Our cover story, “Opening the Books” in Issue 1030 continues to draw vigorous and passionate feedback. Here is a sampling:

Our cover story, “Opening the Books” in Issue 1030, about how today’s frum schools are collapsing under historic deficits while families are buckling under unprecedented tuition bills, continues to draw vigorous and passionate feedback. Here is a sampling:

WE’RE ON THE SAME TEAM
›Yitzchok Krausz, Cheder D’Monsey

Your recent article shared some truly insightful points on a topic that weighs heavily on many families’ hearts and finances — tuition. The piece resonated deeply with some of my personal experiences from nearly two decades working within the realm of tuition, currently representing three Monsey schools under the cheder umbrella.
Through this work, I’ve come to understand three fundamental principles that are absolutely crucial to creating a positive and meaningful dialogue around tuition: compassion, transparency, and partnership.
Compassion — The tuition conversation must always start with genuine empathy. For so many families, tuition represents the biggest financial strain in an already challenging budget. Acknowledging the weight of this burden isn’t just important — it’s essential to creating a productive and empathetic dialogue that paves the way for understanding and collaboration.
Transparency — While schools don’t need to share every detail of their budget, offering clear explanations for rising costs helps parents better understand the need for increased tuition commitments. Transparency fosters trust and makes the financial realities easier to grasp, encouraging parents to go the extra mile in meeting their financial commitments.
Partnership — Quality education is a shared journey, a true partnership between parents and schools with one united goal. When both sides are wholeheartedly committed, it deepens the connection and strengthens our collective mission — to give every child the best possible education. Together, we’re not just supporting a school; we’re shaping the future, driven by a shared passion for every child’s growth and success.
At the schools I represent, we are deeply committed to providing a robust and positive chinuch experience. With small class sizes, capped at 22 students, and dedicated full-time rebbeim, this creates an environment where each child is truly nurtured and given the attention they deserve. We charge the true cost of education — currently $14,450 per child, higher than many other local schools. While this is a stretch for families, the honest, transparent approach fosters mutual respect and commitment. In fact, this year, we saw an 8 percent increase in the overall average tuition contributions, thanks to ongoing dialogue based on these principles.
It’s so important to recognize the incredible sacrifices parents make. Over the years, we’ve made it a priority to reach out to full-tuition-paying families at the start of the year, just to acknowledge their immense effort. These parents often stretch themselves beyond their limits, sacrificing so much in other areas of their lives to ensure their children receive the best chinuch. This level of mesirus nefesh deserves to be acknowledged and appreciated.
Whether it’s the parent who qualifies for a scholarship but still pushes to pay full tuition, or the kollel father who treats tuition as his personal tzedakah, their commitment is deeply moving. These aren’t just financial decisions — they’re acts of dedication that inspire me every single day. It’s their sacrifice that strengthens our cheder and keeps us all striving toward the shared goal of providing the best for our children.
Through a deep commitment to quality education and a true partnership mentality, parents are not only deeply satisfied but also spurred to contribute beyond full tuition, becoming active participants in fundraising efforts to support the costs of providing high-quality education. Many have proudly joined the circle of top-tier annual donors, driven by a passionate belief that investing in chinuch excellence is not just about their own children’s success, but about securing the future of Klal Yisrael.
Executive directors, for their part, are relentless in finding innovative ways to manage their schools efficiently and within a responsible budget. As one of the organizers of EDN (Executive Director Network), I’ve attended all 12 annual conferences and regularly monitor the online forum of 1,200 participants. I have witnessed firsthand how executive directors are constantly refining their skills.
Whether through strategic purchasing, financial efficiencies, creative staffing, or staying informed about government grants, these leaders, who shoulder significant financial responsibility, spare no effort in maintaining their schools’ financial stability. This was especially evident at this past summer’s conference, where multiple finance-focused sessions attracted great interest and provided valuable insights.
The bottom line: We are on the same team! Cutting costs for schools may seem like a solution, but it will inevitably impact the quality of chinuch. The hanhalah work tirelessly to maintain responsible budgets and keep costs down, but the reality is that we all share the burden. What can change, however, is how we approach the tuition conversation. We must all embrace our role as partners, investing in quality chinuch for our children together.

DIFFERING TORAH VIEWPOINTS
›Name Withheld, Lakewood NJ

In your article about tuition, you quote Rabbi Doniel Neustadt that parents have no right to ask the community to pay for their child’s chinuch, since this is their personal obligation, no different than feeding or clothing their child.
You also quote Rabbi Avrohom Gutman, who cites the Shulchan Aruch Harav on the well-known takanah of Rabi Yehoshua ben Gamla that there is a communal obligation to pay the rebbi for poor children whose parents cannot afford it. Rav Gutman says the takanah applied only to Tanach, but not to Mishnayos or Gemara. He therefore says, regarding parents who can’t afford to pay tuition and say the community is responsible, that “their position is indefensible” and “borders on a sense of entitlement.” He also says that buildings, principals, office staff, busing are obviously not included in the takanah as these things did not exist at the time of the takanah 2,000 years ago.
However, see Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Dei’ah 245:6-10), who says clearly that Mishnah and Gemara are definitely part of the takanah.
He also says that those who cannot afford it may send their children to the communal Talmud Torah at no cost to them, while the wealthy must pay a lot to ensure the poor children can attend for free. He says this is how he paskens in his city. He does not make any qualifications regarding any modern-day amenities such as buildings or the like.
This ruling of the Aruch Hashulchan stands in direct contrast to the view presented in your article, and would make those parents’ position in fact defensible and not a form of entitlement.

