Responses to Impact of Day School Report May - June 2007

Transcription

1 The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Mifgashim Thread: Responses to Impact of Day School Report May - June 2007 MIFGASHIM Mifgashim is a project of The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Volume 6, Number 14 May 17, 2007 / 29 Iyyar 5767 Moderator: Peretz Rodman [ ] 3. Responses to Impact of Day School Report [At a conference in New York on May 14, PEJE (Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education) released a long-awaited study of The Impact of Day School: A Comparative Analysis of Jewish College Students, conducted by a team of researchers led by Fern Chertok and Leonard Saxe for the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University. Mifgashim invited several members of our e-community to offer some initial thoughts on the report. These are the first of those replies. Of course, your own contribution to the discussion in welcomed and encouraged.] [The full report can be seen online at: and the executive summary can be seen online at: Moderator] a. Response to Impact of Day School Report From: Judy Groner (Head of School, B'nai Shalom Day School Greensboro, North Carolina) While the results of the Cohen Center paper are gratifying and verify what we as educators believe about the impact of day school education, the report also serves as a vehicle to sharpen our focus on current

2 challenges. Like other Heads of School, I know that the decision to enroll a child in a Jewish day school is a significant choice for parents (p. 5). Nor are we surprised that undergraduates who attended day school are significantly more likely to feel strongly connected to the other Jewish students on their campus (p. 29). Yet after reading the report, it is still not obvious whether the indicated achievements belong to us, the day school educators, or to the parents who opted to prioritize a day school education for their children. The study does not address the characteristics of non-orthodox parents who enroll their children in Jewish day school. Its findings may reflect on our success in day school education or on the values imparted by those parents who made the choice (and possibly the financial sacrifice) to register their children. Likewise, while it is not unexpected that day school graduates are active participants in Jewish life on college campuses, it is not clear that educators alone can take credit for this accomplishment. Over the last few years, the Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education has been extraordinarily successful in its mission to establish new day schools. Now that more schools exist, the Impact of Day School report suggests new and significant challenges. We need to find funding for comprehensive marketing campaigns to help persuade hesitant parents that day school education does not compromise academic achievement or admission to top-tier universities. Concurrently, we must locate resources to attract, prepare and effectively compensate day school faculty in perceived areas of weakness, particularly for math, science and individual learning needs b. Response to Impact of Day School Report From: Beth Huppin (Jewish studies teacher, Seattle Jewish Community School, Seattle, Washington) As a Jewish day school teacher who often is asked about the ability of day schools to deliver an excellent Jewish and secular education, I was very happy to see that this study has been done. That said, the big questions that plague me as a teacher remain. The study shows a correlation between day school attendance and Jewish commitment. I am not yet convinced that it is the day school itself that creates that commitment. We have to ask ourselves: who are the families sending their children to a day school? Don't we already have a self-selected

3 group of children and families in Jewish day schools? Is it the day school that creates the commitment to Judaism and to Israel? Or is it the family? What role did other Jewish institutions play in the children's Jewish growth? How many of these children also went to Jewish summer camps? Did they attend synagogue regularly? Were their families even synagogue members? Have their parents been to Israel? What was the dinner conversation like in their homes growing up? Were Jewish topics commonly discussed? Did the parents do their own Jewish learning? I find it hard to give the day schools all of the credit. Perhaps we can take some of the credit, but I'm not sure how much. We work as a team with families and other Jewish institutions. Without them, we cannot be successful. Is the Day School the most important piece of the puzzle? Anecdotally, I have to note that I grew up in Spokane, Washington, which is a small, isolated Jewish community with one liberal Conservative synagogue. There were 20 Jewish kids in the synagogue high school youth group in my day -- and it hasn't changed much even today -- and virtually everyone was a member of the shul and the youth group. We didn't have a Jewish Day School in town. I was a good student, but our Hebrew school education was so poor that after 6 years of Hebrew school all I could do was "read" Hebrew -- very quickly. I understood almost nothing. And yet almost every one of us married a Jew and a very high percentage of us went on to become extremely involved in the Jewish communities where we now live, either as professionals or as lay people. If day schools could produce such a high number of committed graduates, we'd be lucky indeed. Why did (and do) Spokane Jews stay so committed to Judaism even without a strong Jewish school? The other big question that I think would be extremely difficult to measure, but about which I constantly wonder, relates to the *quality* of the *Jewish* education received by students in Jewish day schools. When the students leave our schools we can measure whether or not they are prepared for math and other secular subjects. We can, on some level, measure whether or not they succeed academically in the "real world." But what constitutes a meaningful *Jewish* education? The answer to this question may vary from community to community. I would be curious to know, from the perspective of the students, whether or not they received a meaningful and useful Jewish education at their day schools. If they left after grade school, do they remember anything? Even if they don't remember much, do they love Jewish learning and want to continue it as adults?

