JO Review: Guidelines for Tuition

It may take me a very long time to finish my review of the Jewish Observer's Tuition Dilemma issue, but I'm trying. Below are links to my first two reviews. There will be more to follow, I hope.

JO Review: Tuition, A Dilemma?
JO Review: Of Facts and Figures

The second article in the "Tuition Dilemma" feature was titled "Guidelines for Tuition." It is basically a question and answer session with HaRav Yaakov Kamenetzky zt"l regarding guidelines for tuition policies for Yeshiva Bais Dovid in Monsey. These guidelines were not presented as halacha le'ma'aseh, as every Yeshiva and community is different, but as an expression of "da'as Torah."

I found the following exchanges interesting [My (highly disorganized) notes are in orange]:

1. Regarding Setting the Tuition Schedule: [As part of a larger exchange] Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zt"l states "What is the fair share? You must take the entire budget and divide it by the number talmidim, to arrive at "cost per child." If the parent can afford to pay the entire "cost," he must do so, out of his own pre-tzedaaka funds. If he cannot afford to pay the entire "cost," then he should pay some of his tuition out of pre-tzedaka funds, and he may pay the balance out of his tzeddaka funds. The directors must decide how much he must pay. The parent should ask his own rav to determine what portion may come from his tzeddaka funds."

This approach to setting tuition is so logical that one assume that this is exactly how every school would set tuition, yet I don't believe I know a single school that sets tuition using this formula (perhaps the school that receive the guideline from R' Kamenetzky ?). Any school offering automatic tuition reductions, sibling discounts, etc is not using this formula. A friend of ours told us that his son's school is in a bind because it has relied on a particular donor for many years, and this donor has "subsidized" (for lack of a better word. . . .regular readers know I am in favor of community wide support for schools) the tuition of all, regardless of whether or not the parents should have been contributing/paying more to their children's schools.

Of course, there are also solid reasons why tuition would be set in a different fashion and I believe the majority of schools do not set tuition using such a straightforward method. Some schools don't want to charge "full price" because they already see that a large number of students (even the majority) receive reductions as it is and they don't want to have to force more parents in front of the scholarship committee, which is bound to create bitter feelings. In other schools, parents might leave the school, forcing those who stay to carry an even heavier burden.

I am unsure of what the best approach is in terms of setting tuition. In an ideal world, funding Jewish education would be a first priority. But, it seems that Jewish Education for elementary, middle, and high school students gets the short stick. I do think that no matter how tuition is set, a "price per student" should be disclosed.

2. Sons vs. Daughters: "While there is an obligation on every father to educate his daughters, it is not correct to split tuition money evenly amongst boys and girls, for the father has a great obligation for his sons, and he should therefore allocate a larger portion of his tuition funds for them."

I have to wonder how this works in practice! Does the Bais Yaakov down the block willing take less tuition for siblings because they are educating girls, or does the committee ask for their "fair share" too? In co-ed schools and in "associated" boys and girls schools (separate campuses, but shared faculty and overhead), I don't think such is particularly relevant as parents are really paying per family, boys and girls together.

As for me, I just can't see putting this into play as a parent. Should we need tuition reductions and our children are in completely separate schools, as opposed to "associated" schools, I just can't see myself bargaining for a bigger reduction from a girls school than a boys schools. I can't argue on the priority of putting a son's Torah education above a daughter's, but when it comes to K-12 education I don't make a distinction between my sons and daughters. I figure they are each just picking up basic literacy.

3. Documentation for Tuition Reductions: The question asked is as follows: Is there as "percentage of income" rule that can be applied to tuition? We have heard that other yeshivos apply a 10-15% of Gross Income Rule, in order to determine the amount of tuition. Is there any basis for this in din or otherwise? Rav Kamenetzky zt"l: "The 10-15% of Income Rule does not work at all, since people resent submitting their income tax returns to a tuition committee, and we should not make an effort in that direction. It is not productive. Rather, the committee should take note of the year-round-life style of the parent, and then negotiate with him."

First off, I had to laugh about a 10-15% of gross income rule. All in all, 10-15% of our gross income is a large chunk of money. . . . . . . the sad thing is that this amount will not cover tuition for ONE high school student, although it will cover one tuition for elementary. . . and my husband does pretty well, baruch Hashem. I know families paying well over 50% (and higher) of their gross incomes to educate their children.

