you're leaving out one point:
What would you have done if this torani school would have been open before your daughter started first grade? I guess that you wouldn't even consider sending her to the school she is in now.
Opening the new school is just putting things straight: this school should have been opened ten years ago - and in such a sequence the lemaan achai school would have never opened. lemaan achai has built itself on the lack of such a school - that in itself is not exactly fair.
Kol Tuv
Benny - then you guess wrong. I've written about this several times here. I'd send to where I think she's better served. The fact that the Torani school didn't open 10 years ago is no accident. The municipality only began caring about Torani education once Lemaan Achai demonstrated that there's a demand for it. If lemaan achai is marginalized, who's to say that the city will go right back to not caring?
How is Lemaan Achai's opening any more 'unfair' than if someone sees a need for a grocery store, dry cleaner, or bowling alley in an area and then opens one up? It's basic economics. Nothing unfair about it.
Are you so sure that the security guard issue is resolved? My daughter tells me that there is only a guard there periodically (on Fridays?).
I'm not sure if this is 100% true but it may be worth looking into.
A Lemaan Achai parent
the few times i've been there, there's been a guard (most recently this past wednesday).
I tend to agree with you - with the caveat that I feel that even private schools should be "community" schools - i.e. not the type where there is an "owner" who has all sorts of family members on the payroll. Those schools are bad and worse than having government run the school.
Secondly to the extent that the "private" school you mention takes ANY government funding it undermines your arguments on the whole. Your arguments work for Neturei Karta and yeshivas in the USA. They fall apart when "private" schools start getting per pupil grants from the state but then ask the state to back off regarding administration, acceptance requirements, curriculum etc.
BB - I agree that the ideal system would be a voucher system where each school passes some MINIMUM state-mandated curriculum. I also generally believe that the market tends to discourage cronyism, as long as grants are really on a per-pupil basis and not a lump sum as part of a political deal (a la Shas, or Yeshivot Bnei Akiva, for that matter).
Please note that the school said nothing about lack of supervision, and the MoE has been mum on the issue. The Municipality claims that the school is under no supervision - a fact which does not concern me. I don't think - and can't imagine - that the school asked the ministry to back off.
Just a small point which is consistently overlooked. In all the hoo-ha about the "new" MamMad Torani, no one seems to mention that both Masuat Neriah and MaMad Buchman are ALSO schools which are MaMad Torani.
The "Torani" label is utterly meaningless. It is a word like "nice" or "good" which my old English teacher always crossed out in essays saying "replace with something meaningful".
When our son was in the "Torani" school in Ramat Bet Shemesh (which was atrocious) - every complaint and issue was answered with the same mantra "the school needs to be more Torani". It's a panacea in the snake-oil sense, and should be treated as such.
I'm all for choice - if you want to send you kids to a private school that's fine, but at least say what is meant by Torani. Some people seem to think it means "separate boys and girls classes" some that it means "the female teachers must wear head coverings". Some (shock, horror!) think that there might be a specific change in the curriculum, while some seem to think that it will magically attract a "better class" of person (since, we all know, nobody who has bad character traits would ever send his child to a Torani school)
Kibi - good points, but not my issue. I did not address the implications of a Mamad Torani (so called) for the existing Mamad schools. If you'd like to write something up, I'd gladly post it.
for it to be ideal the voucher system would also have to mandate that a certain percentage of pupils in teh school are for a pre-defined catchment area and that every pupil is guaranteet to have to travel no farther than X distance/time to school and that travel beyond Z km's to school will be funded. Were that the case I would agree that private schools should be taking state funds. However the fact that you have religious kids in towns who have no local school to attend is an embarrasment and as much as I love the lower school tuitions in Israel, it is a fact that cries out for correction and is a stain on religious zionist education in Israel.
BB - the country is small enough that it should not be that difficult.a voucher system presumes that a parent has full choice over the kid's school. the parent can choose a public school 10 km (or 100 km) away over an ostensibly identical one 2 km away. by the same token, and school would be authorized to charge tuition in addition to voucher reciepts, to keep a high standard and as a de facto selection process.
I'm sorry, but while I support vouchers I feel that schools that take them have to commit to a certain proportion of the local kids as "public" school kids (i.e. the vouchers plus whatever the local municipality/national government would give to fund a public school pupil) if they are taking the vouchers. There is simply no justification for the state funding in any way a high-performing religious high school in say, Yerucham, that has 97% of its student body from all over the country and only 3% local Yerucham kids.