4 As a teacher in a community day school, I strive to give my students a deep love of and comfort with Jewish texts. What does it take to succeed at this goal? How many years do we need to succeed? How important is spoken Hebrew? T'fillah literacy and comfort? Textual literacy and comfort? Knowledge and love of Israel? Since the study clearly shows that we need to do a better job of addressing individual learning needs, what do we do for the child for whom the study of any second language (let alone one that you have to read backwards) is almost out of reach because of learning issues? The study addresses the question of Jewish commitment, but it doesn't address the issues of Jewish knowledge and literacy. Do Jewish day schools create life-long *Jewish* learners? Or do the graduates think they already know it all because they went to a Jewish day school? Are they humble about their Jewish knowledge and eager for more? All this having been said, I am thrilled to have ammunition from this study to show those parents who are afraid that their children won't succeed in the real world if they send them to a Jewish school. I have seen my students not only succeed but thrive after leaving the "cocoon" of a Jewish school. It is nice to have research confirmation of my anecdotal experiences to share with nervous parents MIFGASHIM Mifgashim is a project of The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Volume 6, Number 15 May 31, 2007 / 16 Sivan 5767 Moderator: Peretz Rodman [ ] 2. Responses to Impact of Day School Report [See Mifgashim 6:13, May 17, for information on a study of The Impact of Day School: A Comparative Analysis of Jewish College Students, to which these responses relate.] 2. a. Response to Impact of Day School Report From: Dr. Ezra Kopelowitz, CEO,

5 Research Success Technologies (ReST) The report, The Impact of Day School: A Comparative Analysis of Jewish College Students, is a solid empirical study and serves well to fill a void in our knowledge about day school education. However, for all of its positive qualities, the report does not teach us about the impact of day school education on Jewish continuity. The report is symptomatic of the larger dearth of a discussion in the American Jewish community about the core American Jew. Very little attention is paid to the Jews who are the backbone of the American Jewish community -- the largest consumers of Jewish culture, those who are most likely to affiliate with Jewish institutions, and the people who the lay leaders and communal activists. If we don t understand who these people are, we cannot understand and assess the impact of day schools on core issues of Jewish continuity. To understand if the day school is making a significant contribution to Jewish continuity, we need to compare the children of core American Jews based on day school attendance. For example, if we have two university aged Jews, both of whom belonged to a Jewish youth movement in high school, attended a Jewish camp, went on an Israel trip, whose family subscribes to a Jewish newspaper etc, but one went to day school and the other didn t -- is there a discernable difference between them? What we do learn in this report is that the more involved a Jew is in Jewish community, the more likely we are to find that he or she exhibits the characteristics typical of membership in a coherent counter-culture. We should expect that core American Jews will send their children to day school. We should also expect that these core American Jews and their children, regardless of day school attendance, are more likely to want to engage in Jewish learning and will be less likely to binge on alcohol and exhibit other types of similar behaviors than their non-jewish counterparts. If anything, it is the last finding that is the most interesting, as it points to cultural continuity -- i.e., the classic stereotype that Jews drink less than non-jews. The value of this report is that it points to markers that help distinguish core Jews from others. However, the report does not establish that day school education has an impact on what might simply be the Jewish behavior of core American Jews, one aspect of which is day school attendance. A second issue, and one that is only partially addressed by the report, is the quality of Jewish education in a day school. It is fascinating that the researchers