I don't know about the standard operating procedure for tuition reductions "in town" (The 5 Boros and Monsey), but here in my "out of town" community, submitting tax returns is standard. The scholarship form also includes detailed information about income (including food stamps/WIC/Section 8), savings, and expenses and even asks how much money your children earn from their own jobs like babysitting a year (!). Besides the cost of a family's last simcha and the wife's last sheitel purchase, I don't see any stone left unturned.

Maybe there was a time where parents would not submit tax returns and it was too much to ask (my parents are of this school of thought and never had us apply for financial aid for college). Do you feel a tax return is overly invasive? I think it is invasive, but I find the scholarship form and all of its disclosures far more uncomfortable.

In addition, I really can't imagine how a scholarship committee can evaluate the year-round-lifestyle of a family and maximize tuition dollars *collected* without being invasive. There are extremely modest people out there with plenty in the bank and people living the lavish life that just won't be able to pony up the cash for tuition because they are maxed out. (A side note: the tax return isn't a magic pill either. With a complicated return, self-employment, etc, it can be near impossible to figure out what a person actually brings in).

Your thoughts?

I'm looking forward to hearing all of your comments. I did enjoy this part of the JO Tuition Dilemma piece and I'm glad they included it. It gave me a lot to think about and I'm looking forward to your comments.

JO Review: Tuition, A Dilemma?

It is time to return to a Top 10 blogging subject and discuss tuition. I have three more magazines in my possession that discuss tuition issues and plan to cover bits and pieces of each feature at some point in the near future.

The most recent publication that I have received is the January/February 2007 issue of the Jewish Observer (JO) which opened up a discussion on "The Tuition Dilemma."

Just in case you think you misread the title of the article, I assure you that Dilemma was not a typo on my part. I'm not sure why the staggering cost of tuition has not propelled tuition to merit the title "Crisis." Perhaps the staff of the JO doesn't want to alarm us. But I'm sure the tuition schedules which have arrived in mailboxes all over the US have proved alarming enough. But to be fair, the word crisis was used in the first piece, but the crisis seemed to refer to the strained relationship that parents experience with the schools in regards to the price of tuition.

But Title aside, I'd give the JO feature a C+.

I believe that the OU's Jewish Action (JA) in their Fall 2005 Issue, "The Tuition Squeeze," set the gold standard. Unafraid of tough discussion, the JA's editorial staff put together a feature that presented new models and ideas, that challenged the reader (see a review of one such article by yours truely that generated 87 comments), and that even presented a rather radical proposal which was quite daring even for a Modern Orthodox publication. The macro and micro economics of tuition were all touched upon, or at least alluded to.

The Jewish Observer Feature did present some new elements necessary for an intelligent and productive discussion of the Tuition Crisis. . . . . er Dilemma. . . . One welcome addition to the discussion were the words of a Torah Giant of blessed memory, as well as a halachic perspective from Rav Shmuel Fuerst. However, there was little challenge presented. As a community member that wants an exchange of ideas which can be piloted, I don't think that there was much presented which could be readily tested.

The feature is divided into five separate articles and a number of side articles. And I plan to look at elements of each piece in upcoming posts.

1. Overview: Vibrant Memories, Indelible Imprints
2. Guidelines for Tuition: Guidelines for school tuition policy for Yeshiva Bais Dovid (Monsey) based on guidelines given by Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky.
3. Resolving the Tuition Dilemma--Getting Involved
4. An Executive Director's Perspective
5. The Tuition Committee: Creating a Parent-Yeshiva Partnership

If you had a chance to read this edition of the JO and would like to comment on any of the articles or side articles, please leave your comments or send an email to me with the contents of your guest post.

JO Review: These Are Solutions?

I got sidetracked from my Jewish Observer "Tuition Dilemma" Review, but now that Yeshiva World News has re-posted an article from that edition, I thought I would try to return to the review, at least temporarily.


At one time I had a draft on file regarding this article, but I deleted it because I couldn't hold myself back from making very rude comments in regards to assertions such as "Yeshivos have become very creative and entrepreneurial in finding ways to close their budget gaps." And "To an honest and realistic person, our school administrator knows his business very well. He has been successful in steering the ship through very choppy waters. This same executive director or administrator has become so talented at balancing the budget, his skills match those of any corporate CFO. The fact that he stays at the yeshiva is in itself real mesiras nefesh." While I don't doubt there is some stellar financial management going on, I would say this assertion is over-gratuitous. I'll hold try to hold my tongue, but we have discussed non-payment of Yeshiva employees and unsuccessful and even loosing fundraisers. Hopefully the author had something else in mind in regards to "creative and entrepreneurial ways to close the budget gap."


