recent trends in supplementary jewish education march 2007

Recent Trends in

Supplementary

Jewish Education

Rec

ent

Tren

ds

in

Supp

lem

enta

ry J

ewis

h E

duc

atio

nJa

ck W

erth

eim

er

Adar 5767

March 2007

JACK WERTHEIMER

Recent Trends in

Supplementary

Jewish Education

Adar 5767

March 2007

JACK WERTHEIMER

Table of Contents

Letter from AVI CHAI’s Executive Director – North America 1

The Current Scene 3

A New Era? 3

Continuing Challenges to the Field 5

How Little We Know 7

Strategies for Change 10

Some Overall Strategic Issues 10

National Efforts 12

Local Initiatives 16

Evaluation 19

AVI CHAI’s Engagement with the Field 21

Acknowledgements 23

Letter from AVI CHAI 1

Letter from AVI CHAI’sExecutive Director – North America

Since its founding over two decades ago, The AVI CHAI Foundation has focused on Jewish education,primarily, in the past dozen years, to enhance day schools and summer camping. The Foundation also hopesto contribute to other arenas of Jewish education by supporting “thought leadership,” which may take theform of research, re-conceptualization, assessment and other intellectual initiatives.

Toward that end, the Foundation commissioned this examination of recent trends in the field ofsupplementary Jewish education in order to help inform itself and a wider public concerned about suchschooling. As a next step, AVI CHAI intends to support three research initiatives—described at theconclusion of the report—designed to stimulate new lines of inquiry in the field of supplementary Jewish education.

As is clear from the report, the supplementary school field is in a process of evolution that is not yet wellunderstood. Change provides both opportunities and challenges. We hope that the report and the researchto follow will stimulate conversation and consideration among practitioners and lay leaders and help in the process of realizing the opportunities and overcoming the challenges.

We very much appreciate Dr. Jack Wertheimer’s commitment to Jewish education and leadership of thisambitious research project.

Yossi PragerExecutive Director – North America

A NEW ERA?

The field of Jewish education hasundergone a palpable shift over the past15 to 20 years. New programs of formal

and informal education have appeared, and existingones have been re-thought; new champions ofJewish education have emerged, as have some new funding sources. And Jewish education itself has risen in the priorities of communal leaders and individual families. Indeed, the mood amongeducators and lay volunteers in the field hasimproved considerably. Whereas in the late 1970sand early 1980s, the tone in educational circles wasone of worry and even alarm, by the closing decadeof the century, the outlook was one of expectationand forward momentum.1

This shift in outlook has permeated the field ofsupplementary Jewish education as well.2 As comparedto the intensely negative self-assessments rendered by

insiders 25 to 30 years ago,3 interviews conducted in the fall of 2005 with educators and observers yieldedupbeat and cautiously optimistic evaluations. The fieldof supplementary Jewish education is brimming withnew ideas and curricula, a raft of new initiatives, newstrategies, and dozens of schools actively engaged in a process of reinvention.4

What accounts for this turnaround in the field’smorale?

1. With a majority of Jewish children receiving theirJewish education in supplementary settings, someJewish leaders have made a pragmatic and othersan ideological decision not to abandon a majoreducational system. Educators, congregationalleaders, and some lay champions are determinedto improve the supplementary schools.

2. Even many leaders who strongly prefer dayschools as the optimal form of Jewish educationacknowledge that, for the foreseeable future, aconsiderable number of Jewish families will relyupon supplementary schools to educate theirchildren. Despite considerable efforts to recruitever larger numbers of non-Orthodox children to day schools, and the increased studentpopulations enrolled in such schools, to date only

The Current Scene 3

3 On the pessimistic mood of the time, see “A Field in Crisis,” a section of my essay in the 1999 American Jewish Year Book, pp. 37-42.

4 This study is based upon some 40 interviews conducted in thefall of 2005 with professionals in the denominational offices of the Reform and Conservative movements; professors ofJewish education at the Davidson Graduate School of JewishEducation at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Rhea HirshSchool at the Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles, and theSiegel College of Jewish Studies in Cleveland; observers ofsupplementary education in several national agencies; a range ofleaders in central agencies of Jewish education; school directors;and the leaders of new initiatives in the field.

1 I have surveyed the transformed scene in an essay entitled, “Jewish Education in the United States: Recent Trends andIssues,” American Jewish Year Book, 1999 (vol. 99), pp. 3-115. On shifting attitudes within families, see my pamphlet, “Linking the Silos: How to Accelerate the Momentum in JewishEducation Today.” New York: AVI CHAI Foundation, 2005 and the edited volume, Family Matters: Jewish Education in anAge of Choice. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England,forthcoming 2007.

2 There is no elegant term for the range of schools andeducational programs run primarily by synagogues. Synagogueschooling comes closest, but some supplemental education isoffered in a communal setting or by independent institutions not affiliated with synagogues. The term “supplementary” refers to schooling offered on weekends (Shabbat and Sunday)and on weekday afternoons when students have completed their public or private school classes; hence what remains issupplemental to the public and private school. As will becomeclear in this report, some of these programs no longer conceiveof themselves as schools at all, and reject the school model asharmful; some have consciously adopted a model of informaleducation, such as camping, as a more apt description of whatthey aim to accomplish.

The Current Scene

a small minority of children from Reformhouseholds attend day schools, and fewer than 30percent of Conservative households enroll theirchildren in day schools. Under these circumstances,supplementary schools are perceived as importanttargets for educational reform.

3. Supplementary high school programs inparticular are attracting new interest. As analysesof the 1990 and 2000-2001 National JewishPopulation Studies have demonstrated thepositive impact of peer influences and continuedexposure to Jewish education in the teen years,some communities and congregations havestepped up their efforts to retain young people intheir post-bar and bat mitzvah years. Educatorsand parents have become convinced of thecritical importance of continued Jewish educationthrough the high school years, especially as theyare mindful of the role peer groups play duringadolescence. Moreover, other considerations arealso spurring interest in the high school years:some of the potential market for such schoolsconsists of young people who attended a dayschool until the sixth or eighth grades and whonow wish to continue their Jewish education in a supplemental, albeit sophisticated, setting. More broadly, congregations are eager to retainteenagers and their families as members—withthe high school programs as an importantinducement to continued membership. All ofthese factors have heightened interest insupplementary high school programs.

4. Central agencies of Jewish education haveparticularly invested themselves in supplementaryeducation. Indeed, many directors of suchagencies regard themselves as the champions ofsupplementary schools. Because few bureaus ofJewish education (BJEs) were given the capacityand resources to engage in meaningful workwith day schools, they have instead focused mostof their energies on certain aspects ofsupplementary schooling, particularly the

continuing education of school directors and thetraining and accreditation of teachers.

5. New work on synagogue revitalization hasspurred fresh thinking on the place of thesynagogue school in the life of the congregation.Here is how Professor Joseph Reimer of BrandeisUniversity put it: “Whereas before the last decademost observers of American Jewish life viewed the synagogue as the poor cousin in relation tothe more vital Jewish federation, in recent yearsthe synagogue has made a comeback and movedinto a coveted spot. It has become ‘the holycommunity,’ the place where the business of‘making Jews’ actually takes place. Suddenlycommunal expectations for what synagogues canaccomplish in shaping the Jewish identities of thenext generation have dramatically risen.”5 Thishas encouraged adults to invest more of theirenergies in the improvement of congregationalschools and has also led to the creation of newcombinations of family- and children-centeredJewish education within the synagogue.

