By the Grace of G‑d
11th of Iyar, 5725 [May 13, 1965]
Brooklyn, N.Y.

Greeting and Blessing:

..This is in reply to your inquiry, in connection with the recently enacted Federal Aid to Education Act, as to what should be the Jewish attitude towards the so-called "Shared Time" plan, in the light of the fact that the said Act has been generally received with considerable satisfaction by all those who are deeply concerned about the educational standards of American youth, and desire to see these standards improved in every possible way, without distinction between one child and another.

The provision of the Federal Aid Act is envisaged to take various forms of aid, such as the provision of textbooks, improvement of library facilities, special educational programs, supplementary classes, additional instruction personnel, and so forth. These benefits are to be offered independently of one another, and the recipients may voluntarily avail themselves of one or another form of aid, which would be most advantageous and suitable to the character and background of the students of the particular school. In view of the above, the so-called Shared Services may take two general forms, or plans:

Plan A, under which children of Jewish Parochial schools would attend public school classes for the study of certain secular subjects; and

Plan B, under which teaching personnel of the public schools would come to the parochial school to instruct the students on the premises of their own parochial school.

It is my considered opinion that Plan A is totally unacceptable for Jewish Parochial schools, and it must be categorically rejected.

The reasons for this stand may be briefly summarized as follows:

(l) The purpose of the Jewish Parochial school is not merely to provide a coordinated program of Jewish and secular studies, but also what is even more important, namely, to provide the proper religious atmosphere and environment for the students throughout all their sessions under this integrated program. This is why it is essential to the basic idea of the Jewish Parochial school system that the secular subjects, too, should be taught in the same classroom, or at any rate, in the same building of the Yeshiva Day School.

Thus, if the children were to be taken out of the Yeshiva, Day School, or other Parochial school, in order to attend secular classes in a public school, the arrangement would run counter to the most basic principle of the Jewish Parochial school system.

(2) Many Jewish Parochial schools insistently, and as a matter of principle, conduct their programs on a non-coed basis. Other Parochial schools use the non-coed system in their higher grades, at any rate. Most others, as far as I know, would like to institute this system as soon as their financial situation will permit them so to do. It is clear, therefore, that the Shared Time program under Plan A above would make it impossible, or at least very difficult, to implement this basic principle, under the present conditions of the public school system.

(3) Parents are generally not in favor of having their children attend two separate schools, involving transportation, loss of time, and other disruptions. This, in fact, is one of the reasons for the raison d'être of the Hebrew Day School. If Shared Time is introduced, with the approval of the Jewish religious authorities, many parents might be inclined to withdraw their children from the Parochial schools altogether. They might well reason that since the children are in any case attending two different educational institutions, they might as well attend the public school, and obtain their Jewish education in an afternoon Talmud Torah, or Sunday school. Thus the whole Jewish Day School movement, and the Yeshiva system, which have been built up with so much effort, would be in serious jeopardy.

(4) Moreover, it would be even more difficult to retain the student in the Parochial school in view of his legitimate reasoning: Inasmuch as the administration itself of his own Parochial school sends him to the public school to receive there instruction in some secular subjects, why should he not receive there all his secular education (especially, since the public school is generally better equipped with laboratories and other technical aids, and all facilities are free, etc. ).

(5) It is to be expected that by the same reasoning some of the financial supporters and benefactors of the Parochial schools will claim that it would be a waste of money to maintain a secular department in the Parochial school, since it is possible to have the children receive their instruction in secular subjects in the public schools, and without cost. In other words, this would completely undermine the Parochial school system.

(6) The extraordinary practical problems involved in the transportation of entire school populations from the Parochial school to the public school and back, their supervision throughout this time, and many other difficulties, are self-evident to any teacher and educator. It is very doubtful if this plan could survive very long, even if expense and energy were of no consideration.

(7) Even if every effort would be made to provide all safeguards in order to remove all possible objections, and to create the best initial conditions for a Shared Time program, under the said Plan A, on behalf of Yeshiva students (although I cannot see this as a practical possibility, in the light of all that has been mentioned above), there would be no guarantee against a possible breakdown of the initial conditions. If this should happen it would be very difficult to correct the situation, especially in the middle of the school year, and a great deal of harm done could not be undone.

(8) The institution of Plan A in New York City would create a precedent for Jewish Parochial schools in other cities. And if all the apprehensions expressed above are valid in New York City, despite its considerable number of Jewish students, the problem in other cities would obviously be more compounded because, on the one hand, the apprehensions would be more serious and more numerous, and, on the other hand, many of the safeguards which could be incorporated in New York City (the efficacy of which is in any case very doubtful) could not be incorporated there.

(9) Such weighty apprehensions as indicated above, make Shared Time services under Plan A unacceptable for Jewish Parochial schools, not only from the rational and practical viewpoint, but also from the viewpoint of the Shulchan Aruch, which must be our ultimate guide. There can be no doubt that Plan A would involve various violations of many basic tenets, and it must therefore be rejected absolutely.

Now, insofar as Plan B is concerned, the situation is different. Under this plan qualified teachers in the public school system would be made available on loan for teaching in the secular department of the Yeshivoth and Day Schools, at the request of any of these Parochial schools. I understand that this can be arranged in such a way that it would not violate the principle of separation of state and church, viz. by a symbolic and temporary takeover of the secular department of the Parochial school, as for example, if the School Board (or Federal or State agency operating the school-aid program) would "rent" the premises of the Parochial school for $l. 00 a year. In this way the School Board (or Federal or State agency) would be operating the Shared Time service on their own grounds.

I am certain that experts on constitutional law could determine in what way the said plan could be made operative, either by means of the suggested technical takeover, or by any other means. Certain it is, however, that inasmuch as both Houses of the U. S. Congress have made their position clear, as also their resolve to extend the anti-poverty program to all who are in need of it, without discrimination, and to raise the standards of education on the broadest possible national level, the above alternative plan of "Shared Time in Reverse" can be made operative in a way that would be generally acceptable.

With blessing,