loser? Summer camps. And many Rebbis and Morohs depend on this source of income. Although I'm sure the free market would take over to provide other money making opportunities (anyone sending their kids to winter camp?), there is a tremendous amount of money invested in summer camps, especially sleep away camps, many of which advertise rather incredible facilities. Summer day camps housed in schools that turn a profit represent lost dollars to a already tight budget. I can only imagine the fear that would ensue if parents liked the idea and wanted to give it a try.

*Some people do go into teaching because they like the traditional school schedule and want their summer off to pursue their own interests. Even if the hours were the same, they might not be interested in teaching on an alternative schedule without extra pay, pushing up the price of tuition even further.

*Parents who need day care on Fridays will be intimidated, at least initially. (But, many parents I know of end up trying to hire care for weekday evenings because they are already trying to squeeze most of their 40 plus hours into 4 1/2 days as it is and they might find it easier to arrange a nice block of time for childcare than 2-3 hours after school).


Some of the pros that I see to a 4 day a week *extended year* school schedule include:

*Fewer absences: Having Friday to travel to family simchas or other such events should decrease both student absences, as well as teacher absences. Inevitably, whenever I take my kids to the doctors, I meet a parent taking their kid(s) in for well visits during school hours. Having a day off every week should make it possible to schedule appointments without pulling kids out of school.

*A nice block of time for homework/research: My husband pointed out to me just how difficult it was for him to actually do the research required for papers when you get out of school between 6 and 7PM with a backpack full of homework and the library is closed on Sunday. In addition, after a long day of school, finding a good block of time to really concentrate on schoolwork isn't easy. Having a 3 day weekend could be advantageous for the serious student.

*Increased employment opportunities for (present) homemakers: Flexible work schedules abound in today's world. There are 4/40 workweeks, 9/8/80 workweeks where an employee can take one day off of work every other week. Two parents working 9/8/80 workweeks conceivably could arrange to have different Fridays off, so someone is always home on the kid's day off. Employers today are quite flexible about employees telecommuting for short periods of time. Those who work part time can often set creative schedules. But, I don't know of any employer who wants their employee to telecommute, take off, or get particularly creative with scheduling for an entire summer. . . and paying for camp and additional childcare arrangements for the weeks between school and camp for the (potential) part time employee is enough to make taking on even part time work look like a loosing proposal (because it often is).

I am friends with a mother who has contemplated taking a "regular" job outside the home (she currently has a small number of clients and works in her home) because they pay would be better. However, between carpools to different schools, all of the various appointments, half days, and the long summer (her kids don't need camp when she can adjust her work accordingly), it just seems to make more sense to stick with lower paying part time work. But, I could see increased opportunity for this part time working mother if her kids were on an extended year, 4 day a week school schedule. As a mother with a smaller family that works from the home, I too could see employment opportunities open up that don't require massive related expenses if my children had a 4 day extended year school schedule.

*Year round schooling is popular with some educators because there is greater retention of material.

*And speaking of long summers, there are many parents who are intimidated by having their children home all summer, even if they are already home. They simply don't find the idea pleasant in the least. Of course, I know some parents who can't even take a week of the kids home, either. But, I imagine that many mothers who are already home, yet have a difficult time managing their children all summer and have come to rely on camp for breathing room, could handle smaller break(s) without outside help, lessening their own expenses.

This is my very rough brainstorm, so please excuse any incomplete thoughts. Add your comments please. Does the idea appeal to you, why or why not? How would it make employment easier or more difficult for you if your kids were only in school Monday through Thursday?

Also, if there is anyone interested in running this idea by their own administration, let me know what the reaction is and feel free to write a guest post.

Guest Post: Stop Whining!

I pulled this comment from the comments section in the last post. 'AnonYMous' tells us to quit whining, get up off our collective bottoms, and do something about the tuition problem. I thought I'd put it up for comments. And after that, perhaps everyone can add their ideas of what they can/will do or report results from attemptsto make changes. In the meantime, I've got committeee meetings to prepare for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm getting very tired of this line of thinking.

I'll tell you why. One set of my grandparents were holocaust survivors. The other survived the Depression. They had NOTHING. Their friends had NOTHING. And yet, they managed to build Jewish schools for their children. They killed themselves to do so. Worked very long hours and gave to the schools in money and body for years to perpetuate the Jewish community.

