Dual effort to place Shalhevet girls, or possibly save new school
By Mayer Fertig
Issue of July 17, 2009 / 25 Tammuz 5769
Rambam Mesivta students danced on Fifth Avenue at the Salute to Israel parade earlier this year. (Photo courtesy Rambam Mesivta)
The three-year-old partnership between HAFTR and Rambam Mesivta formally know as Machon HaTorah is finished, according to Rambam’s president, Yaacov Gross.
“Looking at it from the perspective of a Rambam parent there is no need to have a Machon because there is absolutely nothing that Rambam is getting out of the relationship,” Gross said. His comments came a week after HAFTR said it would no longer fund the deficit of Shalhevet, the one-year-old high school for girls.
Shalhevet parents planned to meet Wednesday to consider if the school could be saved. A building in the Five Towns has been located for the 2009-2010 school year, if parents want it, Gross said.
Headmasters of other high schools, including Central, SKA, HANC, NSHA and Magen David “all have been wonderful, supportive and have demonstrated great compassion and sensitivity for the Shalhevet girls,” said Rabbi Zev Friedman.
The result is a “grace period where the girls don’t have to run to register right now. Parents have a short window to see if we can make a go of this realistically,” Gross said. It’s “up to the parents of Shalhevet, if this is a direction they want to take. We’re saying we’ll do what we can, making Herculean efforts to give Shalhevet the option to have the school if they want it.”
The Machon partnership agreement said “clearly and expressly” that Shalhevet would be built and that HAFTR would pay its deficits, and also provide a gym and a Beit Midrash, said Gross. In exchange, Rambam’s Rabbi Yotav Eliach and Rabbi Friedman would provide educational leadership. Ground was broken last year on a Beit Midrash-gym facility to be built on Central Avenue on the former site of the Nassau Herald building.
“The gym and Beit Midrash has not been built and I have no reason to think that it will be built,” Gross said. He does not expect the dissolution of the Machon to impact Rambam, which “made it on its own for the first 14 years.”
Gross called the Shalhevet deficit a “tiny, tiny number.”
“The idea that the deficit was the reason to close Shalhevet — especially for someone really familiar with the numbers as I am — seems harder and harder to justify,” he said. Rather than a truly new school, “Shalhevet is really just an expansion of the existing program at Rambam. I would say that the biggest thing in the Shalhevet deficit was the rent on the Beth El building, which HAFTR had for years and years.”
A number of Shalhevet instructors are HAFTR faculty, he added. HAFTR is “left with the salaries of the teachers that they’re going to have to pay.” Even tuition disparities could remain, if any Shalhevet students enter HAFTR High School at their existing tuition level.
“I think the HAFTR parents have been sold a bill of goods, that the high tuition bills of the HAFTR parents was a result of the Shalhevet deficit,” Gross said.
HAFTR co-president Yaron Kornblum called the comments “unfortunate.”
“In today’s economic environment, the losses were going to increase significantly for Shalhevet. By any measurement, these are not “tiny” numbers. If Shalhevet were to continue another year, the losses would have severely affected operations at HAFTR and Rambam,” said Kornblum. “Despite the disparaging remarks made about HAFTR, we are confident that HAFTR will be continue to be a leading Modern Orthodox yeshiva for many years to come.”
Jack Margareten is a father of three boys who attend HAFTR and a board member who voted to stop funding Shalhevet because “to have done anything else would have been reckless and would have led to the demise of HAFTR as a viable institution. To me it was plain as day,” he said.
“You should be very clear — in that room there were plenty of supporters of Machon. I know people that were pro-Machon who voted to stop the funding of Shalhevet. They were separate issues.”
Related Stories
Excellent start to some investigative reporting…but many questions are still unanswered, and I hope the Jewish Week will continue to investigate and report this story. For example: If Rabbis Friedman and Eliach were lent to HAFTR to provide leadership, does that mean that Rambam was paying all of their (allegedly huge) salaries? Why did they not take pay cuts (as other Roshei Yeshivot have done) even as they were laying off teachers? Why is HAFTR “left with salaries” when Rabbi Friedman very specifically made sure that all teachers had no contracts, but rather were employees at will? Why can’t the new HAFYTR administration lay them off, as Friedman did lay off and cut back HAFTR teachers to give more classes to Rambam teachers?
This article provides little real information and less context. The allusion to HAFTR having to now pay the salaries of Shalhevet teachers is incorrect. HAFTR teachers have no contract; they are employees at will. They will simply lose the classes they had been teaching at Shalhevet unless the current and/or new administration of HAFTR chooses to compensate them with more classes at HAFTR. Part of the problem with local reporting of this incident is a seeming reluctance to look at all the irregularities that have occurred in HAFTR since the merger.