6. One of the untold stories of Jewish education is the extent to which rabbinic education haschanged and influenced the thinking of a newgeneration of emerging rabbis. At HUC (HebrewUnion College) and at JTS (Jewish TheologicalSeminary), education departments have grownover the past decade, and faculty members havebecome far more involved in shaping thecurricula of rabbinic education. The trainingschools have made the case to rabbis and cantorsthat both of those positions of leadership entailconsiderable involvement with synagogueeducation, and that rabbis and cantors thereforeowe it to themselves to take education coursesand develop a strong interest in synagogueeducation. Simultaneously, rabbis in the field

4 The Current Scene

5 Joseph Reimer, “Integrating Formal and Informal Education inthe Synagogue: A Concept Paper for CJP [Combined JewishPhilanthropies of Boston],” Unpublished paper for the Institutefor Informal Jewish Education in Boston, Dec. 2003, p. 1.

The Current Scene 5

have understood that in a highly competitivesynagogue market, their congregational school is a major draw for new membership. Thesecombined factors have reshaped the rabbinate,especially the younger rabbis, to play a far greaterrole in the synagogue school.

7. Today’s parents are also more likely to demandmore of the synagogue schoolthan was the case in the middleof the previous century. Contraryto the folk wisdom alleging thatparents tell their children, “Wesuffered in Hebrew School andexpect you to suffer through ittoo,” many parents are insistingon better Jewish education fortheir children. Supplementary programs maytherefore benefit from the higher standards oftoday’s parent body.

8. Moreover, the status of synagogue schooling has risen on congregational agendas: in somecongregations, the education or school committeeis a plum assignment, not an afterthought.Adults serving on those committees often havechildren enrolled in the synagogue school. Theyare insisting on a better quality of Jewisheducation. As one informant put it: “this is notyour parents’ religious school.”

9. There has also been a sea change in howsupplementary education is defined. When themission was mainly the acquisition of skills and knowledge, two- or three-day-a-weeksupplementary education was always foundwanting. Young people in those programs couldnot possibly keep up with the rigorous demands ofday school. Neither could they possibly acquire thebroad range of knowledge needed to be a literateJew. Today, the rules of the game have changed:schools are valued not only, or primarily, for theskills they teach—ritual observance, participating inreligious services, decoding Hebrew texts—but forthe good experiences children have, the Jewish

memories they create, and the positive tone ofinteractions between parents, children, andschool staff. This orientation has opened newavenues for supplementary education so that itcan compete on its own terms.

10. With greater attention now focused on theambience of supplementary schooling, morale

has risen in many programs.Observers frequently comment onthe improved spirit within schoolsamong children, parents, andteachers. “It’s far easier to do goodthings,” claims one long-timeeducator. Children appear moreengaged, teachers speak a commonlanguage with their students,

and parents are more receptive to the goals ofthe school.

11. Due to the increasingly consumer-driven qualityof American life, new types of schools arespringing up to offer families a range of choices.Independent schools have been established inrecent years as alternatives to denominationally-based synagogue schools. So, too, various types of Orthodox outreach centers are entering the market, offering various configurations ofdays and hours and types of study. These newprograms are competing with establishedcongregational models, and indeed oftenundercut synagogue schooling by not chargingmembership dues. They reflect the changingnature of supplementary education and arestimulating new thinking in synagogue schools.

CONTINUING CHALLENGES TO THE FIELD

Having noted the various factors accounting forimproved morale and a rededication to improvingsynagogue schools, it is nonetheless apparent that a set of endemic problems persistently weakens

There has also been a sea change in

how supplementaryeducation is defined.

supplementary schooling. Many of these are builtinto the system’s basic structure. Here is a listing ofthe most persistent challenges:

1. A more blatant limitation of supplementaryschooling is the paucity of hours available forinstruction. One educator put it bluntly: “Wehave lost the battle for time.” The number ofcontact hours in classrooms hascontinued to decline in mostsupplementary schools over thepast decade. (Only a few schoolshave gone in the oppositedirection.) With most childrennow exposed to no more thanfour or five hours of schoolingper week over a period of some27 to 32 weeks per year,educators are forced to makehard-nosed decisions to setrealistic goals. How much timecan be devoted to the acquisitionof Hebrew reading skills, if teachers must alsoexplain synagogue practices and the prayer book,discuss the holidays, explore Jewish values, andstudy Jewish history and contemporary issues?And how much time can be devoted to any ofthese worthy goals if the school also aims tocreate programs to nurture strong and passionateconnections to Jewish identity and peoplehood?

2. The supplementary nature of the educationimparts a message to young children about thelimited importance of the enterprise. As parentsare swept up by social pressures to involve their children in sports, the arts, entertainment,tutoring and other after-school activities,pressures mount to limit Jewish education evenmore, a pressure that grows exponentially whenteenagers become immersed in the collegechase. The fact that supplementary educationtakes place after school, and that grades do not“count,” shapes the perception of children as towhat is truly important.

3. Furthermore, teaching in supplementary schoolsis primarily part-time work and provides poorcompensation, which means that few schoolsemploy educators with very much time to investin remaking the system. The relatively poor pay available to educators and the shortage ofwell-trained teachers result in a huge turnover in school directors and teaching faculty. This,

in turn, limits the continuity ofschool programs. Even the finestschools must scramble to retainexcellence when key personnelretire or move on to otherpositions.

4. At least half the synagogueswith schools are quite small.This limits their ability to fund their schools, hire full-time directors or provideenhancements. Lacking acritical mass of students and the

budget to support anything other than a bare-bones,often volunteer staff, smaller schools cannot evencontemplate offering a richer array of programming.

5. Many congregations continue to tie synagogueeducation to the bar/bat mitzvah celebration,thinking this gives them leverage with families.It probably does, but the consequence is adistortion of Jewish education, which becomesfocused on a one-time performance, rather thanenculturation to a “way of life.” It also reducesJewish education to a coercive experience thatfamilies must endure—i.e., they are instructedto attend a set number of religious services over the course of the year prior to the bar/batmitzvah. The linkage also places a strongemphasis on the acquisition of skills needed atthe event, rather than on the breadth ofeducation necessary to live as a Jew.

6. As schools redefine themselves, they risk creatingincreased confusion over their mission. Indeed,quite a few educators now argue that it is a

6 The Current Scene

The fact thatsupplementary

education takes placeafter school, and thatgrades do not “count,”shapes the perception ofchildren as to what is

truly important.

terrible mistake even to speak of the synagogueprogram as a school, when in fact it is more akin to an informal education setting, such as a camping experience. The newly revampedschools, they contend, should be measuredagainst other settings of informal education, not as venues for cognitive learning and skill-building. Still, other educators claim they areaccomplishing both goals—the cognitive and the affective. But which is the priority?

7. Because most schools are based in synagogues,they are highly dependent upon the goodwill and support of the rabbi and congregationalleadership. Quite a few of the former understandthe importance of Jewish education and are also aware of the centrality of the school forrecruiting and retaining members. But in somecongregations resentment builds becausemembers without children in the school areheavily subsidizing those families that do enrolltheir children in the school by virtue of highmembership dues. School budgets and theallocation of personnel resources within thecongregation are a source of tension.

8. Recent research indicates that supplementaryhigh schools produce students who are engagedwith Jewish life. Unfortunately, these highschools have not been able to reach theirmaximal impact because of ongoing turf battles.When based within congregations, they are hard-pressed to offer systematic programming, andthey suffer from drastically limited school hours.They seem more effective when under communalauspices or when they operate as a consortialbody of several congregations, but rabbis arereluctant to relinquish “their” teens to programsnot housed in their own synagogues.

