In Search of Excellence:Becoming a School Employer of Choice

By Dr. Harry Bloom, Founder and President, Benchmarking for Good, Inc.

In an era of teacher shortages and rising competition for talent, Jewish day schools face a defining question: what actually makes a school a place where people want to work — and want to tell their friends to work there too?

The intuitive answer — pay them more — turns out to be mostly wrong. Or at least, dramatically incomplete.

Benchmarking for Good’s analysis of staff climate survey data across Jewish day schools reveals a striking pattern: the attributes that most powerfully predict whether a staff member would recommend their school as an employer have almost nothing to do with salary and benefits, and almost everything to do with the daily experience of working there.

What the Data Actually Says

We examined the correlation between 40 school attributes and a single outcome measure: How likely would you be to recommend that a friend or family member work for your school? Using Spearman rank correlation across nearly 1,700 staff respondents, the results were unambiguous.

Every one of the top five — pride, job satisfaction, work environment, open communication, and tools — is an experiential attribute, something a staff member feels in the hallways, the faculty lounge, and the daily rhythm of their work.

Salary competitiveness? It ranked dead last among all satisfaction attributes, with a correlation of just .286. Meaningful, but roughly half the strength of work environment. Benefits competitiveness clustered in the .20–.25 range — statistically significant, but modest in practical terms.

The Stated-vs.-Revealed Preference Gap

Perhaps the most provocative finding involves what staff say matters versus what actually predicts their willingness to recommend.

When asked how important competitive salary is to their choice of employer, staff rated it highly. But the correlation between that stated importance and their actual likelihood to recommend? Essentially zero (ρ = .010, p = .668). The same is true for benefits package importance (ρ = .018, p = .457). Neither relationship reaches statistical significance.

In other words, everyone agrees that salary matters in theory. But in practice, it is not what separates the schools that inspire advocacy from those that don’t.

This isn’t an argument against fair compensation. Staff who feel their salary is uncompetitive are certainly less likely to recommend. But raising pay without addressing the work experience is unlikely to transform a school into an employer of choice. It is necessary but far from sufficient.

What Separates Top-Recommending Schools from the Rest

To move from correlation to practical impact, we divided the 27 schools with relevant data into terciles based on their mean employer recommendation score. The bottom third averaged 3.91 on the 5-point recommend scale; the top third averaged 4.56. What does the staff experience look like in each tier?

Table: % Reporting Highest Satisfaction by Recommendation Tier

% “Very Satisfied” / “Very Proud” · 27 schools

The gaps are consistent and substantial. Across every one of the five attributes, top-tier schools outperform bottom-tier schools by meaningful margins. The widest gap appears in tools for work: 50.0% of staff at top-recommending schools report the highest satisfaction with their tools, compared to just 27.4% at bottom-tier schools — a 23 percentage-point chasm. Pride shows a similar spread at over 21 points.

These aren’t marginal differences. A school where barely a third of staff report the highest satisfaction with their work environment occupies a fundamentally different reality than one where nearly half do. And the stair-step pattern — bottom, middle, top — suggests these relationships are genuinely linear, not threshold effects.

The Architecture of an Employer of Choice

The data points toward a clear hierarchy of what schools should invest in:

First, get the relational foundation right.

The quality of interactions — between staff and students, staff and parents, and among colleagues — forms the bedrock. Staff-parent interaction quality (ρ = .412), staff-student interaction (ρ = .411), and positive culture (ρ = .395) all rank among the strongest drivers. Schools where relationships feel strained or adversarial face an uphill battle no compensation package can solve.

Second, invest in supervisory quality.

Feedback that promotes professional growth (ρ = .396), supervisor support when facing negative feedback from parents (ρ = .396), supervisor appreciation (ρ = .363), and realistic workload expectations (ρ = .352) form a tight cluster of moderate-to-strong predictors. The supervisor relationship is, for many staff, the lens through which they experience the institution. A school can have a beautiful mission statement and a generous benefits package, but if a teacher’s direct supervisor is unsupportive or unrealistic in their expectations, none of that will matter much.

Third, create conditions for professional voice and growth.

Open communication (ρ = .445) and career growth opportunities (ρ = .407) both rank in the top tier. Staff who feel heard — who believe their ideas, concerns, and suggestions are genuinely welcomed — are dramatically more likely to become advocates for the school. This isn’t about suggestion boxes. It’s about a culture where professional voice is structurally embedded, where feedback flows in all directions, and where growth trajectories are visible and supported.