After their kids graduated these schools my grandparents were still not rich. But they continued to kill themselves for these schools. They invested their blood, sweat and tears to make sure there would be a day school for the children of their community.

Look at the difference between the comments here and them.I hear a bunch of whining.

How can this go on? Tuition is so high!!! What will be, what will be? The schools are asking my parents! The chutzpah! I'm going to just educate my own kids and forget about everyone else. Whine, whine, kvetch, kvetch. The hands are wrung, we purse our lips in self-righteous disapproval and continue to blog and comment.

How about stepping up to the plate and solving the problem? There is no easy solution to something this valuable. The solution is elbow grease, hard work and lots of self-sacrifice.

You think the schools should coordinate buying to get better deals. Spend the time you do on blogs making calls and organizing it. Schools need to raise money. Figure out a fundraiser and do it. Every PENNY counts. Tell your kids you are cutting back on one thing and contributing to Jewish education. If you are single, or a grandparent, or have no kids shouldn't make a difference. GET INVOLVED.

My grandparents didn't care that they had no kids in the schools in their community. They didn't care that the principal made mistakes and that the board wasn't perfect. They gave and they worked.

What happened to the next generations? Why can't we be as communally minded and open to pitching in? Why do we demand that it is each man for himself yet expect Rabbis and Administrators to solve the community's problem? It's time to start acting like adults.

As a collective gasp of indignation goes out over the blogosphere I ask you, do you have so much harder than the Holocaust survivors and those who survived the Depression who had nothing? Or perhaps can WE be solving this "crisis" by just acting like they did.

Finally, lets keep in mind that there is a G-d. The Jewish people aren't going away so fast. He'll help out if we just start acting like we will do our part.

The Giving Tree

A few years ago, I ran into an article that I can no longer locate, where a principal of a Modern Orthodox school suggested grandparents help out the schools with growing budget gaps by paying for their own grandchildren's tuition. I wish I could have been in the room to ask him: haven't grandparents done enough already and where does this all end? The article I linked to in the previous post also made the underlying assumption that grandparents have what to give and should continue to just give freely, especially when times are tough (Anyone wonder if perhaps times are tough for older generations too? Layoffs only affect young people? A fall in retirement account value only affects younger people?).

But why assume that grandparents can continue to give and give and give and give? And if it takes two (or three) generations to support one, what happens next?

The average modern Orthodox grandparent probably has already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to put their children through day school, tens of thousands more for the yeshiva/seminary year, hundreds of thousands of dollars to put their children through college and perhaps grad school, and helped set them up with some starter funds. How much more should does the principal think they should be paying each year?

Let's do a little math. A set of grandparents with 4 adult children and 16 grandchildren has a yearly tuition bill that totals somewhere between $160,000 and $320,000 (assumption: average tuition for K-12 is between $10,000 and $20,000). What amount would the principal suggest is reasonable? Even a very generous contribution to tuition of $20,000 is "only" $1,250 per grandchild. A more significant per grandchild contribution of $3,000 for 16 grandkids would come to a massive yearly tuition contribution 'bill' of $48,000.

My understanding is that grandparents are already contributing to their grandchildren's tuition, often quite significantly. A commentor asked about the thinking coming out of modern Orthodox circles regarding how to meet the widening budget gap. I haven't been able to find much, but the main things I'm hearing about are more fundraising and getting grandparents to help more. But in a down economy, how much is left to help? And what kind of monster is in the living room if it takes at least two generations to support one?

An Idea We Can Hate Even More:
Boomerang Families

Hat Tip: Rosie has self-identified. Thanks Rosie.

I figured someone would eventually suggest that families should share living expenses by living under one roof. I've been joking with my husband for a long time that tuition boards will not only be imploring families to ask grandparents for funds, but will be asking kids to move back in back with grandparents as an alternative. (Somewhere I once read about a principal who told a parent that their working son should help pay for the younger sibling's tuition, but I can't find my clipping).

