This following interview has been edited lightly for clarity and brevity.

Jewish Educational Leadership: Perhaps we should begin with a very simple question. Why is it important for a Jew in the diaspora to learn Hebrew, and how does it affect his life?

Fabio Radak: I think it is actually a very complex question, because one of the major challenges in the diaspora today is dealing with the question, “Why Hebrew?” I think it is fairly clear to everyone why one needs to engage with Jewish content—in some schools they call it Judaic studies, in some schools they define it differently—but everyone understands clearly that a Jewish school must have a connection to Judaism. But regarding Hebrew, there are currently many very large question marks. My “I believe,” and it is mine alone, is that we teach Hebrew for two reasons. First, because Hebrew is part of the Jewish world. Hebrew cannot be separated from all of Jewish history. Hebrew is the most basic value of Judaism. That is to say, in my view, Hebrew is what unites Judaism in all its varieties, from the most secular Judaism to the most Orthodox Judaism, and in the diaspora there is a much broader range than we have in Israel. In addition, one also has to remember—and this is perhaps the major shift that needs to be introduced in many schools—that Hebrew is also a language in every sense, and therefore it needs to be taught both as a value and as a communicative language in every respect.

Incidentally, we speak about Hebrew as a dead language in history, but it was not really dead, right? That is one great myth. It is true that Hebrew was not spoken, but it existed in the language of prayer. That is to say, we articulated Hebrew, we spoke Hebrew, it existed in Jewish languages. A Jew who spoke Yiddish, Ladino, Judeo-French, and Judeo-Italian used a very, very important Hebrew component. We never lost Hebrew, and therefore I think Hebrew is, how shall I put it… without it, it is impossible. A Jew who has no Hebrew word at all in his mouth, in his lexicon… that is the most basic thing.

If you had to say, what is your emotional connection to Hebrew, and where does it come from?

I have been in love with Hebrew for as long as I can remember. Back in Argentina, I always studied in Jewish schools, but I began high school in a school where Hebrew was very minimal, and at a certain point I decided that I needed Hebrew, that I needed to hear Hebrew, and I transferred to a school where we studied about 20 hours a week in Hebrew. Very naturally, when I began studying at university in Israel, I went to study Hebrew language.

I had not planned to work in education and teaching. What happened was that in one of my university courses in 1994, during the large Russian aliyah, someone sat next to me and said, “Do you want to come teach Hebrew in the Soviet Union for a week, to prepare future immigrants?” I was young, and I said, “They are offering me a chance to travel now, so what—am I going to say no?” And that is really how this whole romance with teaching, with education, began. I actually live Hebrew—truly, Hebrew still moves me to this day, because, after all, I come from somewhere else. So I still do not take it for granted, even when I speak fluent Hebrew, and even when I actually communicate in Hebrew, and in general, when I speak before an audience in Hebrew, I do not take it for granted. Therefore, this emotional connection is very, very strong, and it truly comes also from a love of languages in general, but still, Zionism… if I may say so, in my view, that is the truest Zionism, devoid of any motives or all kinds of political components, the Zionism on which we were raised.

Many times this emotional connection is tied to key figures we encountered in life. Could you share with us about key figures you had in your history with Hebrew?

I am not sure I had key figures in the sense that they influenced my choice. From a very young age, I listened only to Israeli music, and I listened only to Hebrew—I was rather strange in that respect. Because when everyone was listening to music in English or Spanish, I listened only in Hebrew. I had a collection of cassette tapes that no one else had. I think that influenced me very much. By the way, the fact that I listened to so much Israeli music also influenced my level of Hebrew.

Because I loved Hebrew so much, I also connected with Hebrew teachers, and I really did have excellent Hebrew teachers. When I give professional development sessions, I often say that these were teachers about whom I did not even know that they spoke Spanish, because they spoke with me only in Hebrew. I would meet them on the bus and they would speak with me only in Hebrew. I would enter the teachers’ room and hear them speaking only in Hebrew. So it is hard for me to point to a key figure, but I think I also greatly appreciated those teachers.