Fourth, provide the tools.

Satisfaction with workplace tools (ρ = .421) ranks surprisingly high — ahead of many relational and supervisory attributes. When teachers lack the curriculum materials, technology, classroom space, or resources they need, it sends an unmistakable signal about how the institution values their work. Conversely, investing in tools is one of the most concrete, actionable steps a school can take, and the data suggests the return on that investment is substantial.

A Note on Pride

The single most powerful satisfaction predictor in our analysis is pride — the extent to which a staff member feels proud to be part of their school. This finding deserves careful attention because pride is not an attribute a school can engineer directly. It is an emergent property. Pride arises when the mission feels real, when the work environment feels supportive, when relationships feel healthy, when growth feels possible.

Schools that chase pride as a branding exercise will miss the point. Schools that build the conditions from which pride naturally emerges will find that advocacy follows.

Implications for School Leadership

For heads of school, board members, and administrative teams, the data suggests a reorientation of effort and attention:

Audit the experience, not just the spreadsheet. Most schools can recite their salary scales and benefits packages. Fewer can articulate, with evidence, how their staff experience communication, supervision, and professional growth on a daily basis. Climate survey data provides that evidence.

Prioritize supervisory development. Given the cluster of supervisor-related attributes in the moderate-to-strong correlation range, investing in the leadership capacity of division heads, department chairs, and direct supervisors may be among the highest-leverage interventions available.

Take open communication seriously. The correlation between communication satisfaction and employer recommendation (ρ = .445) is strong enough to warrant institutional reflection. Are there real channels for upward feedback? Do staff feel safe raising concerns? Is dissent treated as disloyalty or as a resource?

Don’t neglect the basics. Tools, resources, and workspace aren’t glamorous, but they are powerful signals. Every broken copier, outdated textbook, and cramped classroom erodes the sense that the institution takes its staff’s work seriously.

Contextualize compensation. Fair pay matters. Competitive benefits matter. But they are table stakes, not differentiators. The schools that win the talent competition will be the ones that combine reasonable compensation with an extraordinary work experience.

The Bottom Line

Becoming an employer of choice is not primarily a budgetary challenge. It is a cultural one. The schools that staff recommend most enthusiastically are not necessarily the ones that pay the most — they are the ones where people feel proud, supported, heard, and equipped to do meaningful work.

In the current landscape, where every Jewish day school is competing for a limited pool of talented educators, that distinction is not academic. It is existential.

This analysis is based on Benchmarking for Good’s staff climate survey data encompassing nearly 1,700 respondents across 27 Jewish day schools. Statistical relationships reported as Spearman rank correlations; all top-tier findings significant at p < .001. Schools grouped into terciles by mean employer recommendation score

Benchmarking for Good Can Help

Benchmarking for Good research services can help your school gain an understanding of staff priorities and satisfaction and utilize advanced statistical analysis to identify a disciplined pathway to improvement. Contact harrybloom@benchmarkingforgood.org to discuss a tailored solution for your school.

The School Enjoyment Factor

How Perceived Student Enjoyment Drives Parent Advocacy in Jewish Day Schools

By Dr. Harry Bloom, Founder and President, Benchmarking for Good, Inc.

At Benchmarking for Good, we spend a lot of time studying what drives parents to become advocates for their child’s school. Schools invest heavily in academic programs, facilities, and marketing — but our latest parent survey data points to something far more elemental: whether parents believe their child actually enjoys going to school.

The finding isn’t just directionally interesting. It’s statistically overwhelming, and it carries practical implications that school leaders should take seriously.

The Core Finding: A 132-Point Net Promoter Score Swing

We asked parents two simple questions: “To what extent do you think that your child enjoys going to our school?” and “How likely are you to recommend our school to other Jewish families you know?” The relationship between those two answers, across 1,558 valid responses, is striking.

1. Parents who perceive their child enjoying school “a tremendous amount” produce a Net Promoter Score of +84.5 — a score most organizations would envy. Nearly nine out of ten of these parents (87.5%) are promoters who would actively recommend the school.

2. At the other end, parents who believe their child does not enjoy school at all yield an NPS of −47.6. Fewer than one in ten (9.5%) would recommend the school, while more than half (57.1%) are detractors.

That’s a swing of 132 NPS points from one end of the enjoyment spectrum to the other.

