schmoozED

In three provocative op-ed pieces that have appeared in the Wall Street Journal this week, Charles Murray, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, argues that -

1. we should recognize - and accept - that about half of the students in our schools are of below average intelligence whose potential for academic success is limited
(see http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009531 )
2. too many students are being encouraged to continue their formal education in four-year colleges, when other professional tracks might be better for them
(see http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009535 )
3. gifted students deserve special attention in the course of their education, since their talents require them to shoulder greater responsibilities to the community at large
(see http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009541 )

Although his arguments with regard to general education deserve a serious response (and I encourage such discussions here or on Lookjed), I will limit my comments to their logical implication were we to apply them to day school students and Torah study. According to Murray's arguments, it would make sense for Jewish schools to recognize the limitations of a large proportion of its students and direct them away from serious academic settings, focusing resources instead on those gifted students who have the potential to contribute the most to the Jewish community.

Such a suggestion would hardly be a new idea. From what I can tell, it was a system that was commonplace throughout Jewish history, up until pre-war Europe. Students with unique potential (or from families of significant wealth) would be encouraged and supported as they continued their Torah study. The expectation was that when these young men (and they were, invariably, men) were of appropriate age and maturity, they would take on leadership roles in the community. The movement of universal Torah study in the Orthodox world beyond elementary school – for the commandment of Torah study ensured that virtually all Jews were literate and knowledgeable on some level – is relatively new, probably the outgrowth of our living in one of the most prosperous ages in world history.

While many argue that the movement today in certain circles towards universal Torah study into adulthood carries with it many dangers, I am not interested in discussing the Kollel phenomena. My question is whether all of our students should be encouraged to continue learning in formal settings post-high school, or if such study should be viewed as the domain of an elite few.

Let us recognize that Torah study is not first-and-foremost about Torah knowledge. It is about the experience of learning; the attempt to be part of a conversation that spans generations from the time of Moses (and before) until today. It is the effort to understand God and His will. Every Jewish student (and every Jewish person – child and adult – should aspire to remain a student) should aim to reach his or her highest level of this experience and understanding, but there is no objective achievement that should be the goal for all students.

Recently programs have been opened in two prestigious Israeli institutions that have programs that cater to American high school graduates, whose purpose is to allow special-needs students to participate – on their own levels – in the post-high school Israel experience. These types of programs should be a model for all students, recognizing that what is important in Yeshiva is not only the amount of Torah memorized or analyzed, but the experience of being involved in Jewish life to one's own, personal, utmost.

Aside from this issue, we should recognize what Howard Gardner taught the world of education some years back. There are multiple intelligences out there. The academic scholar may very well not make the best community leader. With the dearth of leadership in Jewish education – and in the Jewish community in general – it makes a lot of sense to recognize the different strengths and intelligences of all of our students, recognizing that it is not only the intellectual elite that will be driving the future of the Jewish people. We need to educate and encourage every Jewish child to aspire to make a difference in the future of the Jewish community.

Labels: day schools, universal Torah study

I’ve been living in the States—a temporary abode for studies—for about a year now, and I still haven’t gotten used to the reaction of other members of the tribe when I tell them I’m from Jerusalem. The response is often a momentary look of utter confusion that reads “What? Why?” which is quickly replaced by a smile and a “How nice.” This has happened too many times for me to write it off as a rarity.

Last year, when Ariel Sharon fell ill, I was glued to the Internet, watching Channel One news. I could talk about nothing else. And my American Jewish friends, well, they shrugged. It didn’t really touch them. When I returned from my three-month stay in Israel over the summer, I was asked about the war, but the conversations died quickly—either they could not find anything meaningful to say or just did not find the topic of serious interest. While the people I am referring to donate hard-earned money to Israeli causes, participate in Yom Ha’atzmaut festivities, and visit when they can, they are unable or unwilling to engage in higher-level conversations about Israel—the good, the bad, and the ugly. Sadly, it seems to me that for them Israel is almost a fictitious Never-Neverland—whether a spiritual utopia, a punching bag, a sunny holiday destination, or a war-ravaged country that they can do without.

