Category: Building Professional Learning Communities (Fall 2007)
Dr. Wallace Greene is the Director of Jewish Educational Services for the UJA Federation of Northern New Jersey. He is also President of The National Board of License for Teachers and Principals of Jewish Schools in North America.
Professional Learning Communities (PLC) form wherever there are educators who are reflective practitioners. Whenever teachers engage in analyzing the why and how of what they do, and whenever this is done collegially – whether formally or informally – a PLC is said to exist. We are perhaps familiar with PLCs that are part of the old guild system in which there were apprentices learning from journeymen and artisans. The same can be said about quality internships and student teaching programs. However, in schools where there is no systemic or systematic professional development, people are disconnected. One-day seminars are practically worthless in this regard and schools traditionally do not invest adequate resources to grow a PLC. Much of what is called “professional development” in the U.S. takes place because the calendar dictates a secular holiday or observance. It takes a great deal of ruthless determination, true dedication, and targeted energy to develop and maintain a PLC in a school with teachers from varying academic disciplines and disparate backgrounds.
The Professional Learning Community
A Professional Learning Community exists among the teachers in the program to be described here because the principles of Action Research form a key element of this fraternal network of reflective educators. There is disciplined inquiry that impacts directly on a teacher's practice and empowers them to renew their classrooms and promote instructional improvement. (Glanz, 1991) There is much self-reflective inquiry. (Kemmis, 1983) There exists a systematic study of attempts to improve educational practice by the participants by means of their own practical actions and by means of their own reflection upon the effects of those actions. (Ebbutt, 1985) There is a disciplined process of inquiry conducted by and for those taking the action. And the primary goal is to assist the teacher in improving and/or refining his or her actions (Sagor, 2000).
Sirotnik (1987) and Joyce (1991) argue that an Action Research-based PLC is a process that develops a problem-solving ethos. Sagor (2000) identifies three purposes for Action Research: building the reflective practitioner, making progress on school wide priorities, and building a professional culture in the educational arena. Each of these outcomes helps create an environment of learning and progress toward educational goals, and as a result they have become the focus of many school-based activities.
What makes this PLC work so well are the opportunities for teachers to learn from each other within the diverse professional and personal approaches that each represents. The two-way feedback after each observation, and frequent meetings with small and large groups as well as the whole group contributes to its success.
This article describes a community-based instructional program that has created and fostered a PLC. Jewish Educational Services of the UJA Federation of Northern New Jersey (JES) received a grant from The Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture to elevate the teaching of Hebrew in our community. In order to do this we, i.e. Jewish Educational Services, needed not only to create a new approach and new teaching materials ex nihilo, but also to create a PLC. This article illustrates the development of a PLC of teachers of Hebrew in fifteen schools who participate in the program called Hebrew in America.
Why the Hebrew Pilot Program
Hebrew, the irreplaceable language of Jewish life, has experienced a revival of Hebrew in the last century-and-a-half as singular a feat as the creation of the Jewish state. Hebrew has been wholly transformed from an unwieldy classical medium of liturgy and learning into a modern Western language. In a Jewish world of sundry and proliferating divisions, Hebrew must emerge as the common and unifying language of the Jewish people. The natural bonds of language and culture bind more firmly than those of abstruse ideological constructs.
Hebrew literacy has seriously declined as a result of American Jewry’s accelerating integration into American life. Jewish peoplehood is achieved by the transmission of our collective memory and culture, rooted in our common language, literature and values. Lacking a common language means we also lack a common vocabulary, not only of words, but of values, norms and ideals. Thus, there are compelling national and ideological reasons to undertake a comprehensive program for the propagation of Hebrew.
Unfortunately, many educational institutions as a whole do not seem to value Hebrew as a tool, nor (with a few notable exceptions) do they make any sincere or educationally valid efforts to offer instruction in it. When pressed, schools will reluctantly acknowledge that Hebrew is important, but that there are a variety of constraints such as the lack of properly trained and/or knowledgeable teachers, too few hours available, and the unwillingness to sacrifice content on the altar of Hebrew literacy. There may be Ivrit B’Ivrit taking place in the primary grades, but there is no real understanding of the learning process involved nor of the component pedagogic principles. Pre-packaged programs/texts are utilized. Where it exists it is school based, not community-wide, and teachers rarely if ever meet to discuss techniques or strategies. It falters and disappears in the middle grades and in high school.
To address these issues, the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture launched a pilot program that focuses primarily on Hebrew as a portal to Jewish culture, literacy and Jewish text. The project is planned to cover Hebrew in pre-school programs, day schools, summer camps, and synagogues over a period of several years. Northern New Jersey was selected as the model community, though it can be replicated in other communities in the United States and the Diaspora. The presence of this program in one community is producing a synergy amongst the discrete programs that amplifies the cultural vitality of the program as a whole and is more effective than a program dispersed geographically.
The underlying conceptual basis of this program is to change the culture regarding Hebrew in a community, in this instance, the culture regarding Hebrew in Jewish pre-schools, day schools, and synagogue schools. Should we succeed in changing the culture about Hebrew in the educational system, we will have taken a major step towards the next stage, which is helping trigger change in other communal institutions as well (e.g., camps, synagogues, universities, JCCs).