9. The distance of national organizations from thelocal scene and the limited influence of thoseorganizations on the day-to-day running ofschools force each school to invent its owncurriculum or tailor a pre-existing one to the

capabilities of its personnel. This generally is not a prescription for excellence, although someschools have transcended this challenge byinvesting large resources in their improvement.

10. The renewed interest in supplementary schoolinghas, as we shall see, sparked many innovativeapproaches. The primary emphasis of newinitiatives has addressed the so-called inputs—new ideas, innovative programs, expandedresources, special funding for educators, etc. At best, all of these initiatives enrich the type ofprogram delivered. Far less attention has beenlavished on the so-called outputs—the types ofstudents the school hopes to graduate. What isthe ideal profile of such a student? How will such a student relate to Jewish life, participate in synagogue services, observe Jewish rites andrituals, and volunteer for communal service? And how might schools gauge themselves as theyassess their work? The field of supplementaryJewish schooling seems to pay little attention toevaluating its outcomes.

These structural and endemic weaknesses coexist withnew strengths and positive developments in the field.

HOW LITTLE WE KNOW

To further complicate our story, we should note theabsence of comprehensive national data about theseschools. How many are there? How many childrenare in the system? How do enrollments break downby denomination? What is the role and scope ofsupplementary education offered by independentinstitutions? What is the rate of attrition and whendoes attrition mainly occur—after bar/bat mitzvahor after grade 8? What factors make for high ratesof retention after those years? We also lack data tojudge patterns of growth and decline, let alone totrack educators—their credentials, compensation,aspirations. The entire field operates in a datavacuum, with unanswered questions far exceeding

The Current Scene 7

8 The Current Scene

what is known. At best, individual communities—mainly through their central agencies—keep recordsand track patterns, but in many communities suchdata either do not exist or are not publicized.

The likeliest compilers of national data are the keynational agencies—JESNA (The Jewish EducationServices of North America), CAJE (The Coalitionfor the Advancement of Jewish Education), ADCA(The Association of Directors of Central Agencies),and the religious movements under whose auspicesmost children are enrolled. JESNA embarked on asurvey of educators in 2006 whose results should beavailable in 2007. ADCA counts 225,900 children inschools in the United States and Canada, based oncentral agency reports. Using this as a base, CAJEclaimed in 2002 that about 10 percent of childrenreside in communities with no central agency, andthe CAJE report on that basis estimated the numberof children enrolled in supplementary schoolingfrom grades 1-12 at 250,000. The educationdepartments of the Conservative and Reformmovements are not keeping records. (The Reformmovement has recently received a grant to beginsuch a project.) Their explanation says much aboutthe decentralized nature of Jewish institutional life,as they claim they cannot convince congregations tocooperate and, therefore, it would not beworthwhile to attempt to compile a record of theirenrollments. In short, there are no good numbers ontotal enrollments, and there is no simple way toobtain them other than by building on the counts ofcentral agencies, which are closest to the schools.

What follows, then, are a few preliminary stabs atquantification. According to the Department ofLifelong Jewish Learning at the Union for ReformJudaism, 803 congregations affiliate with theReform movement, of which nearly all (792) haveschools. We should note, however, that 462congregations have fewer than 300 membershipunits. When asked to estimate the number ofchildren enrolled in supplementary schools underReform auspices, officials of the Union for ReformJudaism gave a figure of 120,000, but admitted

that this was only an approximation. Theircounterparts at the United Synagogue forConservative Judaism estimated an enrollment ofsome 80,000 children, including high schoolers(but not early childhood enrollments) in some 585schools. Even if we add several tens of thousandsof children in Chabad, Reconstructionist, and non-affiliated schools, it appears that, at any givenmoment, the number of children enrolled in dayschools and supplementary schools is reachingparity. (Approximately 205,000 children attend dayschools.) However, as many children insupplementary schools enroll for just a few grades, in the aggregate more Jewish children attendsupplementary schools than attend day schools.

Some observers agree that enrollments havecontracted over the past decades, but claim thedecline has bottomed out. Data from localcommunities reveal a more complicated picture.School enrollments continue to decline,especially in the supplementary sector, but earlychildhood programs remain stable or are evengrowing slightly. What this portends is difficultto determine, particularly because these data arenot correlated with demographic surveys showinglow fertility rates and high intermarriage ratesamong Jews, both of which point to decliningschool enrollments in the near term.

The following are the patterns in threecommunities. Between the three school-years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, total Jewish schoolenrollments declined in Philadelphia-area schoolsfrom 17,681 to 16,911—a drop of 4.35 percent. Day school enrollment declined during those years from 2,202 to 2,125— a drop of 3.5 percent.Supplementary school attendance declined from14,614 to 13,805, or 5.5 percent. In Los Angeles,supplementary school enrollments declined between 2002-03 and 2003-04 by 10 percent.Approximately 1,720 students are enrolled insupplementary high school programs in LA,compared to over 2,000 in day high schools. InCleveland, enrollments in supplementary schools

The Current Scene 9

pre-K to grade 12 have decreased from 3,981 to3,559 between 2000-01 and 2004-05—a drop of10.6 percent. It appears that day school enrollmentsincreased over this period. (According to oneobserver, enrollments in supplementary schools inCleveland are down 20 percent over the past tenyears; day school enrollments are up by 5 percent.)The contraction in supplementary schoolenrollment, we should note, is not attributable tothe seemingly inexorable migration of Jews to everfurther exurbs. Central agencies are keeping tabs onschool enrollments in their enlarged catchmentareas. More research is needed, but one suspectsthat schools are beginning to suffer declines becauselow Jewish birthrates are having their effect.

When it comes to personnel, we are even more inthe dark. The head of the Education Department at the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism estimates the number of Conservativesupplementary schools with an education director at 50 percent (approximately 350 schools); onlysome 200 employ a full-time director. It appearsthat matters are no different in Reform temples. But in the absence of systematic data-gathering, we do not really know. Moreover, we currently lackinformation about compensation for educators, andwe have no data to determine which interventionswould enable schools to recruit more and better-qualified teachers. More comprehensive data aresorely needed to help the field of supplementaryeducation plan effectively and grow.

SOME OVERALL STRATEGIC ISSUES

Understandably, discussions in the field donot focus on quantitative questions, butrather on ways to improve supplementary

education. Before examining some of the mostinfluential initiatives, we will examine the keystrategic questions at play.

There is considerable debate over how to spureducational change. Some are pushing for synagoguerevitalization efforts, which would then transformthe school experience of youngsters by placingJewish education at the heart of synagogue life.Others argue for a community-wide embrace ofJewish education, which will then translate into “an informed and excited adult consumer base thatwill demand of their professional leaders more ofwhat Jewish learning can be and less of what theyhave settled for in the past.”6 Put in simple terms,the field is debating whether the goal is to spurparents to want more from their synagogue or towant more from their synagogue school.

A second, and related, strategic concern is whetherproponents of educational reform want to wait untila congregation undertakes serious transformation, aprotracted process requiring sustained attention, orwhether to focus on educational change, regardlessof whether the synagogue has embraced anambitious program for self-reform. Critics of theambitious-systemic-change model argue that bothits strength and weakness is its emphasis onreinventing the wheel in each congregation. Ratherthan come with a set of models that might beadapted, the synagogue-change model requires eachcongregation to conceive of its own mission, reformits decision-making structure, and work through

a process for thorough-going reform. Such a process is exceedingly time-consuming and places enormouspressures on congregations. To be sure, whensuccessful, systemic change processes can bringabout dramatic improvements. But all the stars mustbe aligned for the process to succeed. Therefore,some change advocates focus more modestly onschool reform, not congregational change.