Well, someone finally did suggest the idea, but not in regards to tuition. That someone would be a Jewish Press columnist, Moshe Kupfer, writing a column When The Going Gets Tough... While the idea of multi-generational households may seem unusual, it has been done before and is still common amongst immigrant groups. And, I know more than a handful of young couples, with anywhere between zero and four children,that have moved in with their parents. And I'm sure this arrangement will become more common in a down economy.

But, where the columnist sees numerous advantages in multi-generational households ("free" babysitting, , I see numerous issues sure to creep up, especially if more than one couple decides to try to exercise the option. A lightbulbesque joke might be, how many boomerang children does it take to exceed fire code?

Mr. Kupfer writes, "And for the most part - what my peers would consider the "too close for comfort" living arrangements - worked. Financially, the households benefited because there were two, three even four incomes coming in to pay the bills. Mothers could work, because Bubby, Granny, or Savta was home to watch the kids - or there were several aunts to do so. " (Orthonomics asks: why are Bubbies, Grannies, and Savtas always the ones expected to raise the children. Perhaps Granny would like to take a job?)

Mr. Kupfer points to farming families and post-World II immigrants as examples. I would point out that in the former example, all families living together were working together towards a common cause and the equity that they were building was their collective equity. The same goes for urban families living above a business in a multi-generational setting. While John milks the cows and his wife Jane feeds the chickens, aunt Jill watches their children (or more likely, puts the kids to work scrubbing potatoes). Everyone is working, serving a function for the entire group, and everyone gets paid (at least in theory). I know plenty of grandparents providing free babysitting in the here and now. I don't know anyone giving Zaide and Bubby a cut of the profits.

Every year, right around Pesach time, Jewish publications are filled with letters from disgruntled Grandparents whose children made themselves right at home. After a week of cleaning up every one's mess, cooking for a crowd, and providing free babysitting to more children than they can count, these grandmothers are ready to hang up their boots. Many of these grandparents are already providing "support" and I'm guessing that the reason many of these grandparents are providing "support" in the first place, rather than suggesting the couple move right in after the chuppah to share costs, is because it is the easier arrangement.

Can you even start to imagine the type of fights that will happen if Moshe and Shmuel move in with the grandparents with their wives and kids? Moshe sees advantages of having numerous adults in one house: "And the children benefited because there were so many adults to run to for help, comfort or just attention. If Mommy wasn't available - then Bubby was. And there were several pairs of additional eyes watching out for them." Sometimes I see the advantages of having extra sets of adults (and cousins) around too. But, the novelty wears off pretty quickly.. . . .or at least that is my own experience. Different disciplining styles, different expectations of adults and children, different consumption habits, different eating habits, different cleanliness and organization habits. Yeah, the novelty wears off quickly.

The columnist writes: "As the saying goes - there is safety in numbers - in this case, your financial safety. Living with family and thus substantially reducing expenses will take a ton of pressure and stress off a young father's shoulders and help the family save money."

Multi-family arrangements will likely be more common. If the financial details can be worked out satisfactorily, there is sure to be a financial benefit. But whatever "pressure and stress [is taken] off a young father's shoulders" will likely be placed squarely upon the womenfolk's shoulder's.

Here's An Idea We Can All Hate!

A few days ago I wrote a post So What are Public Schools Doing to Cut Their Budgets? looking at the various proposals that are being floated to get public school budgets under control. Those ideas included larger classrooms, consolidating school districts, renegotiating contracts, eliminating summer school, and a number of other smaller cost cutting measures.

Recently I heard about an idea that I know would never work in our own Jewish schools because of the already extended school day and because there is almost no way parents would accept such even if suggested. So I'm NOT suggesting our schools should even look into this idea, but it is good to understand the mechanics because we will understand how the dominoes fall when a major cost is slashed from a budget.

I ran into the idea of a Four Day School Week (note: same hours of classroom time) recently while thumbing through the newspaper. Another note: NYS is considering this ideas as I type. A quick Google search brought me to numerous articles, and I was quickly intrigued (nerdy, I know). I worked for an office where the majority of staff were switched to a 4/40 work week schedule in an emergency cost cutting measure. Auditing is travel intensive and when you have the 50% of your staff out on travel on any given week, cutting one day from a hotel stay, one day off gas bills, one day off rental car bills, and one day off the per diems quickly becomes a realized savings. In addition, there are smaller savings to be realized when utility costs fall. Ultimately, staff came to enjoy the longer days and the day off, and turnover decreased, helping the office to realize further savings in training costs.

