I don’t know much about Prizmah aside from what they state on their website. For the most part, I agree with their mission.
Prizmah: Center for Jewish Day Schools is the network for Jewish day schools and yeshivas in North America. In partnership with schools, funders, and communities, we invest in talent, advance the financial vitality of schools, and enhance educational excellence so schools can thrive.
I have no clue whether this is an Orthodox or
non-denominational group, but who can argue with their goals?
Back to my question about analyzing the obvious. Some
Orthodox Jews believe that one can be a committed Jew without ever having set
foot in a day school. They argue that the value of a day school education is
overblown and certainly not worth the exorbitant, back-breaking tuition costs
that parents must pay. They claim that a good Jewish education begins at home,
where one's commitment to Judaism starts and should stay.
Except that history (and now this survey) has proven them
wrong. This is not to say that it is impossible to be connected to Judaism
without a day school or yeshiva education. History has shown us that it is
quite possible.
I wonder how many people know that the late Agudah Moetzes
member and Telshe Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Avrohom Chaim Levin, attended public school
through seventh grade. I also know many elderly Orthodox Jews who attended
public school in pre-Holocaust times and are nevertheless observant and deeply
committed to their Judaism. It was at a time when there were very few day
schools or yeshivas available to them. Outside of New York there were none.
Does this prove me wrong? Does this make it less obvious
that a day school education will make you more connected to Judaism?
I think not—for a variety of reasons.
The most prominent of which is that the vast majority of
Jews who attended public schools in past generations did not remain observant.
Some lost their connection because they didn’t see it at home. Some even from
Orthodox homes, struggled because their daily environment wasn’t Jewish. Their
peer groups were not Jewish, and observant Judaism became an obstacle to social
relationships with non-Jewish classmates. Or even with Jewish peers who had no
interest in religious observance.
Despite that, in those days, there were enough Jewish
students in public schools to form small observant social groups and networks
among themselves. That helped some maintain their Jewish commitment.
But that is no longer true today.
Nowadays, it is extremely rare for an observant Jew to
attend a public school. If they do, they are unlikely to have any observant
peers in school with whom to form a meaningful social bond. The pull to
assimilate and be like their non-Jewish peers is far stronger today than it was
back then.
I don’t have access to exact data, but I would bet that the
proportion of Jews who attended day schools and yeshivas and remained connected
to their Judaism is far greater than those who attended public school. Even if
an observant peer group could be formed in a public school today, the
overwhelming influence of non-observant peers would still present a challenge.
Why would any parent who cares about their child’s Jewish
identity want to take that kind of risk just to save money? Yes, public school
is free, and day school tuition is expensive. But is it worth the risk?
This is why I am thrilled that the president proposed that
every state offer school choice to all parents. A choice that can include a
parochial school. This policy will help reduce the unbearable financial burden
that the vast majority of parents face when paying for tuition. Even after
receiving some relief through their school’s scholarship programs, tuitions
still require a financial commitment far beyond what most middle-class families
can comfortably afford. Even those with substantial incomes. School choice will
also help day schools and Yeshivas meet their budgets, ensuring they can
continue to provide a quality education.
I don’t see how any parent who values Jewish education could
oppose this initiative. And yet some have argued that school choice is
unconstitutional, claiming it violates the First Amendment. But that argument
has already been proven wrong by the successful implementation of school choice
programs in several states. The government funds distributed to parochial
schools are tied to the costs of providing the same core educational curricula
and non-religious services that public schools offer. Religious studies and its
teachers remain privately funded.
A national school choice program will likely require
congressional approval. If I understand correctly, the U.S. Department of
Education is one with teachers’ unions and opposes it. As do
the progressive members of Congress. So, we’re not there yet. But it helps to
know that the Executive Branch strongly supports it. It also helps that
the Executive Branch under which the Department of Education operates
has even threatened to abolish the Department of Education altogether.
So once again - thank you, President Trump, for caring more about parents and students than about bureaucracies and the political agenda of teachers’ unions. This is yet another reason why you won the election.