Tuition Dilemma | Imamother

nylon

Sun, May 29 2011, 9:46 am

saw50st8 wrote:

Harvard also provides financial aid in many cases in loans instead of grants.

Harvard actually rejigged its aid program to provide fewer loans, and more grants, so students don't graduate with $70K in loans.

Harvard doesn't "need" students in the academic sense, but in order to compose a class they like, they want some students more than others. It's not like they just take the top X number of students.

My issue with the teacher salaries is that I regularly hear MO families complain that their kids' teachers are not MO. Well, if you want MO teachers, you need to consider that would-be teachers want to be able to send their kids to school. Either they need to make enough to pay tuition (assuming, here, that they have a spouse who also brings in money, but not that the spouse compensate for the teacher having a poorly paying job) or they need a break as recognition that we want to keep teachers from our community. Either way, the total compensation needs to be enough to make teaching a viable career.

I also dislike the "SAHMs don't deserve subsidies" argument. I think we should encourage women to work, but sometimes a woman has a good reason she doesn't. Do you want women who are mentally ill to have to disclose that fact to a tuition committee? Or for the committee to decide when her other children's special needs are significant enough to provide an impediment to her holding a job? I think this could set up a whole new level of intrusiveness.

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 9:49 am

nylon wrote:

I also dislike the "SAHMs don't deserve subsidies" argument. I think we should encourage women to work, but sometimes a woman has a good reason she doesn't. Do you want women who are mentally ill to have to disclose that fact to a tuition committee? Or for the committee to decide when her other children's special needs are significant enough to provide an impediment to her holding a job? I think this could set up a whole new level of intrusiveness.

I'm going to be blunt: TOO BAD. If you want someone else's money you need to explain why and that includes disclosing why you can't work.

ally

Sun, May 29 2011, 10:39 am

sarahd wrote:

ally wrote:

Raisin wrote:

fundraising might be difficult if all the parents on your school are making well into the 6 figure incomes. Potential donors will not really want to give money just so families can afford to go away for 3 vacations a year instead of two. But if it means people who cannot afford a yeshiva education will be able to, that might encourage donors.

(people get scholarships to harvard; no one NEEDS to go to harvard. Likewise I bet they don't begrudge recepients having a stay at home mother)

Scholarships to Harvard are different.
They are either for students with an excellent academic record, in which case Harvard needs the students more than the students need Harvardpays .

What's the or?

Sorry. My initial train of thought was that scholarships are generally either for academic excellence or means tested. But then I corrected myself because even the means tested scholarships have academic requirements.
Where I come from, scholarships are also given to encourage positive discrimination but I don't know that that is relevant here.

Peanut2

Sun, May 29 2011, 10:41 am

saw50st8 wrote:

Harvard also provides financial aid in many cases in loans instead of grants.

They don't. At all.

Harvard and some other top schools no longer include loans in their financial aid packages, and instead provide scholarship money that does not need to be paid back. Students and families can still apply for federal loans and other loans to cover what they are asked to pay.

College graduates are leaving school with too much debt, and Harvard (and Princeton and others) are taking action to prevent this. Because Harvard believes that the students they accept deserve the education they provide.

ally

Sun, May 29 2011, 10:42 am

Peanut2 wrote:

ally wrote:

Raisin wrote:

Scholarships to Harvard are different.
They are either for students with an excellent academic record, in which case Harvard needs the students more than the students need Harvard. Generally, even those that are means tested have some type of academic selection criterion.

I agree with Barbara. The mathematics of the "fundraising pays unpaid tuition" doesn't stand up.

Scholarships to Harvard are based solely on financial need. Harvard (and other comparable institutions) do not provide merit based scholarships based on academic record. If you got in, then you deserve to go.

Even universities that offer a limited number of merit-based aid (scholarships based on grades, volunteer work, etc.) offer this in addition to financial aid.

Also, Harvard really doesn't need to fight to get students. It's Harvard.

Harvard is still in competition with other Ivy League schools. They may not need to fight to get students, but it is in their interest to make sure the top students go there.

Barbara

Sun, May 29 2011, 10:42 am

nylon wrote:

saw50st8 wrote:

Harvard also provides financial aid in many cases in loans instead of grants.

I'm curious what MO schools have right-wing teachers. We don't. None of the schools where my firends send their kids do. --Of course, most of these schools provide tuition breask for the kids of teachers. With some of these teachers having 5 or 6 kids, their salary is $50,000 to $100,000 before they get a paycheck. Its becoming a problem. But the big change I see over 10 years ago, and the change my DH sees from when he was a kid and teen at MTA, is that the teachers are now all MO / Jewish. He had a significant number of non-Jewish or non-religious teachers. Our school did as well 10 to 15 years ago. No more.