The main thrust of the article was to offer "solutions" to the problems of funding yeshiva educations. These "solutions" were put forward:

1. Solicit Big Money Donors.
2. Lobby for Tax Relief.
3. Lobby for Tuition Vouchers.

Oy! If this is the level of thinking that we are seeing, then I can only fear that nothing will be done to make a dent in tuition. Regarding #3, vouchers were just defeated on referendum in the State of Utah. Regarding #2, a frum family in Los Angeles already tried to deduct tuition for religious subjects, 55%, and fought their case up the latter in tax court with the backing of Agudah. They lost on appeal and in over 10 years there has been no light at the end of the tunnel. Vouchers and tax relief are just not happening (sorry to be so pessimistic and/or realistic). To put all of our eggs in this basket would be like adding a line item into the budget to buy lotto tickets weekly. I do believe we should lobby for vouchers and tax relief, but we cannot rely on a miracle and have to take a different approach.

Solution 1 is the best of the 3 that has been put forward by the author. But in my opinion there are major, major, major impediments to inspiring both major and minor donors. We have too much to support and no priorities. Kollelim and Kiruv have won out over day schools. Donors have been alienated. There is little to no financial transparency. There is duplicity and little to no unity (e.g. an Orthodox School Region/District). Donors/Parents have little control (elected boards for our regions/districts). For related reading see: Eliot Pasik (and here) and George Hanus (founder of the Superfund in Chicago).

Let's be honest. If you had millions to give, would you turn your money over? And to what school?

To be continued.

JO Review: Of Facts and Figures

The Introduction to the Jewish Observer's "Tuition Dilemma" feature, "Vibrant Memories Indelible Imprints," introduces the articles to follow as drawing upon presentations that took place at the National Convention of Agudath Israel in November 2005.

The author in "Raw Figures and Precious Neshamos" starts by repeating figures that are dated by nearly 7 years. The author quotes an Avi Chai foundation study of 2000 stating that day school/yeshiva tuition range between $5,000 and just over $18,000. Unfortunately, these staggering tuition figures are far more staggering today. While I cannot determine the lower tuition across the US, I can report that the $17,000 tuition figure that nearly made choke on my dinner last year has now increased to just over $18,000 this year. Ari Kingsberg reports that the tuition in Riverdale's SAR has now topped $26,000.

(MB--Are you still reading my blog??? This is for you.) I hate to be correct, but I predicted the 2006/07 tuition rates nearly to the dollar by applying the average percentage tuition increase from the past three years and projecting it into the future. You don't even want to know what tuitions could be in 5 years, much less 10. But if the cost of education continues to increase at a rate well beyond that of your average Certificate of Deposit, we are in trouble.

And let us not forget that these tuition figures are not "all inclusive" as special class trips and graduations are extra. Also, there are often hidden costs like transportation (anyone purchased a newer and bigger vehicle than they currently need for carpool?) or even uniforms that impact the family budget. (Please don't laugh about uniforms. I know one family who claims the most expensive outfits their girls own are their school uniforms. I believe them).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other topic of the introduction was the salaries of mechanchim. Nearly everything presented has been said before and I have no doubt that the author is accurately reflecting the sentiments of those in the chinuch professions. A brief summary: Mechanchim are not paid enough and must seek extra income to support their families. The minimal salaries make it difficult to find or retain quality staff.

The author did not bring up the lack of timely payment which some might tell you is far worse than not being paid what was agreed upon on time. (Unfortunately there are schools out there that have never paid their workers. I won't name names). Even if we cannot solve the tuition crisis all at once, working on a halachic problem like this which undermines employee morale could go a long way.

But I felt the author took a far too gratuitous jab at more Modern Orthodox schools when he stated, "the typical yeshiva's tuition income does not permit it to come anywhere near the salary and benefits level of public schools or wealthy suburban day schools," when introducing his comments above.

Modern Orthodox and even non-Orthodox schools suffer from many of the same challenges that the more right wing schools suffer from. In fact one of the problems that the Modern Orthodox community has is finding teachers from within its own ranks as the push for aliyah is great and teachers are armed with degrees from recognized Universities and Colleges and can more easily choose to pursue options outside of the frum world. Attracting staff and retaining staff is an uphill battle in modern schools, despite generally higher tuition charged (and most likely collected).

And outside of a handful of administrators in select day schools, I have yet to hear of teachers being offered anywhere near the level of benefits of those in public schools, even where salaries come close to that of the public school counterparts. And how can the benefits come anywhere close even if the funding is there? The Orthodox world lacks a regional or central body that can negotiate benefits or administer benefits.