But, a four day a week for schools? Even I, a blogger with some rather "outrageous" cost cutting ideas, would never have dreamed this idea up. (Turns out the idea is not new at all. In the 70's gas crisis, some schools switched to this schedule temporarily). From an economic standpoint, the savings, if a four day school week is instituted smartly, the savings are obvious: one less day of bussing (particularly significant because this four day school weeks are becoming more popular in rural areas, where long bus routes are de rigour), less utility cost (once again, particularly significant cost savings that can be realized in more rural communities), one less day of serving school breakfast/lunch, less insurance costs, and more. But what of education?

Turns out, many of the articles I have read have reported positive academic gains, which surprised me. Turns out that schools suffer less absences with this schedule. And, another domino falls economically, because schools also have less teacher absences and, in turn, the budget for substitute teachers fall (which is probably an academic gain in and of itself). Many schools, it turns out, have seen academic gains as well. As per this Time Magazine article, some of the financial savings in one district have been used to invest in more instruction including tutoring.

But what of teachers? The day is super long. And while many private sector employees deal well relatively well with extended days (there is a trade off for productivity I believe, but that is made up with worker satisfaction and other cost savings), we don't have to be around large groups of noisy students for hours on end. I think I was most surprised to find that there are teachers who claim to like this schedule, after trying it. Teachers had to make adjustments, of course, but I've yet to see an article with anything too negative in practice.

But what of parents and their schedules? Much of the resistance to four day school week proposals rightfully comes from parents who are wondering how to find, and how to pay for, an extra day of care for younger children. Few parents and educators want kids in front of the TV an extra day. Some parents have found that it is easier to find a full day of care for children, than a few hours daily. In communities that have come together to save school budgets, churches have stepped in to provide day care. In families where children need to work, there are reports that it is easier to commit to a job when a student has large blocks of time. Many families have come around, finding it easier to schedule time with kids because of their own work schedule, when their kids have another full day off from school. And, parents who enjoy traveling for weekend trips, enjoy this extra day off.

I've enjoyed by reading and have come to see there are quite a few benefits to a four day week beyond the financial for rural schools. I don't see this idea flying in an urban area. And, I don't believe it is at all relevant to Orthodox day schools and yeshivot (our kids have a long, long day as it is). . . . . . . .but I love reading about innovative ideas none the less.

Comment please.

Will Group Schooling Emerge?

The Lakewood school, Bais Faiga, is still closed (see Wednesday's update). It is being reported that teachers are meeting with students in their own homes and teaching them there until classes resume. I can't help but wonder that if the situation of non-payment and strike festers any longer, that emergence of small scale home-group schooling (you heard the term here first) will end up being seen as a realistic possibilility, especially by the parents who paid up tuition in full and on time and are the most affected by those who lag behind on tuition payments.

Your thoughts? (Gotta run).

Lakewood Teachers Walk

. . . and a part of me wants to say "it's about time."

An anonymous commentor alerted me to a Jewish news story at Matzav.com. Lakewood girls' school Bais Faiga Elementary School is closed today and will continue to be closed, no doubt leaving parents up a creek trying to find arrangements for their daughters. Teachers, fed up with non-payment, sent home a note on Friday stating that they that they haven't been paid and they won't be teaching until the situation is resolved. A commentor thought sending the letter home with the students was tacky. I'm sure that there is much more to the story than meets the eye. So I will leave it up to my readers to comment on the level of tackiness. I imagine the situation is more one of desperation.

Approximately one and a half years ago I wrote a post entitled "It's Time to Walk: Alternatively a Job is NOT a Chessed" where I discussed non-payment of wages, the idea that employment is "at will," and that at a certain point it makes sense to pack your bag and find something different. One wonders how different schools would look if 1) administrators knew teachers will not accept working without pay, and 2) parents knew that if that if they or others didn't pay up tuition obligations timely as per their contracts, that they might be left without an operating school.

I see no reason why the teachers should stick around in an intolerable situation. Non-payment and late payment has been going on for a very long time now. I'm just wondering what took so long for a group of teachers to stage a walk out?