Getting Started
The initial phase of the program entailed working in close contact and cooperation with the directors of early childhood programs and principals. We needed to first ascertain their perception of the role of Hebrew in their schools and then, hopefully, assist them in enlarging their perception of the possibilities for expanding and intensifying the propagation of Hebrew in their schools. Northern New Jersey was selected as the pilot program due to its strong day schools, high level of support, study and travel to Israel, and the high leadership quality of its Jewish education professionals.
The first challenge was getting principals and early childhood directors to agree to participate in this initiative. The issue of Hebrew language instruction and literacy is quite broad – indeed, we discovered to our dismay that even native Hebrew speakers were observed to teach Hebrew in English. We needed to come up with a new approach to a serious problem. So, we created a learning process that, from its very beginning, seeks to engender positive attitudes towards Hebrew, its culture and its speakers, and a fondness and sympathy for the language as a national value.
The success of this initiative is due directly to the creation of a PLC with those who teach Hebrew, once “the method” was unveiled. After considerable thought and research, we developed a two-prong approach based on teaching Hebrew as a second language,[i] and utilizing brain research about how young children learn.[ii] This is the child’s first formal encounter with the Hebrew language. The more the encounter is embedded in a positive experience of enjoyment, involvement, interest, self-expression, and a sense of success, the greater the chance of it having a positive effect on the learner’s attitude towards Hebrew in the future. The encouragement of a positive attitude towards Hebrew is particularly important precisely because Hebrew is not merely a language tool, but is also a means of acclimation into Jewish culture which can make the child “feel at home” in the Jewish cultural world.
Studies have shown that the earlier a child starts a second language the more opportunities there will be to use this knowledge and strengthen it with formal and informal learning.[iii] Early childhood is suitable for the acquisition of Hebrew due to the characteristics of a child’s learning. There is a natural reference to the language and use of it to communicate, with no need for rational explanations. There is no fear of implementation, and there is a readiness to take risks and make mistakes. [The detailed pedagogy of this Hebrew language program will be the subject of another article.] Children as young as three years old are exposed to spoken Hebrew so that by the time they reach first grade, Hebrew is the natural language of instruction will not be a barrier to learning.
We visited many schools and presented our ideas to teachers and principals. Talented and industrious teachers of Hebrew understand the issues inherent in conveying a foreign language to pre-schoolers. They are always looking for ways to become better at what they do. We presented an approach and a philosophy of Hebrew language instruction which made sense to them. Our concepts are based on brain research and second language acquisition skills and are adaptable to day school and congregational school settings. Furthermore, the modules to be described below allow for differences between native Hebrew speakers and those who are less fluent. (What follows is a brief summary of the program since our goal is to describe the Professional Learning Community which is an integral part Hebrew in America and leave the specifics and mechanics of the program itself to another article.)
Schools choose between three separate programs. All three programs advocate a strong Hebrew environment in the early childhood classroom and the exclusive use of Hebrew in classroom management.
Chalav U’dvash: This new program from Israel emphasizes sentence structure. It is a two year curriculum for children 3-6 years old. It is a hands-on program with many sensory experiences, pictures, music, books and Bentzie, the turtle puppet. Bentzie helps teach Hebrew since that is his only language. This module is used by those most fluent in Hebrew. Jewish Educational Services field tested this text published by JAFI, had training with one of the authors, teleconferenced with Israel and e-mailed frequently, and brainstormed among ourselves at regular sharing sessions. These suggestions were eventually incorporated into the published texts. We also offer training to other communities who choose to use this program.
Total Physical Response (TPR) or Ivrit Bitnua: This was adapted by Lifsa Schachter and Shoshana Glatzer from the well known TPR developer, Dr. James Asher.[iv] Based on the way children learn their first language and extensive brain research, the program responds to the idea that language is relayed through body movements. Young children learn the second language through activities using body movements, games, music and social interactions. Books are introduced later in the school year. The program is friendly to non-native Hebrew teachers.
Hebrew in Thematic Units: Designed for kindergarten, Hebrew is learned through content themes such as holidays, seasons and appropriate literature (e.g. Big Books designed and produced by Shoshana Glatzer). The program incorporates books written specifically for this program as well as other well known books such as Nitzanim I series.
These three modules have now been tested for two years and they work. The excitement of teachers learning and then trying a new technique is often palpable. They cannot wait to share their successes with their colleagues in other schools or to trumpet a new fillip they added on their own. Often, as teachers break down their lessons and unpack the underlying methodology, one can see heads nodding as the group acknowledges the collective Aha ! Moment. An important factor in this PLC is the ability to stretch, be challenged, and take risks, all with the knowledge that Shoshana will guide them and make sure they succeed.
Constructive criticism allows them to grow, especially when it comes from colleagues who are doing the exact same thing in their classrooms. Peer support is a powerful motivator. One of the additional enhancements of this PLC is the coming together of teachers from Solomon Schechter Day Schools together with teachers from right wing and modern Orthodox schools. There aren’t too many opportunities for this to happen.
