Federations to Aid Jewish Day Schools Under Guidelines Recommended by CJF Fisher Terms This a ‘landm

The first guidelines for formal relationships between Jewish Federations and Jewish day schools, geared to the premise that “Federation’s know-how can be used to develop a financial strategy” to make the financially hard-pressed day school movement “genuinely viable,” have been approved by the board of directors of the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds. Max H. Fisher, CJF president, in announcing the decision, called it “a landmark action.” The guidelines were drafted and recommended by the CJF committee on Federation planning for Jewish education headed by Mandell Berman of Detroit, and I. Jerome Stern of Philadelphia.

Fisher, who proposed in his keynote address at the CJF Assembly last November in Pittsburgh a reassessment of Federation-day school relationships, said the principles embodied in the guidelines “provide the first comprehensive guides for Federations to deal systematically, planfully and effectively with the needs of these schools.”

He added that “like all such tools, it can be shared further on the basis of experience.” Fisher observed that the CJF General Assembly had emphasized the importance of such action in a resolution stating that “the continuing expansion of the day school, in terms of such institutional operations, underscores the need for local Federations to re-examine the need for increased support for day schools in their communities.” Sponsors of day schools, mainly under Orthodox and Conservative auspices, have consistently criticized local Federations for what they called inadequate communal funds for such schools.

“We are firmly convinced,” the CJF presi- dent added, “that one of the major values of Federation’s entry into this field is not only the resources which it will bring to day school education, but that Federation’s know-how can be used to develop a financial strategy which will make the movement genuinely viable. This is at the heart of the various provisions of our guidelines” for the Jewish day schools in the United States and Canada, which currently have an enrollment of more than 70,000 children.

Key Recommendations

CJF officials cited, as evidence of Federation’s increased concern for the quality of Jewish education these children receive, that Federation allocations for day schools have increased more than 60 percent in recent years. They said that, in large cities, day school allocations represent about 20 percent of the funds spent by Jewish Federations in Jewish education and, in intermediate-sized cities, about 40 percent.

The officials said that among the key recommendations are that day school education should be oriented “to developing effective future members of the total Jewish communities,” and that, as in other schools, achievement tests should be applied and further developed to assure the high quality of Jewish education to students. The guidelines also included a recommendation that in intermediate and small communities, organizations should be encouraged to sponsor joint schools without ideological compromises and that, in some instances, schools of nearby large cities should be utilized.

Other guidelines provide that, consistent with the principle of total Jewish communal planning, financial requests from the day schools should be channeled through the central communal agency for Jewish education; that fully audited financial reports–an required of all Federation beneficiaries–are to be submitted; that the published tuition rates should be as close to the actual cost as possible, and that all parents who can afford to pay full tuition should do so. Also proposed was that financial responsibility should be limited to the identifiable Jewish educational elements of the day school programs.

The guidelines also provide that in making decisions on financial grants to day schools, the Federations may utilize one of three alternatives in determining their allocations: scholarships for individual students whose parents cannot afford tuition fees; uniform per-student subsidy on a pupil-hour basis; and a subsidy of a portion of teachers’ salaries on an interim basis as well as a step towards enhancing the level of instruction.