The statistical backbone is solid. The Spearman rank correlation between the two measures is ρ = 0.460 (p < 0.001), and a chi-square test of independence confirms the association is highly significant (χ² = 472.5, df = 16, p < 0.001).

Table 1: NPS by Perceived Child Enjoyment Level

Enjoyment Level	NPS	Promoters	Passives	Detractors
A tremendous amount	+84.5	87.5%	9.5%	3.0%
Quite a bit	+54.8	63.3%	28.1%	8.6%
Somewhat	+9.8	36.5%	36.9%	26.6%
Unsure	+7.0	39.5%	27.9%	32.6%
Not at all	−47.6	9.5%	33.3%	57.1%

n = 1,558 valid paired responses. Promoters = “Very Likely.” Detractors = “Very Unlikely” + “Somewhat Unlikely” + “Neither.”

The Inflection Point: “Quite a Bit” Is the Threshold That Matters

Not all steps on the enjoyment ladder are equal. The data reveals a clear inflection point between “Somewhat” and “Quite a bit” — and it’s where schools should focus their attention.

Parents who rate their child’s enjoyment as “Somewhat” produce an NPS of just +9.8. Only 36.5% are promoters. Move one notch up to “Quite a bit,” and NPS more than quintuples to +54.8, with 63.3% becoming promoters. That single step — from lukewarm enjoyment to genuine engagement — is where the economics of parent advocacy shift dramatically.

Below the threshold, the picture is bleak. “Unsure” parents yield an NPS of +7.0, and “Not at all” parents sink to −47.6. Above it, the gains continue — “tremendous” enjoyment pushes NPS to +84.5 — but the largest marginal return comes from crossing that “Somewhat” to “Quite a bit” divide.

The implication for school leaders is clear: moving families out of the “Somewhat” bucket should be a strategic priority. These aren’t disengaged families — they haven’t left, and they haven’t checked out. They’re sitting on the fence, and the data says a relatively modest improvement in perceived enjoyment could convert them from passive observers into active promoters.

It’s Not the Same Across Divisions

When we segment the data by school division, the overall pattern holds everywhere — but the strength of the relationship, and the size of the opportunity, differ meaningfully.

Table 2: Division Comparison Summary

Division	Overall NPS	Mean Enjoyment	% Tremendously	% ≤ Somewhat
Early Childhood	+67.0	4.44	58.1%	10.6%
Elementary / Lower	+61.6	4.30	51.0%	16.2%
Middle School	+62.5	4.19	44.1%	19.4%
High / Upper School	+57.8	4.08	43.8%	25.5%

*** p < 0.001. Parents responding for children in multiple divisions may appear in more than one segment. Fisher z-test: HS vs MS ρ difference is significant (p = 0.029).

High School: The Highest-Leverage Division

High School parents exhibit the strongest correlation between perceived enjoyment and recommendation propensity (ρ = 0.509, p < 0.001). They also report the lowest average enjoyment of any division (mean of 4.08 on a 5-point scale), and fully 25.5% rate their child’s enjoyment at “Somewhat” or below.

This combination — strongest link, lowest baseline — makes High School the division where enjoyment-focused interventions would yield the greatest return in parent advocacy. At the “Somewhat” level, HS parents produce an NPS of just +5.3. Push them to “Quite a bit,” and NPS surges to +66.4. That 61-point jump represents a massive untapped opportunity.

There’s an intuitive logic here. High school students are more articulate about their experience, more likely to share frustrations at the dinner table, and their parents are making consequential decisions about whether to stay, whether to recommend, and whether to invest in the next phase of education. When a high schooler visibly enjoys school, parents notice — and they talk about it.

Middle School: A Different Dynamic

Middle School shows the weakest enjoyment-recommendation correlation of any division (ρ = 0.392, p < 0.001). The relationship is still highly significant, but noticeably attenuated compared to the others.

This suggests that for Middle School parents, factors beyond enjoyment play a larger role in their recommendation calculus. Academic preparation for high school, social dynamics during a developmentally turbulent period, and the quality of guidance programming may matter more in this division than in others. Interestingly, Middle School parents who rate enjoyment as “Somewhat” still produce an NPS of +31.4 — far higher than the +5.3 seen at the same enjoyment level in High School. MS parents seem to give the school more credit even when enjoyment is moderate, perhaps because they understand that the middle school years are inherently more challenging.