Israel was a serious priority in my high school. For instance, instead of offering standard Hebrew language classes that focused on grammar, they had two options: Sifrut and Itonut—that is, classes where students studied classic and modern Israeli literature or analyzed modern Israeli newspaper articles, so that we were introduced to the challenges Israeli society faces. A subtle message that we were somehow connected to Israel and Israelis was channeled through school programming—hearing Hativka on the PA system in the mornings, discussing various Israeli inventions in Science classes, staging a mock debate of the first Zionist convention, etc. I’m not on the Jewish Agency payroll here, but shouldn’t basic knowledge of Israel be part of Jewish literacy taught in our schools/camps? Shouldn’t our students be able to answer elementary questions about Israeli history and modern politics? Don’t we want Jewish citizens who can transcend the role of tourists?

Labels: day schools, Israel

Some twenty years ago, while running an educational seminar, the question came up regarding a recreational activity for the staff. It turned out that one or two of the team was religiously uncomfortable with the choice of the activity, and a discussion ensued as to whether we should show respect for the strictures of that team member or whether that team member would have to bear with the desires of the rest of the group.

I am reminded of that scene often as I visit day schools. Certainly in Orthodox schools, but also in many schools (both day and congregational) affiliated with the Conservative and Reform movements, it is easy to find teachers whose religious convictions are stronger than those of the parent body (and, hence, the student body). It is rare to find Jewish studies teachers whose commitments and convictions are less than those of the parent body.

That seems perfectly reasonable, as parents send their children to day schools to strengthen their Jewish commitments, not weaken them. One outcome of this is that schools tend to lean to the right, sometimes to the delight and other times to the chagrin of the parents and the community.

Is this inevitable? Can schools be confident enough in the commitments they seek to inspire to expose students to role models who are more open (not less religiously committed)? Is it possible to have schools which acurately reflect the spectrum of the parent body? I know that this is the theory of the cross/trans-denominational community schools. Can it hold true in denominational schools as well?

Labels: community, day schools, religious convictions, supplementary schools

Here’s another take on the tuition crunch: Last week, the Jewish Advocate reported that putting one child through day school from K-12 costs $180,000 for the family, at least in the Boston area. That astronomical number gives grounds for posts like these.

It also brought to mind an article I read a few years back about a new form of “birth control” used in Jewish circles. It seems that some young families, troubled by the high cost of day schools coupled with their concern that their children stay within the framework of formal Jewish education, are opting to have fewer children than they’d like. The argument, in short, goes like this: “We can’t compromise on Jewish education for our children. At the same time, we make enough money to be charged full tuition, but if we pay full tuition for four children, we’d have to live on an extremely tight budget. So we’ll have two. Three, tops.”

That in mind, I conducted an informal and admittedly, not very scientific, survey of some young families I know on the East Coast. They are all middle class professionals – lawyers, doctors, software designers, etc. The results weren’t too encouraging—almost everyone mentioned it as a concern, and more than half said it was a significant factor in their family planning and that they weren’t going to have more than three children as a result and even that was a stretch.

Let’s not get into a discussion about the values involved in decisions like these, or the various options available to help finance your kids through schools (even if there are enough tuition breaks out there, perception is sometimes more important than reality). What’s clear is that this is actually happening, possibly in your neighborhood. So what is this going to do to American Jewish demography? Yes, there will be Orthodox families who aren’t going to let tuition influence family planning (some of those families will eventually make aliyah, in part to eliminate the need to pay day school tuition). And yes, there will be families who wouldn’t send their kids to day school anyway. But there will also be mainstream committed families--the ones whose kids have a lower chance of intermarrying because they're in day schools--who will have less children because of financial constraints imposed upon them by their Jewish commitment. So what does this mean for Jewish America?

Labels: community, day schools, Jewish demography, tuition

In recent years there has been an explosion in the number of trans-denominational/non-denominational community schools designed to service the spectrum of the Jewish community without making any of their students feel like they were (borrowing from a phrase popularized by a dynamic Rabbi from the NY area) "not yet Orthodox." These schools have been embraced by many, but not all, Central Agencies and visionary groups, as opening the doors to a population that would not otherwise attend day schools.

Interestingly, in some communities, the local Federation was against the institution of these schools - fearing that they would drain money and students from existing schools without generating a substantive increase in enrollment.