6 only ask about quality of secular studies. Do young Jews who graduate day school find the Jewish knowledge and skills received at day school meaningful for their lives? Beyond the desire to date Jews, do day school graduates have a stronger desire to seek out the company of other Jews, and when in the presence of other Jews are they able to interact in a more particularly Jewish way -- whether through song, prayer or other religious ritual, knowledge of Jewish culture, food, current events, interest in Israel etc.? In other words, are day schools contributing to the creation and fortification of a coherent and vibrant American Jewish sub-culture? Are day schools helping to strengthen the core of the American Jewish community? If the answer to the above question is yes, then what are the differences between different types of day schools? Are some more successful than others at making Jewish belonging into a meaningful way of life? From the perspective of Jewish continuity, what is the difference between a successful and less successful Jewish day school? In summary, this day school impact report offers sold empirical data and provides us with a playing ground for further exploration of the data collected by the researchers and for future research. However, the research results do not help us (at least without further data analysis) with understanding the contribution of day schools to Jewish continuity b. Response to Impact of Day School Report From: Eran Frumkin Los Angeles To my mind, the best news in the study is this: When students are asked to reflect on the social climate of the high schools they attended, Jewish high school alumni describe a greater sense of belonging in their schools and feel more strongly that their peers enjoyed being together than do respondents who attended either private or public high schools. (p.25) Our major goal in Jewish day schools, I would argue, is to enculturate students into Jewish society, to make them want to seek out the company of other Jews. As Steven M. Cohen and other sociologists have argued, that is the basis upon which all Jewish continuity rests. The rest, as it were, is commentary. It appears that Jewish high schools, the day schools that reach our kids at the cusp of their independent identity choices, contribute to achieving that end, apart from all their cognitive accomplishments in the realm of Jewish knowledge. Next

7 we need to ask the study s authors, or the researchers who will follow up with further work, to isolate several schools that are particularly effective in this regard and to study the components of that success. And one heretical thought: is the impact in this realm worth the expense? Can a combination of camping, Israel programs, and youth movements get us the same sense of belonging at a lower cost? If so, the high schools will have to justify their existence on the basis of those cognitive outcomes. Can they? MIFGASHIM Mifgashim is a project of The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education Volume 6, Number 16 June 7, 2007 / 22 Sivan 5767 Moderator: Peretz Rodman [ ] 3. Response to Impact of Day School Report From: Rabbi Jack Bieler Silver Spring, Maryland I have read with interest the report The Impact of Day School: A Comparative Analysis of Jewish College Students as well as the responses that have appeared to date in the last two issues of Mifgashim. I am sure that many will call attention to aspects of the study and suggest that they be reconsidered in light of particular perspectives and approaches to Jewish identity and lifestyle. Nevertheless, being able to reflect upon trends and issues from the perspective of considerable data gathered in the field takes the conversation about day schools to new levels of sophistication, and for this we should be grateful to PEJE for sponsoring the study as well as to the Cohen Center for carrying it out so impressively. With regard to the report s general assumptions and implications, I would like to raise the following considerations: a. My personal experience in day schools and synagogues has demonstrated to me that individual s association with Judaism and Jewish life often wax and wane over the course of his lifetime. Consequently, I have frequently encountered instances where students who grow up in traditional homes and attend day schools experiment with other lifestyles during their college years, only to renew

8 their Jewish commitments when they marry and raise families. (Of course, the growing phenomenon of young Jews significantly delaying marriage removes one of the key impetuses for their reassociation with the Jewish community, which clearly gives cause for concern.) The opposite trend can also be observed, i.e., Jewish identity and affiliation continues through the college years, but then dissipates due to marriage with a spouse uninterested in creating a Jewish home, professional pursuits that require the person to eschew participating in a Jewish communal setting, and living somewhere far from other Jews. I am therefore suggesting that the influence of day school education ought to be studied not only in the short term, with respect to the years immediately following high school, but also during the years that lie well beyond adolescence in order to attempt to detect how long-lasting and deep seated such an educational and social experience could be. I believe that parents considering the investment and sacrifices that day school education requires are not only concerned about whether their child will be able to function well in a college setting, but later in life as well. b. One of the criteria used in the report to determine participation in Jewish life on campus was participation in Judaic studies courses (p. 35). I have encountered any number of times how students enrollment in these types of courses (in contradistinction to Jewish text learning that takes place under the auspices of Jewish organizations on campus, referred to on p. 32) has had a detrimental effect upon observance and sense of Jewish identity. Students personal religious assumptions are often powerfully challenged by their professors and readings with respect to assumptions of the Divine Origin of primary texts, the wisdom and objectivity of Rabbinic authorities, and the psychological, anthropological and sociological conceptions of why human beings are drawn to religion. While I personally believe that faith should be intellectually tested in order to assure that it is well thought-out and understood, students are often exposed only to critiques of traditional religious belief, devoid of possible responses and defenses. Therefore, while the initial decision to enroll in such a course may reflect interest and even commitment in Jewish learning, the ultimate effect of such study may in fact prove counterproductive with respect to Jewish continuity and commitment. Therefore some students might pointedly avoid such courses due to their concern that, rather than enhancing their Jewish experience, such study might be deleterious to it. Furthermore, just as the report contains a recommendation that day schools should do more to properly prepare their students in the fields of math, science and computers, they might also do well to consider how to anticipate future challenges to their students religious views on the college campus. c. The report describes the impressive commitment of day school graduates to