OPPOSITE APPROACH
›Anonymous

I thought you would be interested in the attached Torah perspective from Rav Shlomo Miller, who is on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudath Israel of America.
In his letter, he takes the approach exactly opposite of much of what you wrote in your article. He feels very strongly that the Torah way is different from what you wrote.

RABBI AVROHOM GUTMAN RESPONDS:

“Name Withheld, Lakewood NJ” correctly points out that although the Shulchan Aruch Harav brings proofs that the takanah of Yehoshua ben Gamla was only on Torah Shebiksav, the Aruch Hashulchan is of a different opinion. He writes that the takanah also included Mishnayos and Gemara. As in all matters of halachah it would be up to the rav of the particular kehillah to be machria how his kehillah should be noheig.
However, “Name Withheld” totally misses the point. I wrote that their position is indefensible, and it remains indefensible. The Aruch Hashulchan (siman 245) clearly writes in seif 8 that the payments for the melamdim come from the kupas hakehal (the communal treasury). And again in seif 9 he writes, “We force the people of the city to create a Talmud Torah to establish melamdim to teach the children of the poor children and the orphans, and we force each individual to donate for this or [pay] from the Communal Treasury.”
As I stated previously, “The parents’ arguments have no merit, because unfortunately in our communities, there is no kehillah per se (with the noted exception, perhaps, of chassidim of any particular rebbe who has an organized kehillah). The members of our communities do not pledge allegiance to any particular kehillah, and, de facto, do not pay dues to any particular community fund. If indeed such a kehillah did exist and the funds were collected, we could then demand from the treasurers of said fund to pay the tuition for the children of poor families. But until such a kehillah and such a fund exist, the fathers have an obligation to teach their sons the entire Torah.”
Yes, it is true that in theory the people of the city could force each other to pay for a melamed. They could also force each other to pay to build a shul, hire a chazzan for the shul, and many other things. But unfortunately, after World War I, the organized kehillos began to disintegrate, and they remain almost nonexistent until this day.
I am unaware of any large Jewish community such as Lakewood that has any organized kehillah that forces people to donate to the communal treasury or to donate to build a shul or the like. And until such a system is in place, the obligation to pay for a child’s Torah education falls squarely on his father. It is certainly not the obligation of the administrators to do the fundraising for your child. If you want to raise the money from donors, I wish you much success.
Parenthetically, “Name Withheld” further makes a statement which borders on the inane. He writes that the Aruch Hashulchan does not make any qualifications regarding any modern amenities such as buildings or transportation. I do not know if he is aware that the Aruch Hashulchan was written in the late 1800s. At that time they did not build $5 million buildings for their Talmud Torah. Typically, the talmidim would learn in the existing shul or in the house of the melamed. They certainly did not provide secular studies, extracurricular activities, or busing. It is no wonder why the Aruch Hashulchan did not make any qualifications regarding these things. They did not exist.
“Anonymous” sent in a letter written by Rav Shlomo Miller of Toronto to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ztz”l. In that letter, Rav Miller brings up many important points, some of which are relevant to our discussion. Someone from Toronto asked Rav Auerbach if it was permissible for a mosad to dismiss a child if the parents were unwilling to pay tuition. Rav Miller particularly took exception to the question being posed to Rav Auerbach when Toronto had competent rabbanim of its own.
Rav Miller then states clearly that it is incumbent on all of the people in a city to pay for the sechar limud of the talmidim. The wealthy people who do not support the mosdos are engaging in k’ein gezeilah (similar to stealing). “And it is clear that if we had the power establish the din on its ‘pinnacle,’ the poor people would bring the wealthy to beis din to force them to pay their share….”
This is exactly my point. We do not have the power to force anyone to pay anything, and consequently, until we have such power, the obligation reverts back to the parents to pay for their children’s Torah education.
Rav Miller further writes that it is the opinion of the rabbanim in Toronto that the administrators may not dismiss the children whose parents cannot afford to pay tuition. At no point was I, or anyone I know, disputing this point. The issue at hand was only whether Takanas Yehoshua ben Gamla serves as a rationale for parents to disavow their obligation when there is no organized kehillah that “taxes” the tzibbur. It would seem that there is no such rationale. If the rabbanim in any particular city (such as Toronto) develop a plan to cover the costs of education in an alternative fashion, that is, of course, their prerogative.
In fact, that is exactly what Rav Miller suggests. In the absence of being able to enforce the takanah of Yehoshua ben Gamla, which puts the burden on all of the inhabitants of a city, instead Rav Miller as mara d’asra of Toronto requires the parents of each school to divide the costs of running the school between themselves, and those individuals whom everyone agree are not in a position to pay any tuition would be exempt. Their share of the cost would be borne by the remainder of the parents. This is a solution devised by Rav Miller for his kehillah, but it is not a sweeping ruling for all communities.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1033)