So there is no single key figure here, but I did connect with all the Hebrew speakers in Argentina, whose Hebrew was fluent, rich, and amazing.

Why do you think that Argentina succeeded in raising and developing Hebrew-speaking teachers at such a level, in a way that did not succeed in other places in the world?

I am not a historian, and I do not presume to be a historian, but when you read about the history of the Jewish communities in Argentina, you can also understand that a great deal of substance shifted from Europe to Argentina. It is hard for me to say exactly how it happened and when it happened, but in Argentina there was a vision of establishing a very important, very developed network of schools, there was teacher training… for years there were several teacher-training centers that did not exist in other places in the world. For many years, the community also knew how to cultivate local Hebrew teachers, which is not self-evident, and did not happen and does not happen in other places. Little by little, this faded, but to this day you encounter very few Israelis teaching in schools in Argentina—as opposed to other places, where it is only Israelis who are Hebrew speakers and were turned into Hebrew teachers. So in that respect, I am very proud that I came specifically from such a community.

Can you tell us a little about your work in teaching Hebrew? What, in your opinion, are the great successes of Hebrew in the diaspora, and if there are other major successes like Argentina, why did they succeed?

First of all, I will address the first part of the question. The place where I really grew, developed, and flourished was Hebrew University. I made aliyah at age 18 and went straight to study. I began teaching there at age 21, even before I served in the army. I think I am the only teacher at the university for whom they held an army-enlistment party at a certain stage, because at age 24 I enlisted in the army and remained in the army for seven years. In the army as well, I was involved in teaching Hebrew. I have always been involved in all kinds of formal and informal programs in the diaspora, I was always very connected to the diaspora, in teacher training, consulting, and accompanying schools, for as long as I can remember. I was never only at the university, and to be honest, what gives me the most adrenaline is the connection with the diaspora. Sometimes it is hard to explain it, but I sometimes return from a seminar or teacher-training session, or even from a visit to a Jewish school in the diaspora, and it is hard for me to describe how much it fills me with energy; it renews my energy. There is something about that authenticity… I think that the moment you arrive in the diaspora, you see the real thing. You actually see the schools that are trying in every possible way to preserve their Jewish place and to do everything so that these children will learn Hebrew, even though sometimes they do not want to and their parents do not want to either.

Regarding successes, here it is a bit harder for me to point to where there are successes today, because I think one must always look with the perspective of time and understand that what once existed does not exist today. Once, perhaps 30 years ago, you could encounter many schools with a very high level of Hebrew. Of course, then we were fighting less against English, struggling less against all kinds of phenomena. Above all, I think English greatly undermined the place of Hebrew in schools, because after all, most Jewish schools in the diaspora are private, and they need to find this very respectable place for themselves and compete with other schools.

Antisemitism also had its effect. I think that in South America certainly, in Argentina certainly, the two major attacks that took place there in the 1990s confronted the Jewish community with a major question: “Why send a child to a Jewish school that is also expensive, also not safe, and also does not have such high-level English?” So, I think that the decline began then. But this is something that happened all over the world. Today, when I speak about success, I speak about success in places that do understand—and there are more and more of them, but it is not a simple struggle—that one must also make a switch in Hebrew instruction. After all, there are two major phenomena that one encounters in the diaspora today. One is a phenomenon of longing for what once was, teachers who sit and say, “But I have only two hours of Hebrew; once we had ten hours of Hebrew, what can I possibly do in two hours?” And you still have to come and try to explain to those teachers and those teams, the staffs, that what once existed will no longer return. Everything has changed. So the great successes are in those schools that understand that in order to give Hebrew some kind of push, one must first of all not forget what once was, but understand that what once was will no longer return, and understand that even when you have two or three hours of Hebrew, you can teach it effectively. Of course, you will not reach the levels that you once reached. But on the other hand, today we have capacities and tools that did not exist in the past. The means of communication—not to mention applications and technology, and I certainly have not even mentioned artificial intelligence, which it is very reasonable to assume will also develop this whole matter. I think that when a school takes this mission upon itself and builds for itself an up-to-date program suited to today’s needs, to today’s children, and to the number of hours we teach today, that is success in my eyes.

