Presence

who signed the letter? Rabbi Hauer/Rabbi Lefkowitz or Joel Pleeter?

All three signed it along with wheelcatch. I think the letter raises more questions than answers.

My apologies. Yes, the letter was signed by Dr. Joel Pleeter (Chairman), Rabbi Moshe Hauer (Chairman), Chaim Wealcatch (President) and Rabbi Yehudah Lefkovitz (Executive Vice President).

>> the letter is clearly disassociating R. Teichman's possible departure with any change in the school's philosophy

Be careful, here. The letter is only dealing with the "selectiveness" aspect of the schools philosophy -- that they recognize TA's mandate to serve as a community school while also trying to attract high-caliber students. It does not address philosophy in so far as that refers to TA's place on the spectrum of yeshivishness -- requiring black hats, mandatory night seder and in shabbosim, further de-emphasizing secular studies, and so on.

J: Agreed. That's what I was trying to say when I said, "the philosophy outlined is vague and flexible enough to accomdate any number of interpretations, including some incarnations that, although certainly accessible to all students in the community, represent a non-ideal educational environment to many families." but you said it better.

One other point I would like to note is that the letter came from the administration, and not from the board (although the board president signed the letter). This does not necessarily shed any further light on what happened between the board, (or any particular board member) and R'Teichman.

The board is not doing this. Just a few days ago at this blog (http://presence.baltiblogs.com/2006/02/28/turmoil_at_ta.html), someone wrote:
"I know for a fact that the board members at TA were not a factor in the discussion or decision process. I have spoken directly to 3 of them and they know NOTHING."
This remains the case. There have been no board meetings on this topic. One was scheduled but then canceled. It's a safe bet that those who signed the letter are deeply involved. Maybe a few others. It's an interesting question whether this should be considered a rogue operation in that a few individuals are running away with the school or whether they are in fact the leaders and don't need the board's input.

Sorry I have to do this with a phony name.

TA has a constitution. The constitution lays out the procedure for dismissing administrators. Such an action can only be done by the executive board and it involves an appeals process.

Though, I'm not sure of its complete makeup, the executive board essentially has a member from each committee involved in running the school; as well as some others.

In all likelihood those who signed the letter are from the Va'ad Hachinuch and, I would guess that except for Chaim Wealcatch all are on the executive board.

I'm a bit surprised that nobody picked up on the fact that TA is basically saying that their student body is made up of those who are not "the strongest students".

They're saying that there are two types of students which they have to serve:
1. Those not being serviced by other yeshivas (or, not the strongest kids - interpret that how you will. I have my own interpretation...)
2. "The best students"

Since the changes are to get the students identified in #2, what does that say about the current crop of students, and how the administration feels about them?

Also, what does TA consider the "best students"? The guys that will sit and learn all day, and go to night seder, and mishmar, etc? Or, maybe it's the student who with a little direction could get into an ivy league school - that is, if they know it's even an option...

My guess is that it's the learner, where if TA really wanted to differentiate itself, it could put more of an emphasis on the secular studies.

Sorry if this is a bit scattered, but well, I'm tired. :) Perhaps I'll put something together that's a bit more coherent....

From my understanding, currently TA has a two-tier program setup in the high school. There's one class of "stronger" students, and another of "sweathogs." I don't know what the dividing criteria is between the two classes, if it's based on aptitude/interest in learning, or genearl academic capabilities. Anyone have further information?

latest is that R' Teichman is staying

Honestly, I don't know TA's high school is set up. However each middle school grade has 3 classes and they're (mostly) tracked according to the ability of the student.

Rumor had it that Ner Yisrael would only accept boys from the top Middle School Shiur, but based on what I've seen in my son's class Ner will accept boys from the other shiurim too. (Maybe because R' Slanger's Yeshiva's competing for the boys from the top shiur too.)

And yes starting next year it will be mandatory white shirts for high school. But I didn't get the impression that Rabbi Teichman objected to that.

I get the impression that upwards of 80% of this year's 8th grade are staying. But of those leaving they're mostly from the highest shiur.

I'm guessing the focus on dress is based on the feeling that those leaving want to be in a place that looks like a yeshiva and the students look like yeshiva bochurim. I don't think that it really change anyone's mind.

Are you sure they will be requiring white shirts starting next year?
Ner Israel does not even require white shirts, and I find it hard to believe that TA would try to "out do" Ner.

when I was in NIRC, they only took a TA kid if he got into R' Cook's shiur (the highest). This was in response to a Beis Din (I believe TA took NIRC to a beis din) I think once R' Slanger opened up that rule no longer held

Ahhh....right. The whole white shirt thing making you a better jew....

White shirts starting next year though NI doesn't require it. That's correct.
But TA only goes until 8:30.

White shirts ought to snap everyone into shape real fast. I'm not sure what bothers me more, the fact that the deciding factor for someone to send their kid to TA was that the school would require white shirts, or that TA would actual go along with this kind of request to net a "stronger student."

It reminds me of a scene from A Few Good Men:

Col. Jessep: Now are these really the questions I was called here to answer? Phone calls and footlockers? Please tell me you've got something more, Lieutenant. Please tell me there's an ace up your sleeve. These two marines are on trial for their lives. Please tell me their lawyer hasn't pinned their hopes to a phone bill.

Please tell me the future of our educational institutions, and by proxy, the Jewish future, is pinned to more than just a white shirt.

You want answers?

I WANT THE TRUTH!!

You can't handle the truth!

Well done! I was going to post myself, but I thought I'd see if others wanted to play along.

bendo: A more appropriate response would have been, "I think I'm entitled!" but good enough. ;)

My Bar Mitzvah son is very particular about the way he dresses and thinks that it's only proper to dress in a white shirt for learning and davening. My twelve year old does not.

The Bar Mitzvah boy is planning to go to R' Slanger's next year. If, in 2 years, the next doesn't want to have to wear a white shirt he'll have to go to Ner Yisrael.

(to be read in the biggest nerd voice possible)

Technically, Bendo is not wrong because the line goes,

"you want answers?"

"I think I'm entitled"

"You want answers?"

"I want the truth!"

and so on... (and we all know that I can continue the rest of the scene by heart...)

Re. white shirts: Perhaps if they went whole hog and adopted a uniform, then this would be less objectionable. If they made them wear ties and blazers with a patch of the TA emblem, then you could reasonably say that it was about dignity and respect for learning as opposed to just religious one-upsmanship. Kal v'chomer if they made them wear tan khakis. (can a Ben Torah wear those?)