Still a third strategic question revolves around wherethe impetus for change should be based. Should itcome from a national effort that has significantexperience in leading change efforts, but only limitedresources to address local matters? Or, should it bebased in local communities, which means that thekey local players may be available to marshal thenecessary resources, but that each community mustthen reinvent the process for itself?

On still another plane is the question of whether it is feasible to develop programming that will embracechildren in formal schooling, offer rich experienceswithin the synagogue, and provide various types of informal Jewish education. One of the bolderstatements urging such a course of action comesfrom a paper written by Barry Shrage, executive of the Boston federation: “The goal of educational and communal policy must be the transformation of congregational education through an overall strategy designed to make each congregation a totaleducational environment…. The distinction betweenformal and informal education must be erased and we must move to assure as much support and funding for high-impact Jewish camps, Israelexperiences, youth activity and family and adulteducation as we currently provide for our highlyproblematic afternoon school efforts.”7 What this has come to mean to some is not a diminution in

10 Strategies for Change

7 “Sacred Communities at the Heart of Jewish Life: Twenty Years of Federation/Synagogue Collaboration and Change in Boston.”

6 Joseph Reimer, “Integrating Formal and Informal Education inthe Synagogue,” ibid., p. 1.

Strategies for Change

the importance of congregational schools, but“recognizing that while Jewish schooling is anecessary component of Jewish education, it is notitself a sufficient condition for educating Jewishyouth. What is missing is the component of theheart, of the lived connection, of experiencing richJewish living which gives meaning to what is learnedin school.”8 Congregations vary greatly in how farthey have gone to complementschooling with informalexperiences. An observer of oneJewish community declared that“most congregational schools inGreater Boston have already takenmany significant steps towardcreating communities of learning.They have incorporated familyeducation, active youth groupactivities, worship services and even Shabbat retreatsinto their school years.”9 Synagogues in othercommunities have not necessarily developed asextensive a set of informal opportunities, eitherbecause they lack the financial resources, personnel,know-how, or commitment.

This, in turn, leads to the question of emphasis. Ifthe resources do not exist to expose children bothto formal and informal education, should prioritybe given to improving the school experience or theinformal educational settings? Proponents of theformer point to significant strides in the generalfield of education that may serve as models forimproving the classroom experience. The goal isto create a school focused on building Jewishliteracy and skills; presumably, children will beexposed to other Jewish experiences in summercamps, trips to Israel, and youth groups. Bycontrast, others are stressing the need to create anenvironment in the synagogue that will primarilyserve as a setting for rich Jewish experiences and notnecessarily for formal learning. The emphasis ofthose in this second group is on the context, perhapseven more than the content of Jewish learning.

Hence, programming has shifted from Sundaymornings to Shabbat, the latter offering more of an ambience for experiencing Judaism than forlearning skills.

Still another strategic question is whether the keyeffort for improvement should be directed toward theclassroom or toward the larger learning environment.

National efforts and central agencyprograms mainly focus oncontinuing training for schooldirectors and, to a lesser extent, forteachers, as well as improved andupdated curriculum design andcontent. The systemic or holisticinitiatives assume that such changeswill have a limited impact, absent asustained effort at organizational

restructuring that gives power to a wide spectrum ofso-called “stake-holders” and which opens the processof decision-making to transparency, mission-directedplanning, and democratization. More broadly, thesystemic approach looks beyond single programs to the mix of educational opportunities available tochildren and their families, and tries to create asynagogue-wide transformation, connecting theschool to early childhood, teen experiences, adulteducation and family education. It seeks linkages,rather than strengthening the school in isolation fromother educational venues.

There is then the question of personnel development.Some synagogues are creating full time directorshippositions, often defining the school directorship as aposition transcending the school: the goal is torecreate the principal’s portfolio to include sustainedand integrated involvement in the life of thecongregation. Synagogues are competing with oneanother for personnel, and this is a way to create anattractive package to retain the principal at a timewhen school directors routinely move from one schoolto the next, often crossing denominational boundaries.The other major initiatives to address personneldevelopment are the programs run by BJEs and otherinstitutions to offer in-service training to school headsand to teachers.


8 Reimer, p. 4.

9 Op. cit.

The emphasis [for some]…is on thecontext, perhaps evenmore than the content

of Jewish learning.


We should note in this brief survey of key strategicissues that some questions are not in serious play.For example, in contrast to the agonizing during the 1980s about the optimal threshold of “contacthours,” there is little serious discussion todayconcerning the advisability of increasing the numberof hours children spend in supplementary programs.This issue has dropped off the radar screen. True, a few congregations have added hours in order toaccommodate the new Reform and Conservativecurricula mentioned below, but no agency ispressing for increased school hours. A secondunasked question is whether any particular schoolmodel is ideal. All the change initiatives arepredicated on the assumption that one size will not fit all. In fact, the various initiatives stress theimportance of each congregation arriving at anunderstanding of what will work best within its ownunique culture and community.

NATIONAL EFFORTS

THE REFORM MOVEMENT

The majority of supplementary school children areeducated in Reform and Conservative synagogues.Education departments in both movementsprimarily devote their energies to curriculumdevelopment and training, as well as to consultingwith school directors. They see their primary role as the enhancement of the pedagogic leadership ofschools, and therefore leave more far-reachingsystemic change initiatives to central agencies or the ECE project (see page 14) based at the HebrewUnion College in Los Angeles, given their ownlimited staffing resources and reach.

The Reform movement has integrated itseducational offerings under a single department of Lifelong Jewish Learning, which takes in earlychildhood, supplementary schools—including high school—adult education and family education. The virtue of this approach is that it embeds thevarious components within a coherent framework.

The Union for Reform Judaism’s (URJ) departmentoffers online teacher training as well as consultationservices provided by 13 regional educators, asignificant financial investment. The newlyrevamped department also has shifted from thelanguage of peoplehood and Israel-centeredprograms popular in the seventies and eighties—which in turn had replaced Emanuel Gamoran’ssynthesis of Reform and Reconstructionism—to the current motto, “Torah at the Center.” Someobservers sense a new emphasis on spirituality andmysticism emerging but, in the meantime, theReform educational apparatus is placing far morestress on Hebrew language and Jewish religiousliteracy than it had in the past.

At the core of this program is a new curriculum calledChai, which also has a Hebrew-language track calledMitkadem. Sample lessons are available at the URJwebsite (http://urj.org/chai/samplelessons/).

When its first phase is completed, Chai will runfrom levels 1-7, corresponding to grade levels. In each year, the curriculum outlines 27 one-hoursessions for each of three curricular themes—Torah,Avoda, and Gemilut Hasadim, the study of Torah,ritual observance and good deeds. The curriculumadheres to a model known as “backward design”—i.e., it begins with the desired outcomes and thenbuilds backward from them. It also strives to developa curriculum that will be reinforced not only in theclassroom, but in other synagogue settings.

The Chai curriculum is not intended to cover allsubjects, but to serve as a core curriculum to which schools will then add. Its strength lies in itsemphasis upon religious content—tefila (prayer),belief in God, brachot (blessings) in Hebrew, andJewish values. As the developers of the Chaicurriculum themselves concede, among the topicsslighted by the curriculum are Israel, Jewish history,the Jewish holidays, and the Jewish life cycle.Schools are encouraged to address these usingearlier curricula and textbooks. A second phase of work will run from 2007-2009 and is projected


to include curriculum on Israel, history, holidays, the Holocaust, and life cycle. It will also preparecurricula for post-bar and -bat mitzvah students.