(Of note: See the Jewish Action's article "Averting a Crisis in Jewish Education: Retirement and the Jewish Educator" for a more Modern Orthodox perspective. Of note is the unified efforts in Chicago where a community has come together to combat some of the issues and offer better benefits. We could all use a lesson from Chicago).

While I'm sure that involved in the Yeshiva world schools look upon their counterparts in the Modern Orthodox day schools as "wealthy," it would be of service to realize that we are all in the same boat, even if the dollars don't add up quite the same. And friends of mine in the Modern Orthodox day school world will quickly point to their counterparts in the Yeshiva world that there are rarely, if ever, tuition discounts for teachers (not administrators) and that they must stand before the tuition committee just as everyone else.

I'd like to explore the issues of staffing at a later time and would welcome guest posts from readers more in the know. There are many interesting aspects to staffing issues in school. Some questions I would be interested in:

* Is it more difficult to attract and/or retain male teachers than female teachers?
* How do frequent pregnancies of female teachers impact on school budgets and education where frequent absenses require the hiring of substitute teachers as well as inconsistencies in education? (A related subject: Post-seminary students who leave mid-year to get married).

Once again, I look forward to your comments. And bear with me as I comb through the JO's Tuition "Dilemma" Issue.

JO Review: Tuition Vs. Vacation

In the last post I looked at Rabbi Shmuel Feust's answer on tuition vs. camp, where camp was deemed a necessity. The second question posed to him at the Agudah convention Tuition Forum is as follows.

Question: Can a person who doesn't pay full tuition take a vacation?

Answer: In one community, the tuition committee monitors all the parents--when they go on vacation, where they go, what type of hotel they stay in. The following year, the interviewer can tell them how much they spent on their vacation.

"Vacation" may mean going out of town for a couple of days, or it could mean taking a trip to Eretz Yisroel, Acapulco, Florida, or Palm Springs. The tuition committee would have a basis to say that you have no right to take such a vacation unless you pay full tuition. If however, you wanted to go to the mountains and stay in a bungalow colony for a week or two for health reasons or change of scenery, that may well be different.

I see value in taking low-key family vacations to national parks or historical sites. I personally have no interest in vacationing with the neighbors be it in Acapulco or in a bungalow colony. But that is neither here or there.

The Rabbi was very vague with his answer. I imagine that is because vacations are abused and there are sometimes cases where families need a break and it is affecting shalom bayit. However, I can't understand why sleepaway (not day) camp would get a "yes," while taking a low-key family vacation gets a luke warm "maybe."

There really should be a guide for applying for tuition reductions that lets you know when you should just forget about it and lets you know what type of expenses you are allowed to make should you apply. Maybe one could trade camp reductions for tuition of x dollars for lesser amount to take a road trip to a national park and camp out in Motel 6's along the way?

JO Review: Tuition Vs. Camp

The Jewish Observer "Tuition Dilemma" Issue has an interest transcript of a question and answer session conducted by Rabbi Shmuel Feurst, Rav of Agudath Israel of Chicago regarding tuition issues. Below I am reproducing the first question and answer regarding tuition vs. camp. Other questions to follow in upcoming posts.

My comments to follow.

Question -- Overnight camp can cost $2,000, $3,000, or even $4,000, and day camps can also cost $1,000-$2,000 if the child is enrolled for the entire summer. Can one apply for a scholarship from his child's school if he would be able to pay full tuition, were he not to send his children to sleepover or day camp?

Answer -- Today's culture can be very corrosive. A child goes to school for nine-ten months. If he does not attend a day camp or overnight camp in the summer, he can lose everything he gained in those ten months -- and even worse. To keep children on the derech HaTorah, one must keep them off the streets. One would then have a right to ask for a tuition reduction.

It is really hard to know where to start with this discussion, but I will presume that this "psak" is practiced vis a vis tuition since I know mothers who send their children to summer camp who are on scholarship (and not every mother is working during the summer).

So I will start by asking a question: Why should a Yeshiva have to cut their costs so children can go to camp? Why shouldn't it be the opposite? Why shouldn't camps have to compete for whatever dollars are left after tuition, rather than Yeshivot trying to take whatever is left after camp?

Of course, no one wants their children to be idle during the summer. We want our children to keep up with their learning, daven, read, and explore their interests and talents that might lay dormant during the school year. Some would argue camp is a necessity to prevent such. I would argue that a summer could be productive for a whole lot less.