In most schools, there are no curricula at all. There are often textbooks, and they think that this is the curriculum. But in schools there is no vision, or what I call policy about language. That is, why are you teaching Hebrew? I think the teachers need to be the first to be convinced about why they teach Hebrew and why it is important to teach Hebrew. A school that enters such a process today is a school that at least understands that there is still something to be done with it. That is success in my eyes today.

I do not know schools that, with two or three hours of instruction, succeed in bringing students to the same level we saw 30 years ago. Everything has changed, but one must confront the changes and define success differently.

Do any particular schools that are doing this come to mind?

I keep returning to Argentina because I am very connected to it and also because, after all, there is still a concentration of many schools there. But I am thinking of the project we did in Argentina. Before the coronavirus pandemic, in 2019, I was on a work trip on behalf of the university on a completely different matter. I met with a pedagogic team that provides support in everything connected to the pedagogy of teaching Hebrew and Jewish studies, and they said, “We have money, we have a budget, and we would like you to write us a program in order to create some order, because in the schools everyone teaches whatever they want.” And I, from my most modest place, said, “This is very flattering to me, but I cannot write a curriculum; I do not live there, I do not teach there. It is very arrogant to come and say that I will write you a program and now you will implement that program.” Many programs have been written in Israel over the years from a perspective of this is how Hebrew should be taught, and we know, because we live here in Israel, that these programs reached the field and were not connected to the field at all, and they failed. Not only that, but many times such programs came and required the school to undergo a revolution, saying, “Okay, you want to enter this program, you must teach ten hours; fewer than ten hours and you cannot, and these teachers have no training in teaching and barely know Hebrew”—and it simply does not work. My approach was different: first of all, we needed to create a program that any school that wanted to could enter without making revolutions. And the teachers—this is what there is, and this is what one has to work with. That is to say, there will not be other teachers; we can train them more, train them less, but these are the teachers. We actually wrote a program that is not divided by grades, but by different stages, each stage broadly requiring a certain number of hours. Then there were schools that teach two hours a week, and with them one can reach only the first part of the program, while with schools that teach five hours, one can reach two pieces of the same pie. And this program emphasizes only communication, communicative language, spoken language. Of course, with grammar, with very organized vocabulary, but the goal is to look at communication. We also proposed external exams, which, for this purpose, I write once a year for whoever wants them. And after three years, when I almost said, “Enough, this is not really working, not really progressing,” once we began testing the students, and testing the students orally, then the great revolution came—parents and students themselves, and teachers and principals, began reporting that suddenly there was an awakening around Hebrew in the school. We hear children practicing in Hebrew conversations, and teaching in everyday conversations! Half a year ago I was there and was simply very moved to hear the children. True, with more basic vocabulary, not like in the past, but children speaking Hebrew, and teachers speaking Hebrew with the students in class, which had not existed. So in my view, that is definitely a very, very great success.

I assume there are also others doing work like the work I do, in one school here and there. But in my view, this is a success story; this is the direction we need to move in. Of course, this depends on teacher training, on accompanying teachers, and perhaps, if I may use this interview to say that I think that in the State of Israel today there is no body that is precisely responsible for this matter. People need to understand that in a few years, seven or ten, there will not be Hebrew teachers. There will be Israelis moving around the world whom people turn into Hebrew teachers, but being a Hebrew speaker does not mean that you are a Hebrew teacher. We turn them into Hebrew teachers for lack of any choice, but they need to be trained, they need to be supported, and I think the great task of the State of Israel with regard to the diaspora is to look at the issue of Hebrew and to take responsibility for programs, for teacher training, and for accompanying teachers. The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs through UnitEd is doing a great deal of work around Hebrew, but one needs to think a little more systemically and above all to join forces, because there are all kinds of organizations involved in this matter. Half a year ago I participated in a meeting at the Ministry of Aliyah and Integration, and all kinds of players involved in teaching pre-aliyah Hebrew came there, and I saw all the foundations and all the associations and all the organizations and government ministries, and the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency. We must join forces.

