Dan Finkel held positions as a faculty member and as the Director of Student Life at The Weber School in Atlanta, GA. He is currently developing curriculum for the Center for Jewish Education and Experiences (in Atlanta) until August 2007, when he will begin a PhD program in Anthropology at the University of Connecticut. He holds a BA in the Biological Basis of Behavior from The University of Pennsylvania, and an MA in Judaic Studies in Jewish Education from Siegal College.
Part I – Introduction
Pluralistic (or community) high schools have some unique challenges associated with tefillah, and in many ways the area of tefillah provides an interesting proxy for understanding the issues inherent in educating Jews of multiple beliefs and backgrounds in one institution. Examining the solutions employed by various schools across the country may yield important insights into these issues, as well as provide the possibility of cross-school discourse on best-practice and various philosophies of spiritual education for adolescents.
Many Jewish educators would agree that the mission of graduating educated Jews can be understood in different ways, depending on background, movement affiliation, and personal opinion. Given these differences, very few would say that a Jew is educated without some knowledge of or experience of tefillah. Movement-affiliated day schools, with their attendant ideological systems, have few issues to contend with in determining minimal standards of knowledge, experiences, and abilities in this area. With minor variations, each movement has a basic format for weekday, Shabbat, and holiday prayers, and students graduating from movement-affiliated schools should presumably be minimally facile with these. Further, these schools can easily point to a particular service or minyan and say that their goal is to graduate students who can participate, lead or at a minimum, follow along.
In pluralistic schools, however, the message is rarely clear. These schools are open to students from myriad perspectives, including those for whom identification is primarily cultural, with little or no emphasis on ritual observance. As a result, defining the goals of a tefillah education is much more complex. Some students come from homes in which daily prayer is considered obligatory while others come from homes in which annual prayer is all they have ever been exposed to. Some students come from backgrounds in which the word prayer means saying a very specific set of Hebrew words in a particular order while others come from backgrounds in which prayer defies narrow definition. Is there any way to identify minimal levels of ability to lead, participate, or follow across all these differing traditions? Is there any way to design tefillah curricula that meet universally agreed upon standards without crossing a boundary that some constituents consider inviolable? Can these schools ever daven together as a community?
In order to gain some perspective on the possible ways of approaching the issues described above, I interviewed a number of educators and students at three pluralistic Jewish high schools across North America. This paper will briefly describe the research and its findings. Following that we will look at some of the implications of their responses. Finally, I will offer some suggestions for schools of this type, as well as some possibilities for further research on this topic.
Part II – Research Methods
The aim of my research was to understand two main items:
- Tefillah Issues:
- What issues are shared by most pluralistic Jewish high schools?
- What issues are unique?
- Who makes decisions about these issues when necessary?
- The Ideal Graduate: Vision & Practice
- What should the ideal graduate know about tefillah?
- What tefillah-related abilities should the ideal graduate possess?
- What experiences does the school want the ideal graduate to have by the time they graduate?
- Do the school’s practices seem to grow out of their vision?
- Does the vision seem to be shared across different levels of school structure (Head, Faculty, Students)?
I interviewed Heads of School and Judaics Faculty member at each of the three schools, and three different students in one school to get a variety of responses. Each of the faculty members interviewed either does prayer education or runs a minyan, and has been at his/her respective school for four years or more. Two were male and one female; two were Conservative Rabbis and one an Orthodox Rabbi. The students I interviewed were current 11th or 12th grade students who all participated in at least one minyan on a regular basis in the same school. The students I interviewed fit the following profiles:
- Male, family Conservative-affiliated, personally Orthodox-affiliated, member of Mechitza (traditional-Orthodox) minyan.
- Female, 18 years old, family Orthodox-affilliated, personally unaffiliated, member of discussion minyan.
- Male, 17 years old, family Reform-affiliated, personally Reform-affiliated, member of singing minyan & learner’s minyan.
Part III – Results
A few issues emerged as common to most pluralistic Jewish high schools – time, faculty, the wide range of student backgrounds and responses (from “resistant” to “voluntary”), and the sense that tefillah is not valued by milieu.
It comes as no surprise that in the already demanding world of the dual curriculum there are scheduling challenges regarding tefillah. Interestingly, each of the schools addressed this in different ways. School 1 has a mandate for daily prayer, and as a result they spend the most time (of the three) total – 125 minutes per week, but they allot only 25 minutes per day, the shortest single period of time in any of the schools I studied. School 2 allots two 45 minute periods of time for prayer, one of which includes Torah reading, for a total of 90 minutes per week. School 3, in which the Head described unique challenges resulting from “Outdoor Culture” such as a necessarily early release, incorporates one 30 minute period per week, which takes place on a Friday.