Comment away.

So What are Public Schools Doing to Cut Their Budgets?

I've put forward some of my own thoughts on how to cut Jewish Day School and Yeshiva budgets and I've featured guest posters with ideas of the subject, and to say the least, it generated quite a bit of discussion. I am a big believer in taking a look at what others are doing and have been busy searching out and reading some newspaper articles to bring my readers some news from outside the Orthodox world. I'm only scratching the surface, and plan to continue to bring more news, but I'm starting with 6 states/areas, from the state of NY, home to the majority of yeshiva/day school students, as well as home to the #1 most expensive school system in the United States spending, on average, over $16,000 per student (property taxes are out the roof), to Utah, home of the least expensive school system in the United States, spending, on average, less than $6,000 per student.

Disclaimer: I am NOT suggesting all of the budget cutting ideas are good ideas (some probably are). In fact, the one I will present in my next post I'm sure will be met with disgust by nearly all my readers. I'm just presenting for the sake of discussion. Let's start with what I've got so far.

What's Happening in NY?
The Governor is asking school districts with less than 1,000 students to consolidate. I can't imagine the journalist got the cost savings right at only $7 per head. New York has some of the highest priced school districts in the nation, some spending over $30,000 per student while NY spend the most per student of any state, and there are hundreds upon hundreds of school districts, each with their own set of administrators, support staff, and auxiliary staff. Consolidation seems like common sense to me. Some of these districts spend so much they would be better off outsourcing the whole darn enterprise. But, consolidation faces opposition from educators. I'm guessing the superintendent that lashed out could find his job no longer exists should schools consolidate.

What's Happening in the DC Metro Area?
Fairfax County, Virginia is threatening larger class sizes of 2 1/2 students on average and claims that each additional student per class will cut the budget by $22 million. Parents don't seem to happy. One can't blame them when classes will be hovering around 30 students. The journalist notes that nationwide the average number of students in elementary classes was 29 in 1961 and dropped to 24 in 1996. I'm not sure we had 30 students in a single elementary school class in my day. But, it was close.

The educators aren't thrilled either. They claim smaller classes means better educated students. However, a professor speaking for the study claims small means *really* small (i.e. 15 students or less) and Fairfax County classes aren't that small as it is. They average 21.2 students. Nearby in Prince William, Virginia, school officials plan to ask state legislature to relax class size standards which stipulate no more than 30 students in a class, with the typical class size of 24.

Fairfax County is likely to eliminate summer school for all but special education students and freeze cost of living increases. I attended public summer school for a number of years and it was always completely free. Other districts charge a small fee for summer school and/or night school, all of which are included in school budgets and "cost per student" averages I believe.

In nearby Montgomery County, the school board has asked the to renegotiate staff contracts to eliminate the 5% salary increase for a savings of $89 million. If contracts cannot be re-negotiated, there will likely be job cuts. Other potential savings could come from eliminating extra academic help at economically disadvantaged schools or increasing class size.

What's Happening in Hawaii?
Looks like the state government in Hawaii is going to have to make some tough choices. Gov. Lingle is asking for a 20% cut in the state budget (later reversed). That is steep. Budget cuts that have been approved include discontinuing funding for 244 positions, science textbooks and other materials, custodians, charter school coordinators, programs for literacy training for learning-disabled children and teacher workshops.

But, more needs to be cut and the ideas being floated by the school superintendent are causing some butting of heads between her and the teachers' union. Schools Superintendent Pat Hamamoto is suggesting closing school for six days, requiring employees to work without pay for four days, closing campuses of four teacher-planning days, and shortening the school year by four days. Union president didn't like the "donation" of teaching days (who would!) because it represents a pay cut. But, school superintendent points out the advantage: job security. Hawaii schools are also looking at class size increases and fewer new hires.

With one exception, every single commentors on the article has mentioned bloated administration and are asking why only teaching staff and students are being threatened with cuts, but administration will get off without a hit to their own pocketbook? Good question.

What's Happening in Las Vegas?
Parents got a chance to attend town hall meetings to discuss how to cut $120 million out of the budget. Parents overwhelmingly want to keep extracurricular activities such as sports, band, and orchestra. They appear open to the idea of financially underwriting some of the cost of these programs. It will be interesting to see if the budget problems of public schools mean that more parents will have to start paying fees they never had to pay before to keep programs they value, and how that will play out where their are income disparities.