There is a saying that "necessity is the mother of invention." We have spent time on this blog exploring inventive alternatives to the current day school situation from homeschooling (which deserves its own post) to virtual schooling, to Elliot Pasik's Two Building Solution.

I would say that the alternatives to summer camp are nearly endless (even when a parent is not home all day everyday during the summer), while the solutions to receiving a Jewish education are more limited, but not unlimited. I hate to argue with a person far greater than me, but it seems unfair to put more burden on the the schools and on the other parents by declaring essentially declaring summer camp (with emphasis on camp) a necessity.

Have at it.

JO Review: Tuition vs. Retirement

Please read the previous questions asked at the Agudah convention regarding tuition and answered by Rabbi Shmuel Feurst, if you have not previously read them (Tuition vs. Camp, Tuition vs. Vacation, Tuition vs. Kollel).

Question--What comes first, tuition or retirement funds?

Answer-Obviously, tuition comes first [emphasis added]. While everyone would like to have a retirement fund, accountability for one's children comes first.

Unfortunately, and with all due respect, what is obvious to the Rabbi is not so obvious to me. The Rabbi seems to be of the belief that retirement accounts (401(k)s, IRAs, Roths, etc) are luxuries. I am of the belief that a minimally and/or modestly funded retirement account is not just something nice, but is something necessary and goes hand in hand with being "accountable to one's children."

I think we can all agree that people get old (it happens!), older people can no longer work the same hours as young people, and medical expenses tend to increase in old age. People still need to eat, utility bills still need paid, taxes still need to be paid, etc. If a person has not saved up, guess who will be picking up the tab? Most likely a combination of their children, the community, and the government. Since I tend to view all of the needs to the Jewish community as interconnected, I view the lack of saving (combined with spending and debt financing) as something we all will pick up the tab for eventually.

So here is the deal. A person that starts funding their retirement account at age 25 will only have to put away a small amount of money (say $2000 a year, or $167 a month) to reach a reasonable goal upon retirement. Whereas, a person who decides to forgo funding their retirement account until age 45 will have to put away at least six times more (read: no less than $12,000 a year) to reach the same goal. Wait even longer, and that amount could be twenty fold.

On top of all of that, the matching funds that your company might have provided you are gone forever. Even if you don't fund a certain amount during one pay period, you are out that money forever. Every company has a different vesting and matching policy (5%, 3% up to 6%, etc). But no matter the policy, last I checked a 50% return or even a 100% return is phenomenal. And those matching funds make it easier to reach a reasonable goal.

Now, I'm not sure that if I sat on a tuition committee, that I would be so keen about hearing a family's plans about not paying tuition in lieu of funding their retirement account because the schools needs the money now. Nor would I be too thrilled about hearing their plans about taking a discount so their children can go to camp (which was recommended). And, I'm sure I would not want to hear about how they lack cash flow after "juggl[ing] funds" (i.e. borrow and borrow some more) to pay for weddings and "support" and how they now need a deep reduction because the bank is eating them alive yet they still have kids they need to put through school.

So, what to do? I don't know. Ultimately, if I could force young people to start to put as much as they can into their retirement accounts starting as soon as possible, I would. Because chances are the schools aren't going to make room so they can put $2000 away for retirement even if they make room so they can send their kids to camp.

Up Next: More on Retirement

JO Review: Tuition vs. Kollel

Continuing my series (see previous two posts), here is the question posed to Rabbi Shmuel Feurst about priorities between tuition for younger children and weddings/post-marriage support for married children.

Question--Can a parent say, "I am supporting children in kollel. Therefore, I can't pay full tuition"?
Answer--One's first priority is to support one's children who are still at home, attending elementary school or high school. Married children are a second-level priority. When making shidduchim, a person may have to juggle funds, and hopefully, the tuition committee will have compassion for the parents, but that does not change the priorities. By halacha guidelines, Torah education of one's young children comes first, and afterwards, support for married children.

I am pleased by this answer. But does anyone want to take a stab at what "juggl[ing] funds" entails?

But ultimately, I'm not sure that financial issues play out so cleanly in reality. Evidence suggests that massive amounts of money are spent on weddings (engagement to post-wedding) and significant debt is incurred during this time period. Certainly, that debt eventually catches up and the schools are going to get a lesser piece of the pie because much of the pie has been already been eaten, unless I am completely off base and it is only the last marriage that gets debt financed?

There are a lot of things that could be discussed here, but that is what my loyal commentors are bound to do. So, I'm signing off for now.

Next up: Tuition vs. Retirement (the last of the four questions in the Jewish Observer Tuition Dilemma issue).