Several respondents mentioned the fact that their current model makes them extremely dependent on qualified faculty to run tefillah options that are consistently of high quality. This mirrors the general need for well-trained Jewish educators, but also suggests that some piece of “well-trained” might mean direction and training in the area of leading tefillah. Do our educational institutions prepare Jewish educational professionals to lead inspiring, creative, compelling minyanim in our high schools? Many of the same intangibles that make certain teachers instantly popular are involved in creating dynamic minyanim, raising the question of whether those “intangible” skills can be taught.
Pluralistic schools appear to be drawing students in large numbers from two extreme ends of the Jewish educational spectrum. Those with a day school background were often described as “resistant”. With the experience of being “forced” to pray during their elementary and middle school educations, upon learning that they have the option not continue with traditional prayer often opt out. This, presumably, is the reason that School 1 and 2 both require some traditional prayer during the 9th grade year. The assumption is that otherwise, some students would simply never or hardly ever experience traditional tefillah, which would not fulfill the vision for minimal skill building or experiences. For students who feel bound or committed to regular, traditional tefillah, 2 of the 3 schools studies had a daily option to fulfill this need.
For students without day school backgrounds, even praying one time per week might seem like a lot. Some of these students might not have enough Hebrew to follow along in a traditional minyan, assuming they choose to be there. For these students, pluralistic schools share the difficult task of educating and socializing these students without “turning them off”. In some ways, this task is easier than convincing day school graduates who feel “burned” by their prior experiences to even sit quietly in the minyanim against which they are now negatively biased. School 1 has mandated that all 9th graders must pass a tefillah skills exam. Those who do not pass immediately are placed in the Learner’s minyan, and those who do pass must still spend the year attending a traditional minyan, rather than an alternative such as yoga or art. School 2 also require 9th graders to attend a traditional option for the 1st semester, and has also started a Learner’s minyan. School 3 is requiring 12th graders to enroll in a single semester course that focuses on Jewish ritual practice, including prayer.
Though the issues of a wide range of student ability, observance, interest, and background were mentioned by members of each school, they were not always attributed to the fact that these institutions are pluralistic. Several respondents mentioned that tefillah is not given the same value by parents as academic subjects, and that outside of the Orthodox world there are very few models of adults who pray as often as the students are being asked to in school.
The student population in a pluralistic school also seems to determine some of the unique challenges and solutions described by respondents. For example, School 1, in which prayer is mandated daily, draws the largest percentage of their students from the Reform community, in which tefillah is not necessarily a daily synagogue ritual. Interestingly, this school also has the widest range of alternative prayer options, and is the only one in this study that requires students to pass a tefillah skills test.
The process of decision-making regarding tefillah revealed several different approaches to the pedagogy of pluralism. In School 2, the Head clearly stated that including students in the decisions regarding tefillah was important because it
affects them directly, and we have to walk the walk of a dialogical community – they need the experience of understanding the “other” as a context for understanding their own perspectives. In this way we can often reach synthesis (not just a pareve middle ground) and find something new, or sometimes just learn about another point of view without necessarily agreeing.
This approach suggests that making these decisions together as a community is an essential part of pluralistic education, promoting respect and understanding through dialogue. By contrast, in the other schools decisions are made by the Head and Faculty members, often with a Rabbi-in-Residence acting as an authority for the community. This approach demonstrates a method in which educators institute the policies and changes they feel are necessary or pedagogically sound while leaving room for concerned or interested students to raise issues or respond in small groups.
Regarding tefillah knowledge, the responses were fairly consistent across schools, with two minor but noteworthy variations. Most respondents want their graduates to understand the structure of a prayer service, to know the history/development of the various forms of modern liturgy, and the Jewish approach or philosophy of prayer. Only one Head of School mentioned the word “God” in his answer: “I hope they will have thought through their own approach to prayer at this point in their life and how they are thinking about God, and how prayer connects them to God.”
The other importantly distinctive comment was made by a faculty member from School 2. This educator noted that “they should see prayer as a window for or frame for understanding large concepts in the development and history of Judaism.” In this context, prayer is studied not for its value in connecting Jews to God, but for its value as an important historical document or collection.
All schools expressed that they felt both the opportunity and obligation to expose students to a wide range of tefillah options, apparently emerging from a goal of socialization into the communal standards of traditional prayer. Additional factors include the desire to help the students understand the different movements’ approaches to prayer and afford them the opportunity to explore alternatives to find prayer that is personally meaningful.
The issue of tefillah skills revealed some very interesting and telling differences among respondents, even though there was again a common thread . There is a continuum of ability along which all responses fall – at one end at a minimal level of familiarity/comfort with Siddur and at the other at a high level of leadership ability. In between those extremes lie several intermediate visions, listed here in ascending order of skills needed:
- Students should be able find their place in the Siddur.
- Students should be able to participate in the service – choreography, the words of communal prayers, have an aliyah.
- Students should be able to pray on their own.
- Students should be able to lead a minyan.
- Students should be able to read from the Torah.