And yes, the job of the tuition committee is to determine who actually needs assistance. I naively think that all factors should be taken into account, although that would be very time consuming. Child care and special needs and elder care and the guy who tried to help out his brother but lost his life savings doing so and a friend who had a breakdown and needed to take a break from a high-powered work. But once you help all those people who IMNSHO need the assistance, you have less money for those who choose a certain lifestyle, such as SAHMs. And I do want limited funding to help those who need the money most.

shabri

Sun, May 29 2011, 12:16 pm

I worked in a large N-12 MO yeshiva in LI. Most if not all of the H.S. kodesh teachers were chareidi. The parent and student population were not. I believe that at least on LI--HAFTR, HALB, HANC a large % of the kodesh teachers are more right wing than the student and parent population for exactly that reason--they don't have to pay tuition in those schools. By the way, the tuition break for those sending to the schools is generally limited to 2 children. Some schools have cut down on that as well. Also in most of the schools--(I have family that works in many of the MO day schools) health insurance is non existent. Meaning you get health insurance from the school but you need to pay over $1,000 /month (and this was a few yrs ago already) in premiums plus high deductibles. Contrast this with the UFT, where they pay $16/month for good health plan.

I was a social worker in the MO world and while I was compensated adequately, it was about 1/2 of what a public school social worker makes. At the time I was not paying tuition, so I was able to be idealistic. But if you want qualified teachers, social workers etc to stay in the community, you better start to compensate them accordingly. Otherwise, when you need the services you are going to find some under-qualified, overworked person who will likely not be able to assist you the way you should be.

I also find it ironic that ppl are saying that social workers should be happy with less and still be able to pay full tuition. But when I charge what the going rate is for my private practice, we have threads on here "how can a therapist charge so much? Shouldn't she be helping me for free?' "Its so cruel of her to charge me when I NEED a therapist" If you want ppl to work in the community for low wages, you have to give them a break somewhere.

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 3:23 pm

Barbara wrote:

I'm curious what MO schools have right-wing teachers.

In central NJ, many (but not all) limudei kodesh teachers are from Lakewood.

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 6:52 pm

amother wrote:

Barbara wrote:

I'm curious what MO schools have right-wing teachers.

In central NJ, many (but not all) limudei kodesh teachers are from Lakewood.

Also ASHAR in Monsey.

(Actually, these teachers are considered right-wing to MO residents, but to us Yeshivish residents, we consider them MO. Go figure. This is why their population is declining, along with their tuition breaks.)

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 7:36 pm

amother wrote:

Barbara wrote:

I'm curious what MO schools have right-wing teachers.

In central NJ, many (but not all) limudei kodesh teachers are from Lakewood.

I live in Teaneck and Ashar is not considered MO. It's more right than YNJ which is a mix of right and MO.

Barbara

Sun, May 29 2011, 7:54 pm

amother wrote:

Barbara wrote:

I'm curious what MO schools have right-wing teachers.

In central NJ, many (but not all) limudei kodesh teachers are from Lakewood.

I live in Teaneck and Ashar is not considered MO. It's more right than YNJ which is a mix of right and MO.

Ashar considers itself MO. It certainly is MO compared to the rest of Monsey.

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 11:06 pm

The Real Problem with Religious-School Tuition
Written by a tax lawyer in New York who asked to keep his name confidential

In a recent article published by a CPA who works predominantly with not-for-profit organizations, the author accuses religious-school parents of having a low-priority attitude towards paying tuition for their children. The author tries hard to show that tuition payments should be a top priority not a low priority. It's in the attitude - he claims.

Attitude is certainly a factor. But, the real problem is not with the parents' attitude. The real source of the tuition problems which religious schools face, is the attitude of school administrations.

One factor which burdens religious families, is the tax law which prohibits tax deductions for tuition payments. Charitable contributions to religious organizations are tax deductible. Payments for religious services are tax deductible. Membership fees in religious organizations are tax deductible. But, if the payment for religious services is classified by the school as "tuition" rater than "donation", then, the payment is not tax deductible.

The primary service provided by a religious school is a religious service to children. Religion cannot be taught in USA public schools. Therefore, the teaching of religion is confined to religious schools. Synagogues, churches, mosques, etc. can provide their members with unlimited religious education funded by donations. The teaching of religion is not considered a tangible benefit, therefore, payments for religious teaching can be classified as a "donation without receiving a tangible benefit". Such payments could be tax deductible if only the schools agreed to cooperate and classify such payments as donations. There are schools which teach both religious subjects and secular subjects. Payments for the secular portion of the education are legitimately classified as tuition. Payments for the religious portion of the education can easily be classifies as donations. If necessary, schools could easily operate as two separate divisions - one religious and one secular. Yet, most religious schools refuse to help the parents and refuse to classify the religious portion of the payments as donations. With such an attitude, how can schools accuse parents of having a bad attitude?