The Union for Reform Judaism has invested heavilyin the new curriculum and has hired a large staff ofregional personnel who help congregational schoolsimplement the curriculum. Indeed, the project is themost costly undertaken by the URJ and is also thelongest in duration, with an expected timetable often years. The URJ has thought not only about theproduction of the curricular units, but also aboutproviding support to school directors who will adoptthem. Materials are available in a handsome format.The giving of serious thought, planning, andfinancial investment attests to the care taken by thecentral organization to upgrade temple education.Still, an observer cannot fail to note the limitednature of the enterprise. There is only so much thatcan be taught in a few hours a week of schooling.The Chai curriculum strives to work within thoseconstraints, but the limitations are very real.

The Chai curriculum has been adopted by slightlymore than a quarter of the Reform movement’scongregations, and the Mitkadem curriculum by about15 percent of the movement’s schools. The largerthe congregation, the more likely it is these curriculahave been adopted. Some outside observers haveexpressed concern as to whether the URJ appreciatesthe complexity of implementing a new curriculum,particularly by teachers whose own Jewish literacy is spotty. On the other hand, we should notunderestimate the impact of the curriculum even on those schools that only use it partially.

THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

In the late 1990s, the Education Department of theUnited Synagogue for Conservative Judaism, inpartnership with several arms of the Conservativemovement, developed what it called a “Frameworkfor Excellence for the Conservative SynagogueSchool.” The framework consists of threecomponents: 1. A definition of the “aims of theConservative Synagogue School;” 2. A set of

benchmarks to gauge the quality of such schools; 3. A menu of six models for how schools mightorganize their time. The “aims” section offers a wishlist of what children should “know and experience”during their K-12 Jewish education. These includediscussions of various Jewish values concerning theproper relationship between human beings (bein adamlehavero); a rundown of some of the key mitzvot (beinadam lamakom); an emphasis on Torah study (whichmeans primarily Tanakh, and not rabbinics); Hebrewliteracy; a knowledge of the liturgy; an understandingof modern Israel; identification with Klal Yisrael; and an understanding of Conservative Judaism. The benchmarks identified key standards forsynagogues that run schools, ranging from concernfor the credentials of their staff to the assessment and definition of a clear educational philosophy and curriculum. Perhaps most noteworthy was aninsistence upon several new emphases, such as familyeducation programming, developing informaleducational opportunities within the synagogue, anddeveloping the partnership between the rabbi andhazzan. These are not revolutionary ideas, but doreflect the shift in outlook in the 1990s.

The most noteworthy aspect of this effort is itslisting of six alternative models for how schoolsmight deliver their education. The Frameworkdocument explicitly responds to the new socialrealities facing families that impede the ambition of schools to run three-day-a-week programs. It specifically takes note of the increased distances families live from the synagogue, the high incidenceof families in which both parents work outside thehome, and the growing population of single parents.Each of these factors militates against synagoguesoffering three-day-a-week programs, as most hadbeen required to do in the post-World-War-IIdecades. Instead, the six models offer “flexibility” in how the program could be structured. Suchflexibility is purchased by having schools lengthenthe number of years children are enrolled insynagogue schooling—i.e., schools would seek toattract children for grades K-3 and seek to retainthem in the post-bar and -bat mitzvah years.


In addition, some models employ compulsoryShabbat attendance in lieu of an additional schoolday. No systematic data are available as to the actualimplementation of these models, let alone how theyare reshaping schools. (For the Framework, seehttp://www.uscj.org/Framework_for_Excell6432.html)

The Etgar curriculum aims to deliver a sophisticatednew curriculum to Conservative synagogue schools.Developed jointly by the Melton Center at JTS and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Etgar currently offers a detailed curriculumfor grades 6-8. It integrates material on Hebrewlanguage, Bible, tefila, Shabbat and Kashrutobservance, Jewish history, holidays, Israel, and theteaching of proper interpersonal behavior. Thecurriculum has been tested intensively, which is bothits strength and weakness: strength, because it offersteacher-training for its proper implementation;weakness, because of the enormous expenditure ofresources necessary to teach it properly. As a resultof the latter, congregations are phasing it in slowly.Thus far, under two dozen congregations are usingthe curriculum.

Now that grade 8 materials are being finalized, the current plan is to prepare materials for grades 4 and 5. Figures are not yet available on how widely the curriculum is employed. (Seehttp://www.uscj.org/Curriculum_Component5970.html)

No one disputes that, for the most part, Conservative synagogues are abandoning the three-day-a-week format for one of the more flexiblemodels. One hears of some exceptions: in a fewcases, congregations employing the Etgarcurriculum have actually increased their weekly timeexpectations. However, the overall trend has beentoward diminished school hours.

CHABAD

Chabad is a relatively new player on the scene whose influence and reach bear watching. Thehighly decentralized character of Chabad’s schoolscomplicates any effort to track their impact andprograms. Plans are afoot to produce educational

materials at the central office of Chabad inBrooklyn; for the meantime, much of the educationin Chabad synagogues relies upon the volunteerefforts of young post-seminary women. One Chabadshaliach has extolled the creativity of these teachersin their early 20’s who captivate their students with creative teaching and play. The phenomenonwarrants attention, particularly as Chabad schoolsare expanding their share of the student market.

AN AGENCY FOR SUPPLEMENTARYJEWISH SCHOOLING

JESNA has recently involved itself more actively in supplementary schooling. It has re-named aDepartment of Day School, Congregational andCommunal Education Initiatives, which recentlyconvened key innovators in the field.

JESNA and the Jewish Funders Network areactively involved in efforts to launch an agency tosupport supplementary Jewish education called thePartnership for Effective Learning and InnovativeEducation (PELIE). Some 12 to 15 philanthropistsgathered in September 2005 under the auspices ofJESNA to explore the creation of such a supportingbody. Since then, the group is coalescing and willsoon hire an executive director. It is not clear howthe new agency will collaborate either with centralagencies or with the denominations, two importantforces on the local and national scenes.

THE ECE MODEL—A CONGREGATION OF LEARNERS

Based at the Rhea Hirsh School of Jewish Educationat the Los Angles campus of the Hebrew UnionCollege, ECE—Experiment in CongregationalEducation—has sought to engage the attention ofcongregations by encouraging adults to create theirown initiatives for congregational change. ECEemerged after family education and adult educationhad gone through a revival, and therefore was ableto draw upon a cadre of parents who had an interestin Jewish education. ECE encourages the fusion ofadult education and the religious school in order todevelop family learning.


One of the model congregations in the ECEproject, a Reform temple in the San Francisco Bayarea, identified the key changes that would make asubstantial difference in its educational program asfollows: heightened parent involvement; connectingJewish learning with Jewish living; creatingmemorable moments as part of the learningexperience; building community; making Jewisheducation “the thing to do;” insuringthe serious involvement of the rabbi;aligning various synagoguecommittees to work cooperativelyrather than at cross-purposes; andengaging adults in text study. Eachcongregation participating in theproject has developed its own suchset of goals over an extended period.

At least five models have emerged in participatingcongregations:

a. The school becomes a Family School. Onecongregation in the Bay area created a new trackcalled Shabbaton, in which children do not enrollin the school, but attend programs weekly onShabbat afternoons to engage in family educationalong with their parents.

b. The congregation assumes responsibility foreducation, meaning that there are no professionalteachers; potentially every member teaches.

c. Day care is linked to the religious school as a means of serving family needs. Some of the time is then devoted to snatches of Hebrewconversation—e.g., snack-time is for spokenHebrew.

d. Rather than offer classes, the school tutors eachchild individually—and the tutor pays home visits.

e. Particularly knowledgeable families have assumedspecial responsibility to enrich the school.

