To say that day school tuition is breaking the Jewish middle class is not a contentious assertion.  It is practically axiomatic.  And yet… and yet…

So here is yet another cry for relief and a proposed solution – this time, from Rabbi Aryeh Klapper.

And, like the earlier proposal from Aurora Mendelsohn, it is based on a form of tithing.

Where Rabbi Klapper’s argument differs is not in outcome, but in tone.  His argument in favour is solely a moral one.  We must do something about day school affordability because inaction will destroy the community Jewish day schools are supposed to foster and nurture.

Rabbi Klapper explains:

Imagine that someone proposes a new Jewish practice that would have these consequences:

a. Parents take second jobs, or work longer hours, that deprive them of almost all weekday contact with their children and leave them too exhausted to make Shabbat meaningful.

b. Almost half of households are transformed, for years, from community contributors to charity recipients.

c. Children aspiring to intellectual, creative, or service work, such as teaching (especially Torah) or other helping professions, are told that these are not options because they will not produce enough money to sustain a committed Jewish lifestyle.

d. For economic reasons, families choose to have fewer children.

We would consider such a practice stunningly irresponsible.

Yes we would – and yet, as Rabbi Klapper argues, this is what happens when we weigh down the Jewish middle class with skyrocketing day school costs.

Rabbi Klapper plays out the costs and benefits of the tithing scenario here.  It is very worth reading and considering.

One more point which really kicked me in the kishkes:

The system also undermines the schools’ Jewish effectiveness.  If our children lack Jewish passion, doesn’t that bespeak parental exhaustion?  If they are materialistic, isn’t this related to their being told that their career paths are limited because they are poor?  When they show signs of being “at risk,” doesn’t this reflect lessened parental involvement?  How can children internalize the core Jewish value of human dignity and the spiritual value of financial independence when their schools make them dependent?

Ouchies.

I suppose we could continue on this path, arguing that the status quo has its problems but seems to be working just fine as we continue to bankrupt Jewish families and, as Rabbi Klapper argues, the values of the community in the process.

One can almost imagine, if the clamor grew loud enough, a letter from the local federation diplomatically addressing Rabbi Klapper’s argument.  The letter would empathize with the vast middle struggling to pay, agreeing that, in principle, yes, there is some financial distress out there.  (Would the letter also state that families must make sacrifices for Jewish education? – I wonder…) One can also imagine how further down the page, the letter would indicate the unprecedented levels of funding for day schools and how, with decrease in support for federation, funding could not increase any more than current levels.  One can also imagine no reference at all to Rabbi Klapper’s moral argument.

We have seen letters like this in the past and they are wholly besides the point.

Rabbi Klapper is not talking about philanthropy.  He is talking about fairness and equality – two consummate Jewish values. He is making the same argument that Occupy Wall Street made in Zuccotti Park (which was later adopted by Barack Obama under the guise of the “Buffett Rule”) and François Holland proferred during his run for the French presidency: Those with more need to pay their fair share – which means more.

If we are to have a community (and having one is another one of those pesky Jewish values), then we must ask ourselves what kind of community it will be if the price of admission ultimately turns away more people than it attracts.

I have consistently praised Aurora Mendelsohn’s call for day school tuition reform.  Her latest piece at The Forward presents the same cogent argument she made elsewhere at RainbowTallitBaby.  The existing model is not sustainable, she states.  It drives down Jewish birthrates (hence the birth control witticism).  It is invasive, elitist and alienating.  She is right on all counts.  And  then some.

However, I am slightly uncomfortable with her alternative, as steeped in Jewish tradition as it may be.  What could possibly be troubling about a system advocated by the Shulchan Aruch?  Well, it is also happens to be a plan advocated by Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, sorta Mitt Romney and, back in the day, Steve Forbes.   It is the flat tax.

Herman Cain has his version called the 9-9-9 Plan. Newt Gingrich is endorsing an optional flat tax, which means that US taxpayers could pick a flat tax or the current system.  Rick Perry wants that option too.  Mitt Romney wants a “flatter” tax but who the hell knows what that means and whether Romney will stick to this position long enough for anyone to get any clarification about it.

Aurora’s plan promises to be simpler, fairer and arguably lower (why else do it otherwise?), but can it deliver?  Reciting Cain’s flat tax plan with a German accent provides the answer:  NEIN!  NEIN!  NEIN!

First, one cannot potentially lower tuition for a substantial percentage of Jewish families and expect schools to have enough money to function at a minimal level.  For every dollar less one family pays, it has to be made up from somewhere by somebody.  Will the cash-strapped Federation step in to fill the gap, or will another family?  And will we have to add their name alongside the name of the thinker/leader/hero after which the school is already named?   To address the issue of onerous tuition burdens for middle and lower income families is simple.  Lower their tuition!   (But I digress…)

Second, as for fairness, that would depend on the percentage that each family is going to be asked to pay.  If a family is struggling to scrimp and save, borrow against their home and loot retirement savings to pony up 25 percent of their income for tuition and the Fair Sharers come along and say “Now only pay 20 percent,” the plan offers a reduction and some relief.  But what’s that magic number?  How much of a family’s income should be dedicated to day school tuition?   And is this levy per child or per family?  Would an affluent family of three earning $300,000 per year be expected to pay, say, 18% of their income to educate one child (or $54,000 per child) while a working class family of seven earning $60,000 only be asked to pay $10,800 (or $2,160 per child)?  Is this fair?  (Well, I would say yes but the Affluentbergs would disagree.)

Finally, would a flat tuition scheme make paying “simpler,” less invasive and less humiliating?  Probably.  But as I have commented elsewhere, I am dubious if individuals who employ accounting shenanigans in an attempt to shelter income from the government would behave differently in a day school setting.   Perhaps I am being a bit too jaded on this point…

What we need to truly address the existing unsustainable scheme is a system that is even more progressive and less regressive.  Tithing hurts the vulnerable. That’s why Devarim 26:12 states the vulnerable should receive tithes, not pay them.  Also, Jews who did not grow food or raise animals did not tithe. (See VaYikra 27:30.) Perhaps this biblical exemption might be extended to those individuals in the community today who also do not work in tithe-able professions… like Jewish educators!  (This exemption might actually attract more talent to the profession and keep experienced teachers within the system for longer…)

I think Aurora’s piece is a great opening for discussion on this topic.  I think we would all agree that we need more kids in Jewish day schools and more Jewish day schools…

We need a critical mass of educated Jews who can be the folks who pitch in and crowdsource Judaism into the next century, but we cannot achieve this absolutely essential critical mass while pushing a large portion of the next two generations to the brink of financial implosion to make this community priority a reality.

Make sense?