There is one religious organization in the USA which did classify all payments for religious education as donations. This is the Church of Scientology. After mounting a fierce legal battle against the IRS to be recognized as a religious organization, they earned a tax deductible status for all the donations they receive. The IRS issued the Church of Scientology a private letter ruling (No. 93-73) which recognizes all payments for their religious education as tax-deductible donations. The most difficult challenge which the Church of Scientology faced was achieving recognition as a religion and a religious organization. Once they were recognized, tax deductions for their religious education followed.

The Jewish religion does not need to fight for recognition as a religion. All Jewish religious organizations are recognized by the IRS as not-for-profit organizations. Every Jewish religious school has or can have a synagogue. There is no limit on how much religious education synagogues can provide their members. Payments for religious services can legitimately be classified as tax-deductible donations even when such donations are fixed rather than voluntary. Membership fees in Synagogues are also fixed, mandatory, and tax-deductible. (Fixed donations for religious education are explicitly allowed in private letter ruling 93-73). Yet, Jewish religious schools refuse to cooperate with parents. With such an attitude, how can schools accuse parents of having a bad attitude?

A Jewish CPA in California sued the IRS, claiming that he can deduct the religious portion of his payments to his children school. He lost. He lost because the school issued him one receipt for "tuition". The school refused to issue two separate receipts - one "tuition" receipt for the secular portion of his children education, and a separate "donation" receipt for religious services to his children. Having only one receipt, the government needed to get entangled in having to determine the correct percentage of the religious portion of the payments. The court ruled that such entanglement is prohibited. The Church of Scientology, on the other hand, does issue separate receipts for religious services and for non-religious education. Students at the Church of Scientology schools can deduct the religious portion of their payments because their schools cooperate with them. Students in Jewish religious schools cannot deduct the religious portion of their payments because their schools refuse to cooperate with them.

The problem is indeed in the attitude - not the attitude of the parents, but, the attitude of the schools.

Practically all religious schools in America depend on charitable donations by supporters. The reality in most schools which provide a religious education to children, is that the person responsible for collecting donations for the school is the highest paid individual in the school. There are executive directors (the American euphemism for fund-raiser) who earn salaries of more than a quarter million dollars a year, while teachers in the same school are paid a salary which qualifies them to buy food with food stamps. The high salaries of the executive directors is not something which they will easily give up. Being the top decision makers in most schools, executive directors will do everything in their power to maintain the dependence of their schools on donations.

In the USA, public-school tuition is funded by the government. Property taxes are the primary source of this funding. Every child in America has the right to attend public school without paying a penny in tuition. All property owners have to pay school taxes regardless of whether they do or do not have children in school. Every tenant who rents a home also pays this school tax as part of the rent. There is, however, a class of parents with children in school who have to pay twice for their education. They pay the school tax like everyone else, and then, they also have to pay tuition for their children who attend a religious school. The anti-religious discrimination in USA public schools denies religious families access to free public education, unless they are willing to compromise their religious observance and values.

The political power of the Jewish population in America is infinitely stronger than the political power of the Church of Scientology. The Church of Scientology mounted a merciless battle against the US government and the IRS and won the recognition and tax-exempt status they sought. In a different arena, America has laws against relations discrimination. Yet, every public-school building in America has rooms into which boys or girls cannot enter strictly because of their gender. Bathrooms are the most expensive areas of a building to construct, yet, separate bathrooms are provided for boys and girls, despite the additional cost, so they don't have to compromise their feelings and values. Why should Jewish religious students have to compromise their feelings and values if they want to avail themselves to public funding for education? The boy-scouts and the girl-scouts in America receive government funding despite the gender-based separation. Many charter schools in America which cater to specific populations are funded by the government. The only ones who are not fighting for equal access to public funding for education, are the leaders of the Jewish communities.

One Jewish community did not give up. The local Jewish schools asked their town for funding. The town refused and said that the Jewish children are welcome to attend the local public schools. So, all the Jewish students in town showed up at the local public schools. The schools were overwhelmed by the number of students for which they were not prepared, and begged the community leaders to take their children back to their original Jewish schools. The leaders agreed on condition that the town funds their tuition costs. This time, the town agreed.

As we can see, it's all in the attitude - everything is possible with proper leadership, courage, and unity.