Modiin is a young town. Since you know them, ask the older Gush Etzion folks what happens to the kids who can't find a local school to attend..........
BB - that might be viable as an agreement vis-a-vis local funding or land grants. In other words, as far as the MoE is concerned, each student gets a voucher which is good for, say, 5000 NIS worth of tuition per annum. Let's say the actual cost to educate the child is 8000 NIS (I'm just throwing #s around). A school that wishes to remain viable must then raise an additional 3000 NIS per student. There are a # of ways it can do that:
a) it can charge 3000 NIS per annum tuition (or 4000 NIS and reserve a # of spaces for qualified students who need financial aid).
b) it can fundraise
c) it can work out a deal with other governmental agencies for additional funding. for example, it can guarantee the local municipality that it will take a certain quota of local students in exchange for a piece of land, municipal tax breaks, or the like.
option c) is probably most palatable for all involved: it's good for the school because it need not chase after parents for tuition, and it's good for the city because it then has a local school to send its local kids. of course, it can be a combination of these 3.
This is effectively what is happening in most municipalities in Israel.
It sounds to me like your modiin issue then is the typical "we already have one school, so opening a new one will damage the existing one" case. Usually this is not what happens - and if it does happen the existing one was halb-toyte in any event.
You've set up a false dichotomy. Private schools can be run by tyrranical parents or others (wealthy, politically connected, rabbis). Public schools can have active PTAs and populations that effectively tailor the school to the community needs.
Orot Etzion in Efrat is an example of a school that combines the best of what public and private have to offer.
“Mamlachti Dati Torani” school
Is this different from regular mamlachti dati?
BZ - unclear. It's a sort of code for 'frummer'. It can mean a number of things (see Kibi's comment above).
"I agree that the ideal system would be a voucher system where each school passes some MINIMUM state-mandated curriculum."
So much for your free market, non-socialist ideals.
Playing devil's advocate here: Wouldn't the ideal be abolish misrad ha-hinukh, cut taxes drastically, and let every group raise its own education funds? (BTW, in a recent Alon Shevut Bogrim, Rav Meidan has a similar approach, basically applying Milton Friedman to the Israeli education system.)
BTW, I was also anon. 11:08 a.m., and I should have stated "wealthy, OR politically connected, OR rabbis" for obvious reasons.
First of all, Friedman himself proposed a voucher system (in the 70s). Since every parent would have the right to "spend" their vouchers, it's an essentially free-market structure.
The value of having a minimum curriculum is based on the idea that universal education was the method, at least in the USA, by which the children of immigrants assimilated civic values and acquired basic skills. From the state's vantage point, the vouchers are only valuable if they promote a system that can succeed where the public school system fails.
By 'basic curriculum', I mean the three Rs and some basic civics (how Israeli democracy functions, not value-laden issues like allegiance to the flag or celebrating Yom Haatzmaut; as much as I'm opposed to such ideologies, I don't think they should be a sine qua non of state-funded education, but that's a longer post).
...how Israeli democracy functions, not value-laden issues like allegiance to the flag or celebrating Yom Haatzmaut; as much as I'm opposed to such ideologies...
Do you mean you're opposed to the ideologies that denigrate those?
Bottom line is that with vouchers, you're getting back to the gov't and beaurocracy and tyrrany of the majority. In any event, the gov't is involved (as it is in the US) with tax breaks at the very least.
In any event, any system is problematic vis. haredim and Arabs. They are the two groups whose values are most problematic to the majority, and who are unable economically to fund themselves should we privatize everything.
I'm opposed to the ideologies that denigrate (let's call a spade a spade - I'm opposed to the haredi and arab ideologies).
I think that any system which tends toward an extreme vis-a-vis these populations: one extreme being an extreme assimilationist approach, the other being an extreme laissez faire approach, is problematic.
This assessment is correct. Which is why the government ultimately needs to be involved.
(BTW, in a recent Alon Shevut Bogrim, Rav Meidan has a similar approach, basically applying Milton Friedman to the Israeli education system.)
Elli Schorr | 06.11.08 - 3:39 am | #
Rabbis who haven't studied macroeconomics should never ever discuss it. Just like Milton Friedman would never disuss noseyn taam or hilchot zevachim.