Teachers nominated and accepted into the program had to commit to ongoing training seminars, mentoring, classroom observations and frequent meetings of all the teachers. In addition, many attended special programs in Israel the summer prior to the start of Hebrew in America. Special seminars for these teachers were given at Machon Mila, JAFI, and the Melton Centre at Hebrew University. During the summer of 2007, teachers received scholarships (courtesy of a foundation grant) to attend Ulpan and a special pedagogic training program at Ulpan Akiva in Netanya. These shared experiences were fundamental to creating a PLC.
Additional factors that helped create a PLC with teachers in fifteen schools were the electric personality of the Project Director, Shoshana Glatzer, a veteran master pedagogue, and stipends paid to participating teachers. Teachers represent every elementary day school in Northern New Jersey, the JCC, and several congregational schools. Some are native speakers, some are very fluent in Hebrew, and some are less fluent. What draws them together is the logic of our approach and the excitement of being part of a PLC where sharing is encouraged and peer learning is promoted as a value.
Evaluations of the program are ongoing. Formal visits are made by the Memorial Foundation to insure their sizable investment. Dr. Jerry Hochbaum, the Executive Director of the Foundation, and Prof. David Berger, chair of the foundation’s committee on Hebrew in America visit schools regularly. Members of the foundation’s international Board of Trustees chaired by Dr. Ismar Schorsch and Prof. Anita Jacobs also visited. More importantly, the directors and principals wholeheartedly support the program because they see the results. Children now speak Hebrew during recess and in the lunchroom. Parents rave about it and enjoy their children’s rolling reish. One principal reported that some kindergarteners are helping their second and third grade siblings with their Hebrew homework. Another was concerned lest parents from previous years ask for a refund !
Success breeds enthusiasm to excel and the willingness to participate with others in a PLC. Teachers from across the Jewish spectrum work together to learn, grow, and become better at what they do via our PLC. In addition to the supervision we provide, and the workshops that are mandatory during the summer, we offer free tuition to our local Ulpan . There are also visits and sessions with outstanding Israeli teachers. The schools recognize the value of these training sessions and give the 2-3 days off during the school year so the teachers can participate.
The PLC concept works here because we have an exceptional product, and we take seriously the practical observations of those in the field who implement the program. There is give and take between teachers and instructors, and often the suggestions wind up as accepted procedure. There is mutual respect, and there is respect for the process of the PLC.
Our PLC has impacted many veteran teachers who now realize that there is a wisdom – hochma – to what they may have been doing intuitively. It also allows less experienced teachers with fewer mistakes to unlearn, to grow under the tutelage of master educators. Kudos to Shoshana Glatzer for making it happen.
We have learned that with the proper motivation, encouragement, supportive environment, resources, tools, (and funding) any group of teachers can become a Professional Learning Community. The Hebrew language experiment will soon start its third year of a projected ten-year development period.
[i] See Jeanette Vos, “Can Preschool Children Be Taught A Second Language,” Early Childhood News (2007); Judy Forman, “Two Tongues Better Than One,” Boston Globe (Sept. 10, 2002); Barry McLaughlin, Fostering Second Language Development in Young Children:Principles and Practices, National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning (Washington, D.C., 1995) Available on line at www.cal.org/ericcll:digest/ncrcds04.html; Annick De Houwer, “Two or More Languages in Early Childhood,” AILA News I:1, (1999), pp. 15-17; and Kathleen Marcos, “Why, How, and When Should My Child Learn a Second Language?” Parenting Web (1998).
[ii] See Navah Nevo, “Hebrew As An Additional Language in Early Childhood,” Position paper prepared for The memorial Foundation For Jewish Culture, (2004), “Learning Languages and the Developing Brain,” Learning Languages 1:2 (Winter, 1996); “Brain Research: Implications for Second Language Learning,” ERIC Digest (December,2000) Available on line at www.cal.org/ericcll:digest/0012brain.html; Pat Wolfe and Ron Brandt, “What We Know From Brain Research,” Educational Leadership (November, 1998) pp. 8-13; Eileen A. Rafferty, “Second Language Study Improves Basic Skills,” Bureau of Accountability, Office of Research and Development, Louisiana Department of Education (1986); and Dick Piazza, How Boys and Girls Learn Differently, keynote presentation at 23rd Annual Jewish Educational Services Early Childhood Conference, March 9, 2005.
[iii] See Tani Foger, The Effects of Hebrew Language Immersion in Pre-School on English and Hebrew Reading Skills in First Grade (Yeshiva University, 2006); Stephen D. Krashen, Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning (Oxford, 1981); Stephen D. Krashe and Tracy Terrell, The Natural Approach:Language Acquisition in the Classsroom (Englewood Cliffs, 1996); and Karl Kim and Joy Hirsch, “Distinct Cortical Areas Associated With Native and Second Languages,” Nature 388(July 10, 1997):171 (i.e. Research on bilingual brains shows the earlier the better.)
[iv] See James J. Asher, Learning Another Language Through Actions:The Complete Teacher’s Guidebook, 6th edition (Los Gatos, CA, 2000), and Helena Curtain and Carol Ann Dahlberg, Languages and Children : Making The Match, third edition, (Boston, 2004).