One school, questioning why their enrollment was falling far short of their projected numbers, came to the conclusion that they were too religious, and that they could only attract students by becoming less religious. (Note: their Jewish studies component consisted of one period a day of Jewish studies plus prayer.) It's hard to know if lessening the Jewish studies will or will not increase the enrollment in the school, but even the enrollment doubles or triples in the next two years, is it worth the investment of untold millions of dollars of Jewish communal funds to pay for what amounts to Jewish private schools with minimal Jewish content?

Labels: community, day schools, Jewish Studies

This week, the in the NY Times there appears an interesting article on Asian enrollment. What I found particularly interesting about the article was the Asian parents response to requests for money: When a principal of one school asked the Korean Parents Association to help him raise some $4,000,000 (after he was already rebuffed by the school's PTA and other community members) their response was: $4,000,000? why not $40,000,000 and then they went out and raised the money.

In the Jewish day school community, one of the most common complaints is the price of schooling, how no one can afford it, how teachers and principals and everyone else in the system is making too much money. Few parents are willing to do anything other than complain. Fundraising is left for others to do (though I'm not sure who the others are)and many philanthropists are not willing to donate money so that others peoples' kids can get a good Jewish education. We want our children to get a good general education; we want them to have a good Jewish education; we'd like them to learn with other Jewish children; and we want them to have the best facilities and the best teachers - but we don't want to pay for it.

When the average expenditure per pupil in the public school system is over $10,000 (and as high as $15,000 in New Jersey and New York), is it reasonable for the community to focus on lowering costs rather than on raising quality?

Labels: day schools, fundraising, tuition

Barnea Selavan regularly forwards me articles of interest about education that he thinks deserve attention. Today he sent me an article that appeared in the NY Times magazine section over the weekend. Entitled "What it takes to make a student," it focuses on the successes and failures of President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation. This program aims to narrow the education gap between rich and poor, whites and minorities, by forcing states to set standards in math and reading that all schools would need to meet.

I have always felt that "No Child Left Behind" has little to do with the system of North American Jewish day school education. Nevertheless, the article is worth reading. Aside from commenting on "No Child Left Behind" it also presents studies that attempt to find the root cause of the differences that exist between academic success and failure and how those differences are tied to race and socio-economic factors. Moreover, the article then examines the methods used by schools to overcome the disadvantages that the less successful students bring with them to class.

These studies and methods should be of great interest to the Jewish educator - including the individuals who are personally charged with Jewish education - parents. Knowing that simple exposure to language - and the tone and nuance of language - plays a significant role in children's development, is intuitive, but is worthwhile hearing repeated. It is in the area of remediation, however, that day schools have the most to learn from the programs that are successful with these students. It is "a counterintuitive combination of touchy-feely idealism and intense discipline" that help some of these schools succeed, which includes a longer school day, setting goals on an annual, monthly and even weekly basis, and working to guide the behavior and values of the students.

Many of these ideas dovetail with the ideals of Jewish education. While most of our students do not face the challenges of poor, minority groups, we can certainly learn from the academic research and practical solutions that have evolved from the "No Child Left Behind" programs. How many of us spend as much time as we should talking to our kids at home? And how many of our schools have well-planned (or planned at all) syllabi for Judaic studies that state clearly what students are expected to learn every year?

Labels: day schools, parenting

Educational quality, in Jewish education as in general education, depends on the quality of teaching. But teachers tend to teach in the ways that they were taught, and often are limited by their abilities to envision alternatives. So how can teachers expand their pedagogical horizons?

What if it were possible to visit vibrant Jewish studies classrooms across the country or across the world? What if it were possible to see multiple models of the thoughtful teaching of parashat ha-shavua (the weekly Torah portion), or Mishnah, or the book of Isaiah? What if these visits were not just glimpses of a classroom in action, but systematic explorations of an accomplished teacher's practice, complete with reflections on her goals, insights into her planning, and samples of her students' work?

Imagine the Tanakh or Chumash faculty at a Jewish day school, gathering to explore a website with classroom video of an innovative teacher presenting parashat ha-shavua to a first grade class. The school's director of Jewish studies leads the case-study discussion: What is the teacher doing? What does she want children to learn? How does she manage the group and attend to her subject? What challenges does this approach entail?