What's Happening in Alabama?
Schools were informed they are only going to be receiving 75% of expected funds to meet the November payroll. Payroll funds are linked to income and sales tax receipts and these are slower coming in. Alabama's schools started the year with little to no cushion. Who knew that Alabama and the Jewish school system shared a commonality.

What's Happening in Utah?
Utah spends the least amount of money per student than any other state in the Union. But, budgets are budgets and Utah is looking to makes cuts too. Teacher raises will likely be off the table. At the state level, the Board of Education will not be filling vacated jobs and will possibly lay off some staff. They also will be halting some programs. The annual U-Pass standardized test might not be given in the coming year. Looks like there is a lot of cooperation in Utah. I wonder if that has to do with what appears to be a general culture of frugality across the board.

A Fine Line Between Helping and Hindering

A recent guest poster wrote about an organization Mesila, which works with the Chareidi population to help instill healthy financial habits. After reading many of the Mesila profiles, as well as sorting through the various solicitation letters that arrive in my mailbox each year, I couldn't help but ask, is the lending, as it takes place now, helping or hindering families? (I think you can guess the answer).

It is very obvious to me that if the Feldman family, featured on the Mesila website, was forced to live on a cash budget from the inception of their marriage, and never had access to free loans, that they would have slowly built some financial footing, even if it was weak footing. Instead they borrowed their way into a personal hell. Their first interest free loan was taken to make a more upscale brit milah than they could afford. That loan was followed by numerous loans, including a gemach loan for which the funds were used to rent a car and a hotel or a summer vacation. The loans taken were certainly a hindrance.

The easy access to (interest free) cash for such purposes is rather astounding on its own. Obviously there is a need from reform, should free loan fulfill their purpose of helping. Borrowers with limited to no means are being extended loans that they will likely never be able to pay back. Lenders are left in the dark as there is no credit reporting system giving vital information about the borrower. In today's society one can run from one gemach to another, borrow from numerous grocers, bakers, and candlestick makers in numerous cities thanks to mass transportation. In the middle of a system is the klal, giving tzedakah with the intention to help, yet much of the funds end up falling into a black hole.

Chazal tells us that the interest from debt is like a snake bite, i.e. crippling. But the Torah certainly favors credit for positive purposes, commanding us to lend freely and generously to our brethren. And we also learn that debt must be repaid. I can't imagine that our sages would think it a good idea to lend money to those with hardly enough income to support their basic needs, so they could consume.

Paanomim's English diary has divrei Torah on the subject of lending. Rabbi Yaakov Ariel reminds us that the purpose of lending is to help a person achieve financial independence, “One who lends is greater than one who gives charity; even greater is one who provides merchandise with which to do business” (Shabbat 63a). He also warns of the danger of lending wrongly writing "Loans sometimes give the borrower the illusion that he has more money than he has, leading him to start living beyond his actual means. This could end up entangling him in debt, and possibly even financial collapse, Heaven forbid.A loan must not lead to financial misjudgment and misplaced spending. Loans must therefore be carefully supervised, for without proper guidance, they might not only not help, but could even lead to the exact opposite of its original intention."

Rabbi Ariel refers to a concept called a "taste for credit." One of the most targeted demographics for new credit cards are those who have bankrupted. Why? As Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor noted for her research on bankruptcy, notes in a documentary film that those who have bankrupted have a "taste for credit," yet cannot bankrupt again, making them a very profitable demographic to lend to.

Where is that fine line between helping and hindering? I hope to look at this subject more in future posts. But for now I think it is safe to conclude that at least some gemach lending is quite hurtful.

Guest Post: Seminary and Shabbat

I'm thankful to all of my guest posters who are keeping this blog active while I deal with some other things and catch up on some work. Thanks Mom in Israel! Post follows:

Guest post for Orthonomics on Seminary Girls

Many thanks to my blog-friend and now real-life friend 'Sephardi Lady' for inviting me to post.