The difference in correlation strength between High School and Middle School is statistically significant (Fisher z-test, p = 0.029), confirming this isn’t just noise.

Elementary School: The Pattern in Full

Elementary parents track the overall dataset closely, with the sharpest promoter cliff of any division. Among parents who rate enjoyment as “tremendous,” 90.9% are promoters. At “Somewhat,” that drops to 37.3%. Elementary is where the enjoyment-to-advocacy pipeline operates most cleanly — parents see a happy child, and they recommend the school. The mechanism is direct and powerful.

Early Childhood: Already Optimized

Early Childhood stands out for having the highest baseline enjoyment (mean 4.44, with 58.1% at “tremendous”) and the strongest overall NPS (+67.0). The correlation remains robust (ρ = 0.448, p < 0.001), but EC is essentially operating at the top of the curve. The strategic priority here is maintenance — ensuring that the high enjoyment levels EC parents report don’t erode as children age into older divisions.

The Age Gradient: Enjoyment Erodes Upward

One of the more sobering patterns in the data is the steady decline in perceived enjoyment as children move through the divisions. The share of parents reporting “tremendous” enjoyment drops from 58.1% in Early Childhood to 51.0% in Elementary, 44.1% in Middle School, and 43.8% in High School. Meanwhile, the share of parents rating enjoyment at “Somewhat” or below rises from 10.6% in EC to 25.5% in HS.

This isn’t necessarily a failure — older students face harder material, more complex social dynamics, and greater academic pressure. Some decline may be natural. But when combined with the finding that the enjoyment-recommendation link is strongest at the high school level, the erosion creates a compounding problem: enjoyment drops precisely where it matters most.

What This Means for School Leaders

These findings don’t suggest that schools should become amusement parks. Enjoyment, as perceived by parents, is likely a proxy for a constellation of experiences — a child who feels socially connected, intellectually stimulated, emotionally supported, and genuinely known by their teachers. The survey measures perceived enjoyment, not entertainment.

With that framing, several strategic implications emerge:

•       Track enjoyment as a leading indicator. Most schools track NPS or overall satisfaction. The data suggests that perceived child enjoyment is an upstream driver of both — a leading indicator that changes before recommendation propensity does. Monitoring enjoyment levels by division, and flagging shifts early, gives leadership a proactive tool rather than a reactive one.

•       Prioritize the “Somewhat” cohort. These families are at a tipping point. They haven’t left, and their children don’t hate school — but they’re not energized, either. Targeted outreach, check-ins, or adjustments to the student experience could move them into the “Quite a bit” category, where NPS more than quintuples.

•       K-12 schools should focus disproportionately on High School. The data is unambiguous: HS is where the enjoyment-recommendation link is strongest, where baseline enjoyment is lowest, and where the marginal return on improvement is greatest. Every dollar or hour invested in HS student experience has a higher expected return in parent advocacy than the same investment in other divisions.

•       Investigate the Middle School disconnect. If enjoyment is a weaker predictor of recommendation in MS, what’s filling the gap? Is it academic outcomes? Social belonging? The quality of guidance programming? Understanding what drives MS parent advocacy differently could unlock division-specific strategies.

•       Protect EC and Elementary baselines. These divisions are performing well, and the temptation might be to redirect attention to the divisions that need it most. But the age-related enjoyment erosion suggests that today’s happy early childhood families are tomorrow’s at-risk high school families. Ensuring continuity of the student experience across transitions is essential.

A Final Note on Correlation versus Causation

We should be honest about what this analysis can and cannot show. The correlation between perceived enjoyment and recommendation propensity is strong, consistent, and statistically robust — but it is correlational. We cannot prove that increasing enjoyment causes parents to recommend at higher rates. It’s possible, for example, that parents who are already inclined to recommend the school perceive their child’s enjoyment more generously, or that a third factor (like overall school quality) drives both.

That said, the strength of the relationship (ρ ≈ 0.46–0.51 across most divisions), its consistency across school levels, and the clear dose-response pattern (each step up in enjoyment maps to a meaningful NPS gain) all suggest that the causal arrow runs at least partly in the expected direction. And from a practical standpoint, whether enjoyment drives recommendation or both are reflections of the same underlying experience, investing in student enjoyment is unlikely to be wasted effort.