The ECE leadership prides itself on its thorough-going reworking of synagogue schooling and itsencouragement of creativity within each school. It hasintentionally rejected the tinkering approach toschool improvement in favor of what its leader calls“significant intervention to change the grammar ofschooling.” Clearly this requires a heavy investmentby a congregation and a readiness to change. Only a

select number of congregations areable to make such a commitmentand, hence, ECE works withindividual congregations scatteredaround the country, rather thanwith cohorts of neighboringsynagogues. (For information onECE, see http://www.eceonline.org)

Over the course of seven years, ECE has worked with14 Reform congregations, an enormously slow processand one touching a small fraction of the movement.To remedy this, ECE has spun off another initiativecalled Re-Imagine, which aims to short-circuit theprocess and limit it to an 18 to 24-month period.Thus far, 43 congregations have joined Re-Imagine,including over 20 in the New York area whoseparticipation is funded by the NY UJA-Federationand the Covenant Foundation. Re-Imagine is morefocused on changing the school than the shul, but itdoes encourage the rethinking of both.

BEHRMAN HOUSE BOOKS ANDALTERNATIVES IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

For the sake of completeness, we should note therole of independent publishers who producecurricular materials and textbooks. Behrman Houseis a leader in this field, as is an outfit calledAlternatives in Religious Education (ARE), based in Colorado, which since 1973 has issued textbooksfor supplementary schools. Like Behrman House,ARE offers mainly curricular materials, includingworkbooks and packages devoted to the holidaysand other themes. Its reach is not negligible. And if anything, it will play an even larger role in

At least five models have emerged

in participating ECE congregations.

the years to come, since it was bought by BehrmanHouse during the summer of 2005. Its web addressis http://www.behrmanhouse.com.

BABAGANEWZ

A new addition to the scene is the journalBabagaNewz, a monthly magazine for classroom usepublished by Jewish Family and Life! aimed at dayand congregational schools. BabagaNewz has acirculation of some 34,000 students in a largepercentage of congregational schools. The magazinefocuses on teaching Jewish values, especially anattachment to Israel and the Jewish people, as wellas on contemporary topics and noteworthy Jewishleaders. Because its editors aspire for BabagaNewz toserve as a classroom tool, the journal offers a website(http://www.babaganewz.com) and teachers’ guidedesigned to facilitate discussion.

LOCAL INITIATIVES

CENTRAL AGENCIES

Some BJEs are especially active in encouraging thecredentialing of teachers. The BJE of Los Angeles,for example, has taken this on as a major part of itsmission, based on a firm conviction that rigorouscredentialing and monitoring of personnel willupgrade the quality of teachers. BJEs also take astrong interest in the compensation of teachers andstrong directors. For example, the website of theAuerbach CAJE in Philadelphia offers a formula forhourly compensation based on years of service. (Seehttp://www.acaje.org/content/synagogueSchools/salaryScale/salaryScaleIntro.shtml)

Other central agencies are also providing ongoingtraining for school directors and teachers. The UJAFederation of Greater New York has raised moneyto fund a program co-sponsored by JTS and HUCto upgrade the education of school directors, theLeadership Institute for Congregational SchoolPrincipals. (See http://www.leader-institute.org)

These efforts are augmented on the national sceneby the large religious denominations. UnitedSynagogue runs a program to train teachers toassume directorships. This effort gathers teachersduring the summer for an intensive conference and then maintains contact with them over thecourse of a year via conference calls. The programculminates with the conferral of a certificate. To date, 140 teachers have successfully completedthe program and have graduated to directorshippositions. The Reform movement also offersteacher training primarily geared to the Chaicurriculum. Online courses and personalconsultations are available through the URJ to helpteachers implement the curriculum.

NESS

NESS, Nurturing Excellence in Synagogue Schools,is an initiative of the Auerbach Central Agency ofPhiladelphia. The precipitating factor motivatingthis program was concern about high attrition ratesat synagogue schools during the post-bar/-batmitzvah years.10 With 85 percent of Philadelphiaschool children enrolled in synagogue schools, theAuerbach CAJE resolved to improve the schoolexperience dramatically to prevent a high dropoutrate, which would in turn translate into weakenedJewish identification.

NESS is premised on a systemic approach that seeksto transform education by engaging the entirecongregation in a change process. In this sense,NESS parallels the national program of the ECE. It strives to build collaboration between lay andprofessional leaders, develops a democratic process of decision-making, seeks to engage all stake-holders(lay leaders, educators, clergy, etc.), works tointegrate the school into the life of the shul, andfocuses sharply on aligning the school and synagoguewith a clearly defined mission. In the view of itsleadership, there is no shortage of curricula ready


10 Sharon M. Ravitch, “Engaging and Retaining Jewish YouthBeyond Bar/Bat Mitzvah: An Action Research Study.” The Auerbach Central Agency for Jewish Education, 2002.

for use. The challenge is to get beyond curriculum to changing the way the congregation implementsJewish education.11 (For more on NESS, seehttp://www.acaje.org/content/ness/NESSInitiative.shtml)

The NESS program is a three-year “whole schoolintervention, custom-designed to meet the needs of each synagogue school.” Its approach is labor-intensive and based upon keeping a mix of effortsmoving forward in each of the schools. Although all61 local synagogue schools were encouraged to apply,only six could be brought into the first cohort.

The Auerbach CAJE offers professional developmentseminars for educational directors in the NESSprogram through Foundations, Inc., a nationalnonprofit organization that provides “technicalassistance to schools, school districts, and othereducational and community organizations” to developa Jewish school assessment and school improvementprocess. A team of assessors visits each school and,after talking with all the “stakeholders,” offers a reportand makes recommendations for school improvement.

NESS schools participate in a 30-hour on-siteseminar for their educators. Their approach is “to create meaning-centered, collaborative learningenvironments in the classroom.” One should notunderestimate the time and effort that goes intoNESS’s work with each school.

NESS has built into its approach a three-partassessment plan: 1. the training components of theproject; 2. the implementation of school plans forimprovement; 3. the impact of NESS on students’attitudes, knowledge and behaviors. Clearly,ongoing evaluation is highly prized by the program.At present, however, evaluations in the thirdcategory are not yet available.

To its great credit, the NESS program hasstructured its work so as to have an impact beyond

the confines of the Philadelphia Jewish community.An advisory committee of top Jewish educationalleaders from across the country has been formed,which connects the program to the denominationalorganizations, JESNA, some leadingphilanthropists, and local Philadelphia Jewishleadership. The leaders of NESS, moreover, havelaid the groundwork for the replication of NESS inother communities. A doctoral student at theUniversity of Pennsylvania is writing a dissertationon one aspect of its work, and training materialshave been collected to enable other communitiesto build upon the work of the NESS initiative.This foresight is noteworthy and commendable,particularly when we observe how often majorprograms do not create a paper trail for properassessment, let alone imitation.

It is too early to assess the impact of NESS, but it isevident that its developers have taken an unusuallyfarsighted approach that may yield rich benefits notonly for local congregational education, but also forsimilar programs in other communities. NESS self-consciously strives for the replication of its program.

NESS is also noteworthy for its direct relationshipwith organizations outside of the Jewish community,such as the Pennsylvania School of Education andFoundations, Inc.; these contacts confer upon NESS a measure of status and credibility that doesnot always result from a more conventional Jewishcommunal route. The program’s founders have beenquite deliberate in their stress on thorough researchas a means to build credibility with donors and todemonstrate the seriousness of the enterprise.