Based on Mr. Gross’ comments, from the Rambam perspective it was all about what can we take, grab, borrow or steal from the HAFTR parent body in exchange for two part time administrators. It was apparent three years ago it was a terrible deal for the HAFTR parent body and had it been put to a parent body vote, I doubt it would have passed. Unfortunately, the lack to transparency, the cliqueism, and the absolute lack of respect that previous boards have shown to the parent body placed us all in this situation.
Personally, I am glad that my tuition dollars are not building Rambam kids a gym or a beis medrash. If you want those for you kids, knock yourselves out. Spend your money-not mine.
Jason Kanefsky
Mr. Kanefsky’s categorical statements and accusations simply betray an ignorance of the facts. The Beis Medrash and gym were meant to serve students from both institutions. Anyone who has ever been to HAFTR High School, knows that the school is most certainly in need of both (probably even more so than Rambam, which has a nicer gym and somewhat palatable Batei Medrash). It was also meant to service the broader community and help change HAFTR’s negative communal image.
His suggestion that Rambam administrators sought to “take, grab, borrow or steal from the HAFTR parent body” is libelous. Quite the contrary, actually. HAFTR’s students and parents received Rabbeim, teachers and administrators from Rambam. Rambam’s parents and students, on the other hand, received what ultimately proved to be empty promises from HAFTR (to say the least of Shalhevet students and parents).
Something suggests there is more at play here. I think that many people are and should be questioning HAFTR’s future viability. It’s board members claim to be influenced by the “general economic climate.” But, if so, why aren’t any other local schools – certainly also part of such a climate – taking such drastic actions? And if the school is in good shape, as some HAFTR board members claim, why the hasty and nasty actions? Why cause such pain to 50 young Jewish girls and their families? Why breach agreements, hurt HAFTR’s reputation, and expose the school to legal liability? In short, who are HAFTR’s board members trying to fool?
Perhaps this whole Shalhevet gig is simply a ploy by HAFTR board members to cover themselves and shift blame to Rambam’s administrators for the financial mess as they’ve created, which we’re only beginning to appreciate.
But no one’s fooled – including, I believe, Mr. Kanefsky. The reality is that, for the last decade, HAFTR has been the victim of terrible mismanagement by its board, and to every outside observer the onetime educational powerhouse has drastically declined as a result. As Mr. Kanefsky put it: “Unfortunately, the lack to transparency, the cliqueism, and the absolute lack of respect that previous boards have shown to the parent body placed us all in this situation.” I couldn’t agree more.
If Rambam’s administration failed, it failed thus: they simply could not tame HAFTR’s board; they could not convince board members to stick to their Kiddush clubs and to leave education to the educators. And so, yet again, as a result of HAFTR board members’ arrogance and incompetence, our children continue to be worse off as a result.
The logic of the previous post escapes me. HAFTR did not “receive” administrators or teachers from Rambam. They paid for them. In some cases HAFTR teachers and other staff were eliminated and replaced by Rambam teachers and administrators.
The manipulative repetition of phrases such as “Why cause such pain to 50 Jewish girls” is unconscionable. Many more Jewish girls, boys and adults were terribly hurt by policies at HAFTR, after the “merger,” which cost students and faculty programs, jobs, and other essential components of education. It is indeed unfortunate if even one student is affected by financial factors. Everyone feels rachmones for the young women who expected to continue at Shalhevet. They need to be accomodated by other schools. But they are only part of the picture.
I wholeheartedly agree with “socraticmethod3″ that terrible mismanagement has exacerbated existing problems. There is plenty of blame to go around. It is also a very legitimate point that education should be entrusted to professional educators. Unfortunately, this has been the opposite of the situation at HAFTR in the last three years. As the economy has drastically declined more and more educational decisions have been made by parents, board members, and even, sadly, the students themselves. This was a consequence of panic that the school would fold without enough satisfied customers. In the short term it may have seemed necessary, but in the medium and long terms it will prove a disaster for the school.
Miriam,
Again, another unfounded categorical accusation: “Many more Jewish girls, boys and adults were terribly hurt by policies at HAFTR, after the “merger,” which cost students and faculty programs, jobs, and other essential components of education.” For the first time in years, HAFTR students were actually forced to choose Minyan over Muffins and underachieving faculty members were replaced. Hardly a tragedy.
And on the contrary, Miriam. The HAFTR board’s decision – its breach of agreements with teachers, students and parents, and yes, its putting 50 Jewish girls out on the street – is unconscionable. Manipulative? It’s called “calling a spade a spade.” And as a community which cares about its children, we should not hesitate call HAFTR’s actions what they are – even if that may pain HAFTR board members and their apologists.