You are familiar Hebrew instruction around the world, and you mentioned the problem of competing with English. In North America, competing with English is a very major challenge; in North America people generally think there is no need to learn any language other than English. So what do you have to say about this whole issue of teaching Hebrew in North America?

In North America in general, the subject is somewhat different. There are all kinds of organizations there that do work in teacher training, for example, Hebrew at the Center. There are schools there that actually teach quite a few hours of Hebrew. I think the great change that needs to happen in the United States is to direct Hebrew more toward its communicative side as well. Not to give up the value-based side, but many times the learning is still very grammatical, from a perspective less of speaking Hebrew and more of actually learning the language in an orderly way. I do think that the United States, too, has always dealt with the problem of teacher training, because especially there, there are many teachers who are Israelis living in the United States and who have never received systematic training in teaching Hebrew as a second language, or in teaching languages, or in teaching at all.

If there were no barriers, and if it were in your hands to decide on a policy for teaching Hebrew in the diaspora, what would be the first steps you would take, the ones you would decide on?

I think I would first propose some kind of comprehensive curriculum, and I emphasize the issue of curriculum because it is an issue I deal with a great deal. Many times schools think they have curricula, but they only have textbooks, and they perceive the textbook as a curriculum in itself. Even today at the university we deal a great deal with this issue of the European approach, of competences. In the United States there is ACTFL, but overall there too there is a certain tendency to move in a more communicative direction. I would emphasize this matter somewhat more: curricula, learning materials that are not necessarily books. Today I believe less in a printed textbook that becomes outdated after two years, but I would try to think systemically, and I would do very specific work by region. The reality of the United States is not the reality of Argentina; the reality of Chile is not the reality of France, of Belgium. But I would give them a professional response, first of all free of charge, because most schools cannot fund it themselves. There are excellent learning materials; the materials of CET are excellent, the materials of iTaLAM are excellent, but they are not what I would define as curricula; they are learning materials. Building curricula requires many resources, and there is no possibility today that schools could pay the costs of these programs.

In addition, I would work on teacher training and build many networks. One needs to think long term, to budget for ten years, not a budget for a single year, in order to build something that could change the situation on the ground. And the teachers need to be supported and mentored. That is very important.

Do any particular schools that are doing this come to mind?

I keep returning to Argentina because I am very connected to it and also because, after all, there is still a concentration of many schools there. But I am thinking of the project we did in Argentina. Before the coronavirus pandemic, in 2019, I was on a work trip on behalf of the university on a completely different matter. I met with a pedagogic team that provides support in everything connected to the pedagogy of teaching Hebrew and Jewish studies, and they said, “We have money, we have a budget, and we would like you to write us a program in order to create some order, because in the schools everyone teaches whatever they want.” And I, from my most modest place, said, “This is very flattering to me, but I cannot write a curriculum; I do not live there, I do not teach there. It is very arrogant to come and say that I will write you a program and now you will implement that program.” Many programs have been written in Israel over the years from a perspective of this is how Hebrew should be taught, and we know, because we live here in Israel, that these programs reached the field and were not connected to the field at all, and they failed. Not only that, but many times such programs came and required the school to undergo a revolution, saying, “Okay, you want to enter this program, you must teach ten hours; fewer than ten hours and you cannot, and these teachers have no training in teaching and barely know Hebrew”—and it simply does not work. My approach was different: first of all, we needed to create a program that any school that wanted to could enter without making revolutions. And the teachers—this is what there is, and this is what one has to work with. That is to say, there will not be other teachers; we can train them more, train them less, but these are the teachers. We actually wrote a program that is not divided by grades, but by different stages, each stage broadly requiring a certain number of hours. Then there were schools that teach two hours a week, and with them one can reach only the first part of the program, while with schools that teach five hours, one can reach two pieces of the same pie. And this program emphasizes only communication, communicative language, spoken language. Of course, with grammar, with very organized vocabulary, but the goal is to look at communication. We also proposed external exams, which, for this purpose, I write once a year for whoever wants them. And after three years, when I almost said, “Enough, this is not really working, not really progressing,” once we began testing the students, and testing the students orally, then the great revolution came—parents and students themselves, and teachers and principals, began reporting that suddenly there was an awakening around Hebrew in the school. We hear children practicing in Hebrew conversations, and teaching in everyday conversations! Half a year ago I was there and was simply very moved to hear the children. True, with more basic vocabulary, not like in the past, but children speaking Hebrew, and teachers speaking Hebrew with the students in class, which had not existed. So in my view, that is definitely a very, very great success.