Equally significant, NESS is funded by privatephilanthropists. Its renown has encouraged the localfederation to contribute a small sum to the effort.NESS thus represents the anomaly: it was createdand is driven by a central agency without significantfederation support or funding. Perhaps theindependence of the agency accounts for its success;perhaps it is the drive of the CAJE director. Thisunique lineage may make it difficult to replicate.


11 This is not to suggest that NESS ignores curriculum. Itencourages schools to engage in a curriculum review and offersthem resources to facilitate such a process.

LA’ATID IN HARTFORD

La’atid is a program based in the Hartford Jewishcommunity and coordinated by the local federation’sCommission on Jewish Education.12 Now in its third cohort, the program currently works withseven local schools, all housed in either Conservativeor Reform synagogues. The program strives to dealwith schools “holistically.” It works with schooldirectors, rabbis, cantors, Jewish family educators,teachers, administrators and lay leaders in eachcongregation, but also brings these people to learntogether, to hear from experts outside thecommunity, and to share experiences and ideas.

The actual process of La’atid is one designed tobring “system change.” This is accomplished inacademic courses through the Hartford Institute of Jewish Studies, an affiliate of the University ofHartford; in conferences, workshops and Torahstudy sessions; through a process of team buildingwithin each congregation to involve the key“constituencies;” by spurring congregations todevelop a “distinct vision, mission statement andplan of action;” and by providing a surveyinstrument to gather data on congregational needs.Onsite, La’atid consultants then help congregationsimplement their plans, work to develop theprofessional and lay leadership, and assure ongoingevaluation. The goal is to create “communities oflearners” and “communities of teachers.” In additionto the program and personalized attention eachparticipating congregation receives, La’atid alsooffers challenge grants to enable congregations tomeet some of their goals.

La’atid draws inspiration from the burgeoningliterature on organizational change, whose gurus are Michael Fullan and Peter Senge, as well aslesser-known educational theorists who workspecifically on school reform. Not surprisingly, thebuzz words of such efforts are drawn from theliterature on organizational change—mission, sharedvision, “learning organizations,” etc. Like NESS, itis based in a single community and brings together

local congregational leaders to help one another.La’atid is funded by the Hartford federation, itsendowment fund, and the Covenant Foundation.

It needs to be stressed that like its ECE model,La’atid engages in a sweeping effort to bring aboutsynagogue change. School change, however, is acentral goal. A recent evaluation of the programoffered evidence of important changes in the wayeducational directors conduct their business,improved morale among the teachers who are farmore engaged in curricular planning and arelearning new skills, and higher expectations amonglay and professional leaders. The collaborativeapproach seems to help all the schools.13

Nevertheless, it would be premature to judge theirimpact on learners, families and congregations.

INDIVIDUAL SYNAGOGUE EFFORTS

Informed observers of the field also note the effortsof quite a few congregations engaged in a seriousreconfiguration of their synagogue schools quiteindependent of any larger initiatives. Undoubtedly,these efforts draw upon some of the ideas promotedby the ECE and other systemic change advocates.Still, the driving force within congregations comesfrom engaged lay people and professionals who areprepared to work together to improve the school.School directors with energy and commitment areindispensable. And the partnership between therabbi and cantor or education director is critical insuch a process, as is the active involvement of acadre of lay leaders. No one has collected reports on how individual congregations have remade theirschools, and it remains to be seen whether thesecongregations have left a paper trail that mightbenefit other schools.


13 My remarks about La’atid are based on an interview with Dr.Sandy Waldman Dashefsky who heads the program and whoprovided me with some written material on the program,including unpublished evaluations prepared by JESNA. Theprogram was featured in an article entitled “La’atid: Synagoguesfor the Future—An Experiment in Synagogue Revitalization,”Jewish Education News, Winter 5762, pp. 50-53. See also thepaper by Sandy Waldman Dashefsky and Leora W. Isaacs,“La’atid: Synagogues for the Future—Factors for SuccessfulOrganizational Change in Three Congregations,” presented tothe Network for Research in Jewish Education, June 2004.12 “La’atid: Synagogues for the Future.” Unpaginated.


Not surprisingly, rabbis are often identified ascritically important promoters of improvement, oras hindrances. The growing interest of some pulpitrabbis in Jewish education as a means to enrichsynagogue life has helped some schools turn around.Conversely, when pulpit rabbis are not engaged,their aloofness can serve as a major obstacle. As thefield advances, it will have to encourage rabbinicalseminaries to foster a commitment among theirstudents to regard Jewish education as critical totheir mission. It will also be important to exposerabbinical students to positive teaching experiencesand models of well-run schools. If future rabbisobserve only failing schools during their formativeyears, they are more likely to avoid engaging withtheir synagogue school when they assume a pulpit.

Among the models created by individualcongregations are family education programs in lieu of formal schooling; creating a “camp”atmosphere, rather than a school environment as a substitute for formal synagogue-basededucation; infusing the preschool with spokenHebrew; and introducing a heavy environmentalfocus to entice high school students. Clearly,experimentation is currently in vogue.

Some federations are active participants in thisprocess. In places such as Boston and Cleveland, the federation serves as a spur to congregations or as a partner. In other communities, individualcongregations are taking the initiative on their own without federation support.

EVALUATION

What has been the impact of the new efforts insupplementary education? Most of the initiativesbuild in an evaluation process, usually performed by outside consultants, drawn either from othercommunities, national agencies such as JESNA, or from schools of education. Generally, theseevaluations pose some of the difficult questions andare not merely sugar-coated. On the positive side,

these programs have brought hope. Where oncecongregational schooling was regarded as a futileenterprise, now there is a sense of excitement. At theleast, educators can experiment with a mix of formaland informal education, with new approaches tocurriculum, with more flexible time configurations,and with renewed support from lay leaders andrabbis. In some of the more ambitious systemicchange efforts, a vast infrastructure for change hascome into existence, drawing upon new resourcesand personnel from within each congregation, from across local communities and from nationaleducational leaders. All this contributes to a new sense of forward movement. The creativeinvolvement of lay leaders with expertise inorganizational change also fosters a climate ofchange. Still, caution is in order, if only because a fraction of all supplementary schools are engagedin any of these efforts.

When pressed to quantify the impact of such efforts,educational leaders associated with these programsfocus on three important developments:

1. Children seem to remain in supplementaryschooling for longer periods of time. As aconsequence, there is less pressure to compressall of Jewish education into a three-year periodprior to the bar/bat mitzvah milestone. It hasbecome more common, some claim, for childrento enroll from pre-K to grade 8, with growingnumbers in some communities or congregations whostay on for high school programming. (Theseclaims warrant verification.) Added school years,some contend, offset the reduction in weeklyclass hours.

2. The second piece of evidence adduced is lessquantifiable—a perceived improvement in theatmosphere of schools. Observers claim thatchildren are less resentful of the supplementaryeducation imposed upon them after “school”hours. More generally, improvements incurriculum, the elimination of unnecessaryrepetition, the mixture of cognitive and affectivelearning, and the involvement of parents in


family education and adult education arereshaping the learning environment so thatstudents feel more positively about the overallexperience. Educators claim fewer disciplinaryproblems than in the past. They also claim tohear more about family dinner conversationssparked by what was learned in school. By theirown admission, those who speak of such trendsare sharing their impressions; theyare not able to cite hard data.

3. Lastly, as a result of the systemicchange initiatives, a newcriterion for assessment hasemerged. How many parents areengaged in serious Jewisheducation? The reasoning here isthat if parents serve as positiverole models, their children willbenefit because the entire familywill take Jewish education moreseriously and parents will serve as educators oftheir children. Some congregations, in fact, havebegun to quantify these changes: it is not unusualto hear educators boast that in Congregation Xone quarter of the adults are engaged in ongoinglearning, and that in Congregation Y, all parentsare involved in some aspect of Jewish education.

