LETTERS
Defending
AJE-UHS
Aptly entitled "End of the
Maze?", the article in The
Jewish News of June 14,
delineating the status of
Jewish education in our com-
munity, provided numerical
twists and turns hardly
helpful for an understanding
of money expended on its
behalf. Explicit and implicit-
ly pejorative focus was upon
the Agency for Jewish Educa-
tion, the public school system
of the Jewish community.
First, the figure of $920,000
allocated to the AJE was us-
ed in a fashion to appear very
large next to other allocations
while juxtaposing the
smallest number of pupils to
be considered.
Now for the whittling pro-
cess at one end while restat-
ing the number at the other.
AJE actually received
$898,500. The difference of
$21,500 (actually $22,000), is
a direct Jewish Welfare
Federation grant to Shaarey
Zedek's high school.
How is the Federation
Grant of $898,500 used?
• $163,500 is allocated for
maintenance of the Federa-
tion Community Building on
West Twelve Mile Road,
which is constantly in use by
various Federation groups
any day as necessary. This
fund is spent by the AJE for
its building insurance,
utilities, repair, maintenance.
Community use far exceeds
the actual classroom use of
the facilities.
• $380,000 is the real sub-
sidy to cover the cost of 870
(Grades K-7) students (not
756) or $440 per student.
• $127,000 is allocated to
the high school, (Grades 8-11),
an absolute must for garner-
ing graduates from programs
that do not go beyond the
eighth grade in synagogues
and temples.
• $102,000 is allocated to
the Midrasha-College of
Jewish Studies, a degree
granting institution, which is
also an adult education in-
stitution serving over 800
students.
• $32,000 is allocated to
special education. (No other
Jewish educational institu-
tion has a program to cover
children with severe mental
and physical problems.)
• $69,000 is allocated for
•
the resource center that pro-
vides "know how" to other
Jewish educational programs
and is committed to develop-
ing new techniques and pro-
viding "know how" to others.
• $25,000 is provided to the
Midrasha Library.
The article contains the
of
astonishing figure
7,000-8,000 enrollment in the
United Hebrew Schools in the
1950s with the alleged drop to
756 today. Where did that
figure come from? We do
know that as early as 1979,
United Hebrew Schools had
1203 students enrolled. In
1991, the AJE has 1070.
This represents a minimal
drop, not the huge drop im-
plied in the article for this
period. This figure is im-
pressive when synagogues,
temples and day schools were
developing their own educa-
tional programs. For an unaf-
filiated public school enroll-
ment, the AJE is quite
healthy.
Further, the charts accom-
panying the article leveled
the pupil enrollment as if
each one undertook the same
number of hours. How do you
equate an AJE student who
elects eight hours a week
with one who is enrolled in a
two-hour Sunday school pro-
gram? Costs and objectives
are different. In the chart,
they are the same.
In conclusion, if playing
with numbers is the game of
the article's author (Alan Hit-
sky), then let us look at the
Yavneh School. With 14
students in 1991 and a three-
year start-up grant from the
Max M. Fisher Foundation of
United Jewish Charities in
the amount of $140,000 or
$46,700 per year, each stu-
dent receives $3,333 per year.
Not fair, when one considers
start-up costs. (We wish them
immense success as we wish
Jewish education to flourish
everywhere.) But not fair
either to use the figure of
$920,000 for "mostly 756
students" when describing
AJE.
Sylvia Iwrey
Treasurer,
Agency for Jewish Education
Editor's note: The 1990-91 AJE
enrollment figures were sup-
plied by AJE Executive Director
Ofra Fisher. The 1950s figure
was used by UHS officials dur-
ing the agency's 70th anniver-
sary celebrations two years ago.
At The Maze's End,
Who Then Decides?
"End of the Maze? (June
14)," Alan Hitsky's mostly
factual article on the future of
Jewish education in Detroit,
is a case study in the local
Jewish political scene. At its
heart is a question: Who gets
to decide? The program users,
the institution delivering the
services, the majority of lay
and professional leadership of
the Detroit Jewish Welfare
Federation, or a select few
within the Federation?