The scene: Monday evening in the dormitory hallway. Girls crowd around the public phones, trying to organize a place for Shabbat. I finger my asimonim and my address book, searching for someone I haven't been to in a while. People know that girls need places and are always inviting them for Shabbat, but I am shy. Also, my mother taught me that it wasn't polite to invite yourself to someone's house, so I don't call people that I felt weren't sincere. The people I reach sound disappointed when they say, "This week isn't good for us, but you can call back in a couple of days if you're really stuck." A couple of days is too late; I have to sign up my Shabbat location by Wednesday morning. And who wants to go to someone on an inconvenient week?

The school doesn't leave us completely at loose ends, and maintains lists of families that have offered to host students. You can also stay in the dorms and be invited within the neighborhood, or cook for yourselves in your apartment's kitchen. The catch is that you have to be with a friend, and my friends have more Shabbat invitations than they can handle. So Tuesday evening finds me knocking on my friends' doors, hoping that their hosts' generosity can be expanded to include an out-of-town hanger-on.

When Sephardi Lady mentioned that girls have been asking their parents for money for Shabbat meals [link], I sympathize with the girls. It's no fun to go away every single week, unless you are visiting close relatives. Parents who can afford to send their children to Israel should be expecting to pay for all of their daughters' meals, and not be dependent on the graciousness of near strangers.

One friend agrees to get "set up" with me for Shabbat, and we go to a kollel couple. It turns out that the hostess has "setting up" of a different kind in mind; she is looking for shidduchim for her husband's colleagues. She sees that I am not interested so she concentrates on my friend, pumping her for details whenever I go to the bathroom.

Now I'm on the other side, and I still think the system doesn't work. I live in an out-of-the-way, unglamorous place as far as overseas programs are concerned. So on the rare occasion that I am asked, I am usually glad to host. If not, I say no. But I gather that families in other locations get asked quite frequently, and may feel pressured to agree.

There are two reasons programs for girls don't provide for Shabbat. One is shul. When my college had a rare in-Shabbat, we were brought to the yeshiva next door for davening, and ushered out before we had a chance to socialize. Also, yeshivas consider Shabbat an important part of the bonding experience, while girls traditionally spend Shabbat in a family environment (and are expected to help, whether they go home or to hosts).

I met a woman recently who spent a year in a Bet Yaakov type seminary in Israel. Most of the families that the seminary sent her to welcomed her, but a few seemed more interested in the household help than in having a guest. From the moment she walked in, she was on duty to help with the children and housework. Some families did not have enough food even for themselves. Once, she was shown a bed with sheets that reeked of urine. Often the wives were overwhelmed with caring for small children and desperate for a break. The seminaries felt that this was good training for the girls and a fair exchange for meals. The woman I met added that she complained if the situation was bad, and the seminary would stop sending girls to that family.

Then there are the summer programs. One of them asked a community to host high-school-age girls for Shabbat. My friend told me that at noontime Friday, the bus dropped off two girls who were expecting lunch. Why should baalabatim, who are already hosting guests for Shabbat meals, provide Friday lunch for girls whose parents can afford to send them on a summer tour? Mimi of Israeli Kitchen describes a similar situation. Mimi told it as a humorous story, but there is a dark side as well. What if those girls hadn't been so friendly and well-mannered, or Mimi couldn't have spared the extra food? I remember being advised to eat lunch on Fridays so I wouldn't arrive at my hosts starving.

I benefited so much from the hospitality of others. As a single, I was grateful, although I didn't understand all that was involved. But at what point does it cease to be hospitality, and become taking advantage?

I don't blame the students at all. I simply believe that the girls' programs need to limit the number of free Shabbatot. And we haven't touched on the issue of holidays, and harder still, the days before and around the holidays.

I don't see the situation changing anytime soon. So unless your daughter has close friends or relatives she can use as a base, I suggest the following to parents:

1. Ask the programs when and how they arrange home hospitality. Try and choose a program that does not rely on weekly hospitality .
   
2. Teach your children how to act in the homes they are visiting. Jameel posts some guidelines.
   
3. If your children are spending a lot of time in the home of another family, send a note to the family thanking them. Consider sending a gift as well. (In general I don't appreciate or expect gifts for hosting, but long-term is different.)
   
4. Find out where your children are going for Shabbat, with whom, and how they know the hosts.