Significantly, several of the new initiatives quiteexplicitly reject some of the standard criteria forsuccess that might be measured through testing.Systemic change advocates generally do not evaluatetheir efforts by testing for content knowledge.Rather, they seek to create moments of personalmeaning for children, to build community, to“enculturate” young Jews. It is not clear how suchefforts dovetail with skill-building and theacquisition of knowledge.

Moreover, there is a great deal of agnosticismmasquerading as experimentation in the fieldconcerning the objectives of Jewish education. Goalsare loosely defined, and no one is prepared to setstandards of achievement. Without such articulatedgoals, it is hard to evaluate success in an objectivefashion. Hence, responses to questions about theimpact of change initiatives are highly subjective.

When pressed still further, theheads of the various initiativesadmit that it is impossible toanswer the “$64,000 questions.”Is there a way to ascertainwhether children are learningmore and are more engaged with Jewish life due to changeinitiatives? And is there any wayto gauge the longer term impactof these changes? It is not easy to find an educator who is

prepared to affirm that the answers to thesequestions are known. The best we can hope for isto survey graduates of the reformed and improvedsupplementary system 15 years from now in orderto judge how engaged they have become in Jewish life. This, we should note, was the method used to study the impact of Jewish educationalexperiences in the past. It is an imperfect methodof measurement and by the time we know theanswers, another generation will have passedthrough the system. In the short-term, we can test students at regular intervals to determine howtheir knowledge and skills grew during particularschool years and how their experiences in thesupplementary school altered their levels of Jewishparticipation. But the field currently functions withlittle attention to “outcomes assessment.”

…there is a great dealof agnosticism

masquerading asexperimentation in the field concerning

the objectives of Jewish education.

The field of supplementary Jewish educationcurrently operates with few, if any, up-to-date studies. Relatively little new research

has been done to describe and analyze types ofschools within the denominational and non-denominational spheres, the numbers of students,enrollment patterns, the variety of school models,the range of school configurations, the nature ofnew initiatives, and the outcomes of new approachesto supplementary Jewish education. Perhaps thestrongest recent contributions to the field have beena “Best Practices” compilation entitledSupplementary School Education, edited by Barry W.Holtz14 and Joseph Reimer’s Succeeding at JewishEducation: How One Synagogue Made It Work.15 Bothvolumes appeared over a decade ago and reflectresearch conducted even earlier.

In order to stimulate thinking in the field ofsupplementary Jewish education, AVI CHAI intendsto launch three research projects in 2007 with thegoal of bringing new findings to the attention ofeducators and makers of Jewish educational policy.

A CENSUS OF ENROLLMENT FOR THE2006-07 SCHOOL YEAR

At present, educators are working in a data vacuum:some have information on trends within their owncommunity; more often, they have no data.16 A

census will help clarify key questions of school sizeand enrollment trends. Specifically, it will determinewhen the bulk of students begin and end theirstudies, how extensive enrollments are beyond thebar/bat mitzvah years, and how many hours childrenengage in Jewish education. Undoubtedly, a censuswill also shed light on the large variety ofsupplementary configurations now available forfamilies—i.e., the mix of days, hours, types ofeducational experience, etc. The census will alsostrive to assess the impact of communal context:which communities succeed better than others inretaining teenagers? In order to avoid needlessduplication, AVI CHAI is actively seeking partners in national agencies, such as JESNA and theDepartment of Lifelong Jewish Learning at the URJ,which are surveying related dimensions of the field.

CASE STUDIES OF TEN SUPPLEMENTARYSCHOOLS OF VARYING MODELS

Particularly in light of the many school experimentscurrently underway, the field and its supporterswould benefit from extensive descriptions of howvarious types of schools are structured and thevariables that shape their efforts.

A team of academic researchers and practitionerswill engage in qualitative research designed to bringto light the extent to which schools are succeedingaccording to their own stated criteria of success.

Based on these ten case studies, broaderconclusions will be drawn about the complexinteraction of factors that school reformers atother institutions will need to consider in order toassess the opportunities and constraints within the

AVI CHAI’s Engagement with the Field

AVI CHAI’s Engagement with the Field 21

14 Published by the Council for Initiatives in Jewish Education in1993 and 1996.

15 Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997.

16 As this report went to press, two important surveys were underway—a survey of educators sponsored by the Jewish EducationServices of North America, and a survey of Jewish learning withinthe Reform movement, sponsored by the Department of LifelongJewish learning of the URJ.

supplementary school field. Factors to beconsidered will include: the role and interaction ofprofessional leadership (school heads, educators,rabbis and cantors); the relationship of theseprofessionals with lay leadership on the synagogueboard and the education committee; therecruitment and retention of educators in theseschools; the development and utilization ofcurricula; and the impact ofdenominational organizations and published curricula.

ASSESSMENT AT THE CENTER

To date, much of the conversationabout supplementary schoolsfocuses on new efforts to improvetheir functioning—e.g.,investments in teacher training andin-service training for schooldirectors; new curricula; creating awarmer, more enjoyable classenvironment; incorporatinginformal education andexperiential opportunities into the life of theschool; and re-thinking school hours and the useof time. By contrast, little is said about the

outcomes schools hope to achieve. This project isdesigned to rebalance the conversation from analmost exclusive emphasis on “inputs” to one thattakes “outputs” seriously.

A team of experts on outcomes assessment drawnfrom within the field of Jewish supplementaryeducation as well as from general education will

develop tools designed to helpschools engage in self-study tomeasure the short-term impact of their programs. Since schoolsdiffer considerably, it will benecessary to create a range ofmeasures. The goal would be todevelop rigorous evaluativeinstruments that would yieldconclusions about the linksbetween articulated goals, modelsto achieve them, and outcomes. Ifproperly designed, suchevaluative instruments could be aboon to schools and educators, as

well as help the entire field of supplementaryeducation to engage in outcomes assessment.

22 AVI CHAI’s Engagement with the Field

The goal would be todevelop rigorous

evaluative instrumentsthat would yield

conclusions about thelinks between

articulated goals,models to achieve them,

and outcomes.

Acknowledgements 23

This report has benefited from the constructive observations of Mem Bernstein, Arthur Fried, Deena Fuchs,Yossi Prager, Dr. Marvin Schick, Michael Trapunsky and Prof. Ruth Wisse. I also received valuable feedback at two consultations: In Boston, I learned from a lively exchange with Cheryl Aronson, Marjorie Berkowitz,Marion Gribetz, Annette Koren, Leslie Littman, Joseph Reimer and Susan Shevitz. In New York, I receivedmuch helpful feedback from Robert Abramson, Sandy Dashefsky, Barry Holtz, Jan Katzew, Steven Kraus, Helene Tigay and Cyd Weissman.

Jack Wertheimer is Provost and Professor of American Jewish History at the Jewish Theological Seminary. A report on a previous research project he directed for the AVI CHAI Foundation is entitled, “Linking the Silos:How to Accelerate the Momentum in Jewish Education Today.” A book-length volume on the project is due toappear in the spring of 2007 under the title, Family Matters: Jewish Education in an Age of Choice (University Pressof New England).

Acknowledgements

* * * * * *

USAThe AVI CHAI Foundation1015 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10028Phone: 212-396-8850Fax: 212-396-8833E-mail: [email protected]

IsraelKeren AVI CHAI44 King George Street94262 JerusalemPhone: 02-621-5330Fax: 02-621-5331E-mail: [email protected]

www.avichai.org

recent trends in supplementary jewish education march 2007

Documents