And as for your prior post claiming that there was no written contract:
(1) First, get your facts straight: there actually is a written contract here between Rambam and HAFTR when they formulated the merger that specifically entailed HAFTR funding Shalhevet’s deficit for the beginning year.
(2) Second, even if there would hypothetically be no written contract, it’s basic contract law that the lack of a written contract doesn’t necessarily preclude contractual obligations and damages (except by the purchase of land, or goods over $500 under the statute of frauds). Indeed, one could well make an argument under the theory of promissory estoppel the teachers and students were induced to detrimentally rely on promises made by the HAFTR board regarding Shalhevet’s continuing operations. (Indeed, Rabbi Brisman’s “contract” was recognized by the Beth Din – the court overturned the decision on other grounds, which I’d be happy to explain)
(3) Finally and more fundamentally, am I the only one who finds it rather incredible that HAFTR feels it’s cool to make and break promises just because “they aren’t in writing”? Isn’t a promise a promise? And how does HAFTR expect to teach Torah and ethical values to its students, when it so publicly and brazenly thumbs its nose at those values?
Finally, am I the only one puzzled by the meaning of Miriam’s rambling statement that “As the economy has drastically declined more and more educational decisions have been made by parents, board members, and even, sadly, the students themselves”?
The tone of your comments is hostile and insulting, particularly since I actually agreed with and supported some of your statements about allowing educators to make educational decisions.
You have absolutely no grounds for your harsh statement that HAFTR faculty who were let go were “underachieving.” Have you evaluated them? Do you even know who they were, or that they were from a broad range of subjects, secular and Judaic, and that some were teachers of many years standing? People may courteously disagree with statements on this blog, but impugning someone’s professional integrity is simply awful. As to your flippant,”hardly a tragedy,” the families of those staff members let go might view it differently. In order to support the young women of Shalhevet it is not necessary to denigrate other people in the community who have suffered.
You completely misunderstood my statements, or confused me with another poster. I never denied there was a contract that outlined the merger. I assume that there was. HAFTR faculty currently have no contracts, even the one year contracts typical in private schools. Since you are intent on affirming the value of
contractual obligations without a written document, you might want to defend those faculty members who were summarily dismissed. The case of Rabbi Brisman was totally different, involving the decision of the civil courts vs. that of the Beis Din. People may disagree about many aspects of that case and whether it set a precedent.
I agree with you that davening is more important than going out for breakfast. In fact, I made the point that the current administration has actually failed to uphold this value. That is clearly the message of my conclusion, which you find “rambling.” I stated explicitly that, due to declining enrollment and financial problems, the administration had given up on discipline and consequences for breaking rules. I believe, from your tone, that this supports your belief in the importance of maintaining fidelity to halakha and to derekh eretz. Why does it make you angry?
Miriam,
As someone who strikes me as intelligent, I find your comments surprising and deserving of a frank response. I’m sorry if you perceive my comments as anything other than that.
First, I just want to point out that you’ve conveniently changed the subject – faced with with pretty solid arguments that HAFTR breached its contractual obligations, you’ve skirted the issue and brought in something entirely unrelated to the current situation: teachers were fired. But since I’ve been hearing this argument thrown around by HAFTR apologists on the blogs, I’ll play along and respond.
Faculty members and administrators were let go for a variety of reasons – some were certainly “underachievers.” That teachers were around for years or that they came from a wide array of departments proves nothing. [I should note that my comments are not to imply that Rabbi Brisman was an "underachiever" - as court documents indicate, at least officially, the school parted with him because of Hashkafic differences.]
Moreover, your implicit assertion is rather shocking. According to you, why then were those teachers and administrators fired? Is it because the people who fired them were heartless, foolish, or incompetent (none of which are true)? If so, you’re maligning those people. And if you have no answer – is it really correct for you to so publicly judge their actions out of ignorance?
I personally have great compassion for the teachers who were let go. And, I should note, so did the people at HAFTR and Rambam who let them go. Here’s a little tid bit of unspoken information: the teachers were offered fair notice (unlike the girls in Shalhevet) and unbelievably generous severance packages, out of gratitude for their years of service and out of a sense of responsibility to them and their families. But the fact is that one must also have compassion for the kids at HAFTR and their parents, who pay for and deserve top-notch, compatible teachers and a more serious educational environment.