And anonymous bloggers should discuss it?
(I'm no Friedman fan, but RYM did point out some problems which are obviously true. If you read the piece and disagree, subtantiate it and let the critique be based on that.)
Funny:
http://adderabbi.blogspot.com/20...dvar-
torah.html
To clarify - the rabbi in the above-linked post is not R. Medan, in case there was even a hava amina.
That's a funny post, and it's well-taken. However, there are basics of everyone's POV that you can discuss without being an expert (you can mention Newton in regard to gravity without a Ph.D. in physics and apply it intelligently). However, on moral issues, everyone (especially rabbis) should try to deal with the issues.
Friedman's popular appeal arose not because of economics, but because of the moral dimension involved. Lots of political issues like war, taxes, welfare, stem cell research, etc., touch nerves because they bear moral dimensions, even though they are more complex than lay people can possibly understand.
Other governmental responsibilities, such as building codes, telecom regulation, securities filings, and the like, impact our lives greatly, but there's more of a feeling that these are technical issues less loaded with moral questions, best left for the experts.
It's Friedman the moralist who captures the public imagination, not Friedman the economist.
BB - I disagree with your premise here. Perhaps a Rosh Yeshiva would be out of his league arguing pure economics with Friedman, but well within his purview to judge the ethical and social implications of his theories. Additionally, Friedman was famous for writing in a very down-to-earth manner that made it easy for the educated layman (or specialist in another field) to gain a basic familiarity with his common-sense theories. Thus, it's not presumptuous for a non-specialist to quote or discuss Friedman.
I was half-kidding half directing at the post you linked to above.
Still most Rabbis shouldn't discuss macroeconomics as macroenomic issues go
1. We've had experience with both a MDT and a private TT (Talmud Torah), in direct competition with each other (both located on a small yishuv pulling from the same demographic pool of around 4 yishuvim). The launching of the TT gave the MDT a chance to fine-tune its game and present to parents of potential students a vision of how it differs (pedagogically, hashkafically, logistically) from the TT. Buyer's market improves product all around!
2. Our yishuv's MDT provided excellent "customer service," far beyond what the TT currently offers us. As one who's had the advantage of involvement with two competing schools, I would think you'd need to evaluate which school offers more effective response to parental inquiries based not on whether or not the school is private but on the makeup of the administration and faculty.
3. Our MDT is an excellent option. Nevertheless, we're sticking with the alternative -- but it's always nice to know that we've got viable choices! Wouldn't you want to have more options available to you should the need arise?
My fear is precisely that the MDT will become a pretext for shutting down alternatives.
Only if the alternatives offer an inferior product. Maybe the MDT will give Lema'an Achai the perfect opportunity to sharpen itself up (if indeed it stands for any improvement) so as to maintain its Modi'in student body. Doesn't LA draw from a larger demographic pool, though, of families that aren't zoned for the Buchman MDT?
It does, but the lion's share is from Modiin. It's possible that the MDT will be a good school, but in general, monopolistic practices are designed to allow its practitioners to get away with providing and inferior product.
Kibi and all--
Mamad Torani means one thing and one thing only. It's a way of keeping out certain elements. In our municipality, schools were forced to become torani once the private schools drew away a critical mass of students. Only a mamad torani school can legally require parents to be shomrei shabbat, but in fact only certain socio-economic and ethnic groups are ever challenged. That's why it means different things in different places. We have plenty of parents who davka don't want anything "too torani," and the proof is that we now have a private school that offers the minimum of Jewish studies (because the torani thing didn't work out to their satisfaction).
I have two relevant posts on my blog:
Kicking Ourselves in the Foot
Starting a New School
Reading the post and comments again, I see there is a misunderstanding about a Mamad torani. A mamad has to accept everyone who comes. A Mamad torani can require a minimal level of observance from the parents, but there is a lot of leeway. It has nothing to do with separate classes (my mamadT school has mixed classes for first and second grade). A mamad torani school must offer extra torani class hours (by an extremely loose definition of torani) and the parents must commit to pay for them (about NIS 100/month--there is a maximum amount as it falls into the category of talan--tigbur limud nosaf I believe--not 100% sure about the roshei tevot).
Commenting by HaloScan