The faculty at the school have access not only to the teacher's pedagogy but also to her goals and decision-making. On the website, the teacher explains her planning process, shares her own analysis of the videotaped lessons, and thinks aloud about some of the challenges. Although the faculty are distant in time and space, the technology enables them to learn from this thoughtful teacher's practice. The goal is not the dissemination of best practices but of new ideas about practice, new questions, and new images of teaching Torah.

Next, the director of Jewish studies leading the session clicks on electronic copies of student work from the featured lesson. What do the teachers see in that student work? How have individual children understood the parashah? What does the student work reveal about the impact of the teacher’s pedagogy? For the faculty, the examination of student work opens up fundamental questions about what students know and how they know it, questions that they immediately take back to their own practice.

This kind of case study – rich, multi-layered, thoughtful, critical, grounded in documentation of real teaching – is within our reach, and has already been advanced in general education (for example, see recent work at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching). In fact, a draft of the case described above, of an accomplished and thoughtful first grade teacher of parashat ha-shavua, has already been developed, as a pilot project at the Mandel Center at Brandeis.

We do not need advancements in technology to build or distribute these multimedia cases of teaching and learning within Jewish education; we only need to provide thoughtful educators with the time, the intellectual support and the resources to develop them. An online virtual library of such cases of teaching would become an invaluable resource for transforming practice throughout Jewish education.

---------

Sharon Feiman-Nemser is the Mandel Professor of Jewish Education at Brandeis University and the Director of the Mandel Center for Studies in Jewish Education. She has led teacher education programs at the University of Chicago, Michigan State University, and Brandeis, and has published numerous articles about teacher education, new teacher induction and mentoring. Jon A. Levisohn is Assistant Professor of Jewish Education at Brandeis and Assistant Director of the Mandel Center. His work focuses on philosophy of education and philosophy of Jewish education. Recent publications include "A Plea for Purposes," Jewish Educational Leadership, Fall 2005.

Labels: day schools, pedagogy, technology

As we envision the full potential of Jewish Day Schools in North America, we must revisit a central question about the purpose of Jewish education.

The public discourse is replete with worried calls about Jewish continuity and a Jewish future. We are duty bound, of course, to heed these calls. However, we also must not let our concern for our future overshadow our critical Jewish present.

Jewish schools—and Jewish families—offer our children a way of being that has at its heart the core values of learning (Torah), caring (chesed), and justice (tzedek). Jewish schools offer our children a connection to a glorious Jewish past—stories of hope, faith, heroism, and redemption. Jewish schools offer our children sacred, living texts which guide, challenge, and inspire. Jewish schools fill our children’s ears with Hebrew, their mouths with joyous song, their souls with a love and longing for Zion, and their hands with parchment and silver and the hands of others. Jewish schools are the warmth and wisdom of our ancestors and our Jewish optimism about our destiny.

But Jewish schools do not exist only for the sake of the future; and our students are not only vessels of continuity through which Judaism will pass. Jewish schools must also exist for the sake of a compelling experience of contemporary Jewish life that inspires children and their families today. After all, it is this younger generation which will ultimately determine the shape of the Jewish future. It is up to school leaders, teachers, and community professionals to make curricular, pedagogic, programming, policy, and funding decisions based on a vision of a Jewish present that is rich and attractive, and yes, holy. Our children are clever enough to know if our daily plans for them grow out of fear rather than hope. A subtle yet deliberate shift in focus—a vision that embraces our past, our future, and our present—will ensure individual and community Jewish life that is irresistibly exciting, compassionate, and courageous. It will also ensure that the future our children create is inclusively and beautifully Jewish.

-------------

Susan Kardos is Director of the Initiative for Day School Excellence at the Combined Jewish Philanthropies in Boston. She is author of over a dozen articles and book chapters about education policy, school culture, teacher induction, and school leadership. She is co-author of the book Finders and Keepers: Helping New Teachers Survive and Thrive in Our Schools (Jossey-Bass, 2004) and author of “Clandestine Schooling and Resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto During the Holocaust,” (Harvard Educational Review, 2002).

Labels: day schools