According to you, when is it ever acceptable to fire a teacher? There will always be teachers with families, they will always suffer. Painful as it is, a school needs to be maintained. And as someone who purports to accept the idea of “leaving education to the educators,” I would expect you to accord deference to the school’s educational leadership, who made those assuredly painful decisions. I’m a little disheartened that you – a person who is admittedly intelligent, but also not an educator or intimately involved with the situation – have decided to judge such sensitive actions from an armchair.
More fundamentally, you’re seeking to shift the debate to the firings of teachers – something which may be a convenient distraction but has nothing to do with the split. The debate here is about HAFTR’s financial viability. I (and I think everyone else) would be curious to hear how you respond to the following:
“Something suggests there is more at play here. I think that many people are and should be questioning HAFTR’s future viability. It’s board members claim to be influenced by the “general economic climate.” But, if so, why aren’t any other local schools – certainly also part of such a climate – taking such drastic actions? And if the school is in good shape, as some HAFTR board members claim, why the hasty and nasty actions? Why cause such pain to 50 young Jewish girls and their families? Why breach agreements, hurt HAFTR’s reputation, and expose the school to legal liability? In short, who are HAFTR’s board members trying to fool?”
I look forward to your answer.
“serve students from both institutions” but paid for by one parent body.
Regarding HAFTR’s standing in the community- I could not be prouder to send my children to HAFTR. Thousands of children have been educated, gone on to Israel,graduated from the best colleges and have become community leaders because of their education at HAFTR. I have every expectation that this continue for the foreseable future.
Jason Kanefsky
This is my last response to socraticmethod3. If he chooses he may then have the last word.
I have never presumed to comment on alleged contractual violations between Rambam and HAFTR. In fact, I have no knowledge of that situation. It has not been made public. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat a rant about that to me. As far as I am concerned, there may well have been a violation. I have no basis to either agree or disagree with socraticmethod3 about that. In contrast, socraticmethod3 is commenting on teacher layoffs with NO KNOWLEDGE. There were no “unbelievably generous severance packages!” There were no severance packages of any kind! Maybe in the past high level administrators may have benefited by such deals; I don’t know. Neither teachers not essential professional support staff were compensated in this way or in any way. In fact, back in the day when there were actually one year contracts, which have since been eliminated, the current administraton stated explicitly in at least some contracts that there would be no severance pay offered.
As for your repeated references to underperforming teachers, you have no information about that. In fact, teachers who were let go were told that they were not being dismissed for performance issues, but because of decreased enrollment and serious financial problems! You used the words “heartless, foolish and incompetent.” I did not. I have referred to the results of the cutbacks, not to anyone’s moral or psychological motivation.
Many yeshivas in the area have insituted drastic cuts, in spite of socraticmethod3’s apparent belief that this has not happened. Some have implemented across the board pay cuts for faculty AND adminstrators in order to minimize job loss and save money for student programs.
Finally, in spite of socraticmethod3’s desire to maximize disagreement and conflict, I totally agree with him that HAFTR has potential long term problems as a viable school. I have never defended their decision making process. In fact, I have pointed out that many of their recent cuts have been made in response to an urgent sense of financial decline. Some very bad decisions were the responsibility of the current administration, but others preceded them and were the result of long term poor management practice. Again, the families and the students have suffered the consequences.
I hope, in spite of these problems, that Mr. Kanefsky is correct and that HAFTR will repair its problems and move forward with success.
socraticmethod3 – I think you are missing the point of the story. HAFTR is, was and will continue to be a great school. You can malign it all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. HAFTR students get into the top universities and yeshivot in America and Israel. This is no accident; it is because of the dedication of its teachers, administration and its lay leadership.
That is not to say that mistakes were never made. Of course they were – and Shalhevet (and the whole Machon) is proof of that. I notice that in your posts you are very concerned about the contract. Let’s be clear – the contract was not a suicide pact. HAFTR parents did fund the money-losing Shalhevet for a year and Rambam for 3 years. Even though it might look like Shalhevet will open next year, the deficit is much, much larger than is being reported. HAFTR parents are under no obligation to see their tuitions increase or programs cut just to continue funding this losing experiment.
HAFTR has made every effort to find a place for these girls for next year. They even generously offered to accept every girl into HAFTR at the ridiculously low tuition rate that Shalhevet was charging. HAFTR also contacted a number of single-gender schools and worked out an expedited plan so these girls can enroll immediately. If Shalhevet opens – that’s great. It not, they have other options. But to claim that HAFTR owes these 39 girls or this school a lifetime of funding is silly and irresponsible.
It’s time to move on.
Excuse me —-
Kolbeh250
“HAFTR has made every effort to find a place for these girls for next year.”
Haftr has not been doing that –that was all rabbi friedman!
all they offered was to accept the shalhevet girls at a similar price –no anything about other schools.