Benchmarking for Good Can Help Your School Gauge Student Happiness and Parent Perceptions Thereof

We offer proven student and parent surveys, peer school analysis and a willingness and ability to create tailored instruments to meet every school’s needs. Our survey analysis enables us to work with your school to craft a tailored improvement plan where needed. Contact harrybloom@benchmarkingforgood.org to discuss a collaboration.  

What Actually Predicts Faculty Salaries at Jewish Day Schools — And What Doesn’t

By Dr. Harry Bloom, Founder and President, Benchmarking for Good, Inc.

In our benchmarking analysis of 20 schools located in 14 communities, only four reported using a formal scale that pays teachers uniformly based on experience and credentials. The dominant approach — used exclusively or partially by 16 of the 20 — is individualized negotiation, where compensation is set teacher by teacher by the head of school or principal.

When asked what factors matter most in setting salaries, the schools are nearly unanimous on one thing: 95% rank retaining top performers as their most important priority. After that,

the picture fractures.

• Sticking to the budget is “most important” for 37% and “moderately important” for another 58% — reflecting the perpetual tension between compensation ambition and fiscal reality.

• Being competitive in the local labor market registers as “most important” for 37% and “moderate” for the rest, while being competitive nationally against other day schools is a non-factor — 53% call it “of little importance” and 37% say it matters not at all.

• Ensuring faculty feel fairly compensated, perhaps surprisingly, ranks as only “moderately important” for the majority (58%), with just 21% calling it most important.

• Several schools volunteered that intangible factors — teaching satisfaction, warmth, and family feeling — also guide their approach.

   

What Actually Drives Salary Levels Based on Statistical Analysis?

So what actually drives the salaries that emerge from this largely ad hoc, school-by-school process? We tested a range of institutional characteristics against the compensation data, and found that factors people might assume matter most often don’t — while a couple of structural variables dominate.

The Dataset

Our analysis draws on survey responses from 20 Jewish day schools spanning 14 states, collected between February and November 2024. These schools range from small single-division academies with under 200 students to large K-12 institutions enrolling nearly 1,000. We examined reported General Studies median salaries across divisions, experience levels, and degree types, then tested their relationship to a range of school-level characteristics: enrollment size, total budget, per-student spending, staffing levels, faculty attrition, and local cost of living.

The goal was simple: among the factors that school leaders typically cite when discussing compensation, which ones actually correlate with what teachers earn?

The Two Factors That Truly Matter

Cost of Living is the strongest single predictor of faculty salary (r = 0.64, p = 0.01). Schools in expensive metros — the Five Towns on Long Island, the Boston suburbs, the San Francisco Bay Area — do pay more in raw dollars. For every one-point increase in a metro area’s cost-of-living index, faculty salaries rise roughly $284 on average. This isn’t surprising. What is surprising is the magnitude of the gap between what COL demands and what schools actually deliver: a 10% higher cost of living is associated with only a 5.2% increase in salary. Faculty in high-cost markets are systematically losing purchasing power compared to their peers in more affordable cities.

Surprisingly, student-to-teacher ratio is the second key predictor, and arguably the more actionable one. Once you strip out the effect of geography, staffing intensity becomes the strongest remaining driver of individual salary levels (partial r = -0.59, p = 0.03). Schools that maintain lower ratios — meaning more teachers relative to students — tend to pay those teachers more. This likely reflects an institutional philosophy: schools that invest in small classes are making a deliberate quality play, and competitive compensation is part of that investment. It’s not that small classes cause higher salaries; it’s that both emerge from the same strategic commitment.

When you combine these two variables in a single model, they explain 58% of the variance in faculty salaries across schools (p = 0.008). For a relatively small sample of schools, that’s a remarkably strong result.

What Doesn’t Predict Salaries

Here’s where conventional wisdom breaks down.

Total school budget: essentially zero correlation (r = -0.06). A school with a $20 million budget is no more likely to pay its teachers well than a school running on $4 million. Bigger budgets typically mean bigger schools, which means more mouths to feed — the money gets spread across headcount rather than concentrated in individual paychecks.

Total enrollment: also near zero (r = -0.12). Larger schools don’t pay more. If anything, the slight negative trend suggests that scale doesn’t translate into compensation advantages for faculty. This challenges the assumption that enrollment growth will eventually “fund” better salaries.

Per-student spending: negligible (r = 0.14, not significant). Some of the schools with the highest per-student budgets in our dataset are not the ones paying their teachers the most. Per-student spending captures many things beyond faculty compensation — facilities, programming, financial aid, administration — and its connection to what an individual teacher takes home is weak at best.