I assume there are also others doing work like the work I do, in one school here and there. But in my view, this is a success story; this is the direction we need to move in. Of course, this depends on teacher training, on accompanying teachers, and perhaps, if I may use this interview to say that I think that in the State of Israel today there is no body that is precisely responsible for this matter. People need to understand that in a few years, seven or ten, there will not be Hebrew teachers. There will be Israelis moving around the world whom people turn into Hebrew teachers, but being a Hebrew speaker does not mean that you are a Hebrew teacher. We turn them into Hebrew teachers for lack of any choice, but they need to be trained, they need to be supported, and I think the great task of the State of Israel with regard to the diaspora is to look at the issue of Hebrew and to take responsibility for programs, for teacher training, and for accompanying teachers. The Ministry of Diaspora Affairs through UnitEd is doing a great deal of work around Hebrew, but one needs to think a little more systemically and above all to join forces, because there are all kinds of organizations involved in this matter. Half a year ago I participated in a meeting at the Ministry of Aliyah and Integration, and all kinds of players involved in teaching pre-aliyah Hebrew came there, and I saw all the foundations and all the associations and all the organizations and government ministries, and the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency. We must join forces.

You are familiar Hebrew instruction around the world, and you mentioned the problem of competing with English. In North America, competing with English is a very major challenge; in North America people generally think there is no need to learn any language other than English. So what do you have to say about this whole issue of teaching Hebrew in North America?

In North America in general, the subject is somewhat different. There are all kinds of organizations there that do work in teacher training, for example, Hebrew at the Center. There are schools there that actually teach quite a few hours of Hebrew. I think the great change that needs to happen in the United States is to direct Hebrew more toward its communicative side as well. Not to give up the value-based side, but many times the learning is still very grammatical, from a perspective less of speaking Hebrew and more of actually learning the language in an orderly way. I do think that the United States, too, has always dealt with the problem of teacher training, because especially there, there are many teachers who are Israelis living in the United States and who have never received systematic training in teaching Hebrew as a second language, or in teaching languages, or in teaching at all.

If there were no barriers, and if it were in your hands to decide on a policy for teaching Hebrew in the diaspora, what would be the first steps you would take, the ones you would decide on?

I think I would first propose some kind of comprehensive curriculum, and I emphasize the issue of curriculum because it is an issue I deal with a great deal. Many times schools think they have curricula, but they only have textbooks, and they perceive the textbook as a curriculum in itself. Even today at the university we deal a great deal with this issue of the European approach, of competences. In the United States there is ACTFL, but overall there too there is a certain tendency to move in a more communicative direction. I would emphasize this matter somewhat more: curricula, learning materials that are not necessarily books. Today I believe less in a printed textbook that becomes outdated after two years, but I would try to think systemically, and I would do very specific work by region. The reality of the United States is not the reality of Argentina; the reality of Chile is not the reality of France, of Belgium. But I would give them a professional response, first of all free of charge, because most schools cannot fund it themselves. There are excellent learning materials; the materials of CET are excellent, the materials of iTaLAM are excellent, but they are not what I would define as curricula; they are learning materials. Building curricula requires many resources, and there is no possibility today that schools could pay the costs of these programs.

In addition, I would work on teacher training and build many networks. One needs to think long term, to budget for ten years, not a budget for a single year, in order to build something that could change the situation on the ground. And the teachers need to be supported and mentored. That is very important.