In a landmark decision, in 2002, the US Supreme Court (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639) permitted the use of school tuition vouchers in religious schools. If the Jewish leaders in America really wanted their children tuition to be funded by the government, like all other children in America, they could have achieved it. The problem is that the Jewish organizations in America are dominated by executive directors who are paid exorbitant salaries for their fund-raising abilities. If tuition were to be paid by the government, there would be no more a need for school executive directors. This is something the decision-making executive directors cannot afford. So, the parents are requested to foot the bill instead of the government, and, when the burden becomes too heavy, the schools accuse the parents of having a bad attitude towards paying tuition.

The secular portion of the education is now available for free over the Internet. This way, Jewish religious children can easily be isolated from undesirable influences in public schools. Internet filters are extremely easy to setup to isolate the children from undesirable Internet contents too. The quality of the over-the-Internet education is far superior to the quality of the secular education in most of the Jewish religious schools in America. The problem is that by attending over-the-Internet secular education, school expenses will be cut almost in half and the need for donations will also be cut in half. This, again, is something the executive directors cannot afford. So, again, the parents are requested to foot the bill instead of the government, and, when the burden becomes too heavy, the schools accuse the parents of having a bad attitude towards paying tuition.

Yes, the problem is indeed in the attitude - not the attitude of the parents, but, the attitude of the schools.

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 11:19 pm

amother wrote:

The Real Problem with Religious-School Tuition
Written by a tax lawyer in New York who asked to keep his name confidential

If he stands by the analysis in his article why does he want to keep his name confidential?

There is no way the tax deductable status of "tuition donations" can be so clear cut or every Jewish school would bifurcate their receipts. Our schools take advantage of every govt. program available, what would be their incentive NOT to issue such receipts if the tax matters were so cut and dry? I'm not buying the executive director argument, fund raising is not their only responsibility and even if half of tuition suddenly became tax deductable, requests for scholarships would not suddenly vanish.

catonmylap

Sun, May 29 2011, 11:21 pm

shabri wrote:

there's another big reason you have MO schools with haredi teachers. The MO who would be teachers/educators often make aliya. When you educate about the importance of Israel, after a spending a year post-high school there, we decide we need to live in Israel and it doesn't make sense to live anywhere else.

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 11:23 pm

oh and this line is way to simplistic "The secular portion of the education is now available for free over the Internet." I've taken courses over the internet, you think a fourth grader is going to learn as well taking an on-line social studies course as he would in a live classroom setting? On-line courses hve their place but are certainly not the best case scenario for all of the secular eduacation of our children.

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 11:26 pm

He asked to keep his name confidential because he is hired by executive directors for tax advice on how to minimize THEIR taxes. He knows exactly how much they earn.

The real problem, I think, is that Jewish schools do not take advantage of the 2002 supreme court decision.

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 11:35 pm

amother wrote:

Ha! You think state and local governments were just falling all over themselves waiting to set up voucher programs? Do you have any idea the lobbying public school teachers' unions do to prevent funding from being diverted from public schools to ANY kind of alternative education arrangement (be it charter schools, voucher programs, etc.)? The article tries to present quick fix solutions to problems that are much more complex than that, and then claims these high paid executives are to blame. Have you ever reviewed the 990 filing of any religious schools? They list the compensation for their executives, sure "There are executive directors (the American euphemism for fund-raiser) who earn salaries of more than a quarter million dollars a year" but they work at schools who can afford to pay them that kind of compensation. Take a look at your local yeshiva's compensation disclosures and let me know if it looks anything like that.

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 11:48 pm

besides having 2 reciepts for secular and religous education -

parents can also save money by having seperate bills for reg school hours and extra school hours.

tuition should only cover the hours when public schools are in session 9 -3
then have a reciept for before care and after care (also known as shacharis...) for the 8-9 portion and the 3 and on hours
that could also be declared on taxes as childcare

however keep in mind - that many parents paying tuition are not paying alot in taxes for various reasons. if their income bracket is low, if theyre eligible for different credits...
so having tuition writeoffs is not going to help them cover the tuition costs

also about having the vouchers being used for private schools - I dont think its so easy, I know there is a rabbi in ny trying to get it and he keeps on advertizing for everyone to help out with getting it passed by contacting albany

amother

Sun, May 29 2011, 11:54 pm

amother wrote:

The care must have been provided so you – and your spouse if you are married filing jointly – could work or look for work. This won't help all those SAHM's looking for tuition breaks.

imaamy

Sun, May 29 2011, 11:57 pm

There is no union at our small school. We have about 350 kids total and a large staff of Judaic/secular, plus IMO, too many admin.