Kolbeh, Miriam and Mr. Kanefsky,
It’s nice to hear your personal heartfelt statements of HAFTR patriotism and vote of confidence on its current and future status as a serious academic institution. The overwhelming majority of our community, unfortunately, disagrees with you. Which is why HAFTR’s enrollment numbers have and continue to plummet while those of HALB, Rambam and Shalhevet continue to climb.
Miriam’s statements – again, in an attempt to shift the debate to something totally irrelevant to the split – that no severance packages were offered (and generous ones at that) is a patent lie. Instead of listening to an anonymous and ignorant blogger, why not listen to a New York Supreme Court Judge who, in the Brisman case, explicitly noted that the school offered Rabbi Brisman a “Chodesh LiShanah” severance package in accordance with Halakha and proper ethical principles. And, indeed, the court overruled the Beth Din of America to uphold the school’s package.
As for Mr. Kanefsky’s statement that the gym was “paid for by one parent body.” In fact, it never was paid for by the HAFTR parent body. For, like with everything else, HAFTR breached its agreement and never built a gym.
As for Kolbeh’s statement: “Let’s be clear – the contract was not a suicide pact. HAFTR parents did fund the money-losing Shalhevet for a year and Rambam for 3 years.” First, HAFTR never provided a penny of funding to Rambam. Second, if Shalhevet’s deficit of $150K represented a “suicide pact” for HAFTR, then HAFTR is clearly in a terrible financial shape.
But one thing is clear – something is clearly screwy about HAFTR’s financial situation. And one wonders if HAFTR’s board and its apologists are clearly using Shalhevet and the Machon leadership as scapegoats for the financial mess that they’ve created. Indeed, one need look at Mr. Kanefsky’s (unfounded) statement: “Even though it might look like Shalhevet will open next year, the deficit is much, much larger than is being reported.” My friend, HAFTR’s board can only blame a tiny girl’s school and its leadership for so much. A hundred thousand dollars. Perhaps two. (They certainly weren’t causing financial damage by knocking unnecessary teachers and administrators off the payroll) HAFTR’s losses are far, far greater than that. It’s time for HAFTR’s board to be honest and take accountability.
“The overwhelming majority of our community, unfortunately, disagrees with you.” Are you kidding, socraticmethod3?
Other than your posts, the overwhelming majority of letters to the editor, posts and blogs are all in favor of HAFTR’s actions. In addition, feel free to ask any HAFTR parent if they are upset about not having to fund Shalhevet. Only people who have no interest in seeing HAFTR thrive are in favor of funding Shalhevet. And if you think the HAFTR has not been funding Rambam for the past three years, than it’s time to stop smoking those funny cigarettes.
Also, your knowledge of the situation is incomplete. The projected deficit of Shalhevet is several hundred thousand dollars – with no end in sight. Let’s see how many girls actually show up on opening day at Shalhevet. Time will tell who is right. Personally, I will put my money on the school that has been around for more than 30 years with thousands of graduates than on a failed start-up with 15 girls.
I must admit that I am very new to blogging. I find it interesting that the community has the ability to comment but its mind boggling to read some of what people believe. Mr socratic method simply goes on and on making things up with absolutely no connection to the facts. there is opinion and there is fact. he can have an opinion but he should stop messing with the facts. that has to be a no no in everyone’s book. maybe we are best leaving writing to the professionals who are at least accountable for what they write.
Kolbeh, it’s very easy to create a straw man by taking words out of context. So here’s the entire statement: “It’s nice to hear your personal heartfelt statements of HAFTR patriotism and vote of confidence on its current and future status as a serious academic institution. The overwhelming majority of our community, unfortunately, disagrees with you. Which is why HAFTR’s enrollment numbers have and continue to plummet while those of HALB, Rambam and Shalhevet continue to climb.” There is no disputing that HAFTR’s numbers have plummeted.
I dispute your statements about the blogs – commentary has largely been mixed. I also think blogs (where people post anonymously and multiple times under different aliases at that) are a poor indication of communal support. I think HAFTR’s plummeting enrollment is a far more solid indicator.
As for sam’s allegation that “Mr socratic method simply goes on and on making things up with absolutely no connection to the facts. there is opinion and there is fact. he can have an opinion but he should stop messing with the facts.” That’s a nice allegation, Sam. If what I’m saying is not factual – go ahead and disprove it. If you have no idea and are just sounding off, then I’d save it for your therapist.
[...] week the president of Rambam Mesivta, Yaacov Gross, indicated to The Jewish Star that the partnership was over. From the perspective of a Rambam parent there is no need to have a Machon because there is [...]