9 community service and Jewish ethics as compared to their fellow college students (p. 37). What is not fleshed out is whether these values manifest themselves for the most part in terms of service to the general society, or whether at least a portion of these activities are devoted to other Jews in need. It is certainly a reflection of Jewish values to offer one s time and resources to assist those in need. However, since a college student can offer help in only a limited manner, to what extent do these activities serve to deepen Jewish identity by developing empathy for Jews who are in desperate straits, as opposed to focusing upon being a good citizen and a caring human being? Is the value of Gemilut Chasadim (good deeds) that was learned so well in the day school, being harnessed in the interests of deepening a sense of responsibility to Jews, or does it manifest itself in ever-greater non-specificity on the college campus? d. Finally, the report comments that parents considering day school education are concerned that the lack of diversity in day schools will leave their children with less experience of how to function in a pluralistic society. (p. 5) And in the anecdotal introduction to the section entitled Bursting the Day School Bubble : Social Life on Campus, Andrea states positively As I have become more comfortable here, I ve gotten to know a lot of other people and now many of my friends are not Jewish, (p. 25) offering evidence that such parental concerns are unfounded. However, should one be concerned that students, even those who have been educated in day schools, can become too comfortable? The ideal stance would seem to be where a student is able to feel that he fits in, but not that he loses a sense of his Jewishness and commitment to a Jewish lifestyle. While for some, the fact that day school graduates are socially comfortable on campus is laudable, for others this will raise a red flag, at least to some extent. Perhaps a sophisticated set of questions to try to ascertain the otherness sameness quotient would be in order. With respect to Judy Groner s and Beth Huppin s comments regarding the extent to which the family has played a significant role in the success of day school students navigating the college campus, I would not only concur but would also add that in my view it takes a village to try to develop Jewish identity. Not only are the home and school key components, but also the synagogue, the summer camp, the youth group, the Israel experience, etc. Granted, those parents who utilize all of these resources are stacking the deck heavily in favor of their children carrying on their Jewish traditions. Nevertheless, perhaps it is not only up to pro-active parents. Strategic planners should view the day school as one component in a master plan by which young Jews can grow up proud of who they are and committed to the Jewish people throughout their lives. As for Huppin s and Ezra Kopelowitz s concern in terms of the type of Jewish learning that takes place in the day school and whether life-long learners are

10 produced, I very much concur, perhaps because of my own personal bias. I believe that Jewish commitment and belief must be dynamic and, as I stated earlier, it will perforce change over the course of one s lifetime. Consequently, what one has been taught while a child or adolescent will not be able to stand up to later life experience, particularly when one inevitably encounters the trials and tribulations to our existential realities that come with age. In my opinion, only a Jewish commitment that is based upon reflection and learning can be sufficiently resilient to deal with not only what is happening while an individual is a student in school, but also well beyond. While we should cultivate Jewish activists and those who will affiliate with Jewish institutions, providing the means by which to navigate one s life is similarly extremely crucial, and therefore the quality of the intellectual Jewish education that one obtains in a day school setting becomes extremely important. Lastly, when Kopelowitz notes that the effectiveness of a day school is indicated by how well a school s graduates do in their next educational context, impetus is given not only to analyze the day school experience as a whole, but each school s own track record. By following its students in terms of the criteria studied in the report, individual day schools themselves might gain insights into how to improve the nature of the total education they are offering their students. The Mifgashim List is a project of The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education in the Diaspora, The School of Education, Bar Ilan University The Center encourages you to become a paid member and benefit for the wide variety of programming offered by the Center. For information see membership.htm To leave the list, respond to this message with the word "remove" in the subject line. To post a message, please write us at: mifgashim@listserv.biu.ac.il You can search the archives at Check out online educational materials and information on other Lookstein Center programs on our website at The e-community is supported by generous grants from Evelyn and Shmuel Katz, Bal Harbour, Fl., and Pamela and Barry Fingerhut, New York, NY. Further information may be obtained by writing to: info@lookstein.org