Total faculty FTEs: no relationship (r = -0.13). Having more staff doesn’t mean paying them better. In fact, the partial correlation analysis suggests that once you account for COL, schools that manage their headcount more efficiently may actually achieve more competitive individual salaries.

Professional development spending: weakly negative (r = -0.28, not significant). This one stings a little. Schools that invest more in PD per faculty member are not the ones paying higher base salaries. This doesn’t mean PD is wasteful — it may reflect a substitution effect where some schools lean on professional growth opportunities as a partial offset for lower pay, or it may simply be noise in a small sample.

The Attrition Puzzle

Faculty retention is often framed as a compensation issue: pay people well and they’ll stay. Our data complicates this narrative. The raw correlation between attrition rate and salary is actually positive (r = +0.30) — schools with higher turnover report higher salaries. Before that triggers any alarm bells, the explanation is straightforward: high-COL markets create pressure on both fronts. Schools in expensive areas pay more in nominal terms but still can’t fully match the local cost of living, so faculty leave anyway. Once you control for COL, the attrition-salary relationship effectively disappears (partial r = +0.13, not significant).

This finding has important implications for retention strategy. If your school is in a high-cost market and experiencing turnover, raising salaries alone may not solve the problem — because you’re competing not just with other schools but with the entire local labor market and housing costs. Schools in these markets may need to think creatively about non-salary compensation: housing assistance, loan repayment programs, or COL stipends that acknowledge the real economic pressure faculty face.

The Purchasing Power Gap

Perhaps the most striking finding in our analysis is what happens when you adjust salaries for local cost of living. The rankings scramble dramatically. A school paying $57,000 in the Cleveland suburbs delivers more purchasing power ($63,000 adjusted) than a school paying $84,000 in the Five Towns ($53,000 adjusted). A teacher earning $67,000 in Skokie, Illinois takes home more real value than one earning $82,000 on Long Island.

This has direct implications for recruitment. Schools in moderate-cost markets have a compelling pitch if they frame it correctly: Your paycheck may look smaller, but your life will be bigger. Meanwhile, schools in high-cost areas need to confront an uncomfortable reality — their nominal salaries, while higher in absolute terms, may represent some of the lowest real compensation in the Jewish day school ecosystem.

What This Means for School Leaders

Three practical takeaways emerge from this analysis.

First, benchmark on purchasing power, not nominal salary. When your board compares compensation to peer schools, insist on COL-adjusted figures. A $55,000 salary in Beachwood, Ohio treats faculty better than a $65,000 salary in Watertown, Massachusetts. Without this adjustment, schools in affordable markets undervalue their competitive position, and schools in expensive markets overestimate theirs.

Second, recognize that staffing philosophy and compensation philosophy are inseparable. You cannot pursue small class sizes while paying below market. The schools in our dataset that achieve both low student-teacher ratios and competitive salaries are making an integrated strategic bet on quality— and the data suggests it’s a bet worth making.

Third, stop assuming that budget size or enrollment growth will solve compensation challenges. The factors that actually predict salary — geography and staffing intensity — are structural. They require deliberate strategic choices, not simply more revenue. A school that grows enrollment without a clear compensation philosophy will likely end up with more staff earning the same modest salaries, not fewer staff earning competitive ones.

Limitations of this Analysis

This analysis covers 20 schools depending on data availability for each variable — a meaningful sample for the Jewish day school world, but small in absolute statistical terms. More schools will be added in the coming months. Because of this small sample, several correlations that appear substantive in magnitude don’t reach conventional significance thresholds, and we should be cautious about over-interpreting any single finding. The salary data reflects reported medians across experience and degree levels, which may not capture the full distribution at each school. And cost-of-living indices, while the best available proxy for local economic conditions, don’t perfectly reflect the specific financial realities of Jewish communities in each metro area.

What the data does provide is a corrective to some persistent assumptions — and a starting point for more rigorous, evidence-based conversations about faculty compensation in Jewish day schools.

How Benchmarking for Good Can Help Your School

Benchmarking for Good's research grants and customized research can help your school understand your staff's perceptions about your compensation system and build a system that is financially sustainable and attractive to faculty members. Contact Dr. Harry Bloom at harrybloom@benchmarkingforgood.org to discuss your school's needs and our soluitions.