The writer states that
U.H.S. receives most of the
$900,000 subsidy. This
perception is part of the pro-
blem. In reality, less than half
of this goes to the elementary
school program. The re-
mainder is used by A.J.E. to
maintain and run the
building at 12 Mile and
Lahser, used three-quarters of
the time by Federation and its
volunteers, by Midrasha and
the Community Library for
adult studies, by the Com-
munity Jewish High School,
to subsidize teaching the lear-
ning disabled, plus other ser-
vices including the Family
Living Room program, Media
Center and more. So once and
for all: U.H.S. does not receive
$900,000 divided by 756
students.
The statement that enroll-
ment has been dropping is
also incorrect. Since 1980,
enrollment has been flat. If
you play the numbers game,
however, the cost per person
served has gone down due to
more participants in the high
school, the Family Living
Room, adult studies, the
Parents Institute, the Media
Center, etc.
Having served as president
of the A.J.E. from 1988-1990
and as a member of the
(Tauber) Education Study
Committee, I was witness to
and part of the process. What
was apparent was that
Federation had removed its
gloves and taken the role of
the forceful banker, taking
over the responsibility of
deciding what is best for the
community. Many of us felt
that a prior decision was
made to eliminate the U.H.S.
elementary school program
regardless of its excellence.
The process dragged for
nearly three years and when
finally presented to the
Federation board of governors
last year it was defeated,
NOT accepted. The board of
governors realized that each
agency was subject to the
same banker deciding what
was best for them as well. The
board of governors did agree
to have a committee study the
matter and bring its findings
to them for review. The Feder-
tion professionals are
operating as though the
report was accepted and are
developing a plan to imple-
ment the recommended
changes. This was not the in-
tention of the board of
governors.
What we have is the process
gone awry, no longer arms
length but more like the will
of a few determined people.
Everyone wants better educa-
tion. Everyone, as Mr.
Schlussel stated, is concerned
about the money.
What concerns me is our
leadership's notion that the
task force recommendation to
dispose of U.H.S. was sudden-
ly going to bring forth a flood
of money from the Reform
community. Contributions to
Campaign have more to do
with money going to Israel
and its attitude toward
Reform Judaism than how
many dollars goes to U.H.S.
Also of great concern is the
creation of a new bureauc-
racy. A quick review of the
dollars points out the strong
likelihood that the creation of
a new agency, while leaving
Midrasha and the Communi-
ty High School intact will
leave few new dollars.
The professional educators
must work with the consumer
congregations to find out
what is needed and deliver
the service under a plan of
shared cost. This program is
working very well with the
Midrasha division. Three con-
gregations agreed to par-
ticipate in shared cost with
their elementary schools un-
til certain lay and profes-
sional leaders leaked the un-
substantiated information
that U.H.S. might not be
around. Also A.J.E. was told
by its bankers not to embark
on the plan.
What is shared cost? The
agency and a congregation
agree to cooperate in the
delivery of an adult education
program, to run their elemen-
tary school, or to have a Fami-
ly Living Room program, etc.
• The agency handles the
logistics, develops the cur-
riculum, and administers the
program. The difference bet-
ween the income received and
the expenses incurred are
split between A.J.E. and the
congregation. The congrega-
tion retains its own school
identity but uses the Agen-
cy's resources to provide ser-
vices that it cannot afford to
do itself. The strength of this
is that the materials
developed will have been
tested and proven. The
danger of eliminating the
Agency elementary division
is in asking experts to develop
programs in a vacuum, pro-
grams which have not been
used and refined. This in fact
is a bureau approach which
some communities are using
nationally and which most
have agreed does not work.
I believe that a synagogue
school is the best way to pro-
vide educational programm-
ing: families learning with
Continued on Page 10
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
7