In this category, there were three responses that were particularly interesting. One Head of School used the language of “employment” on more than one occasion, framing his goals for his students in terms of their employability in camps, schools, and youth groups. A second Head of School and the faculty member from that school both said that their minimal level of proficiency would be the ability to lead a shiva minyan. Third, the faculty member of another school was the only one to discuss spiritual skills such as “the ability to access “spiritual waking up”, bakashot, learning to introspect, learning to be silent.” The fact that spiritual skills were mentioned only by this one interviewee may indicate a dissociation between prayer skills and spirituality – a sobering thought.
When examining the schools’ actual programs, it appears that there are substantive gaps between the articulated visions and the schools’ practices. Only one school currently has a clearly articulated program to ensure that students gain minimal skills competency, and while all the schools offer a broad range of tefillah options, there is no plan to ensure that students get that broad exposure. Further, based on the responses, it appears that practice does not match up well with vision in the area of tefillah knowledge. Each of the schools envisions a fairly high level of knowledge about prayer, but with the exception of select units taught by teachers in Rabbinic Literature, there is no formal program to ensure that this knowledge is being taught.
There was also considerable disparity in the responses from the Heads of School and the faculty members, particularly in the area of tefillah skills. Students also seemed to have not internalized the message of the school regarding tefillah, with their understanding limited to the idea that prayer need not be solely traditional, and that multiple forms of prayer are valid.
Part IV – Conclusions and Implications
There are a number of implications emerging from this initial study. First, is that there seems to be a need for training in Jewish pedagogical programs in the areas of tefillah and spirituality. Many respondents indicated that the need for faculty was essential in order to produce tefillah options that are compelling and high quality, and the lack of such educators was mentioned by members of each school. In-service training, workshops, or certification programs would probably be very effective in giving people useful information at a number of levels. Topics could include basic skills, history of the siddur, and tips for energetic davening. Since many of these schools actually offer very similar “alternative” (meaning non-traditional) options (i.e. yoga, discussion, music), training in running Jewish minyanim of these types could be a big step in increasing abilities of faculty.
Second, there is apparently a need for curricula focusing on the development of Jewish prayer over time. Particularly in the context of a pluralistic school, with its emphasis on the many streams that have always been present within Judaism, I see this idea as an interesting starting point for developing some relevant, authentic liturgy-related curricula. I envision educators from pluralistic schools gathering for workshops and courses at undergraduate and graduate levels, developing materials jointly and mutually enhancing their skill sets in teaching tefillah.
Third, the pluralistic schools share some challenges in walking the lines between educating, socializing, and creating spiritual space for tefillah. I would recommend that these schools look to the Reconstructionist movement for guidance in this area. This movement is founded on principles that encourage creative problem solving in the area of Jewish ritual observance, and may be uniquely suited to develop practices that fit these communities best. For example, many Reconstructionist congregations are faced with issues of how to best observe Shabbat or pray meaningfully. The process used by these groups to create meaningful answers is one that begins with studying the traditions of the past (which would address the desires for traditional knowledge expressed by each school), and then examining the practices through a modern lens, allowing for the possibility of new synthesis. This is much like what several respondents described as their goals for their students.
This is directly related to the issue of authenticity. Almost by definition, pluralistic school encounter definitional challenges when they demand things of students which are inconsistent with their lives and value systems outside of school, regardless of what level or type of tefillah competence we should be striving. Are we teaching the students a skill that they think is authentically valuable? How can schools, charged with envisioning and building better society and not simply preparing students for mere participation in the milieu that already exists, do that envisioning while maintaining their pluralism?
Fourth, it is valuable to think pedagogically and administratively about the relative merits of placing the requirements in 9th grade versus 12th. Placing the requirement in 12th grade ensures that all students, including those who join the school after 9th grade, will get this instruction. The requirement in 9th grade gives those who enter with less background greater opportunity to engage in tefillah during their high school careers. In either case, all are attempts to ensure that if students do opt out of prayer, at least they do not do so out of a lack of ability.
Finally, to address the gaps I identified between vision and practice, I would recommend that schools convene discussions at two levels on this subject in order to analyze their current practice, and make plans to enact the necessary steps for realizing their visions. The first level is internal, and would include at least the Head of School and Judaics faculty, but might include students or parents if appropriate. This conversation would be important to be certain that the vision is clear to all constituents, and that it meets the needs of each group. The second level is with other schools sharing similar issues – perhaps Directors of Judaics at pluralistic schools can meet centrally to discuss these issues, share solutions, and develop some ideas that will help all these schools meet their valuable goals.
This initial study examined a small sample to open the door on a number of important issues, but to get reliable data, future research should incorporate a larger sample of schools, a larger number of faculty respondents and a larger number of student respondents. Also, an entire category of stakeholder is absent from this study – the parents. It is very important to understand what they know about the schools’ approach to prayer, and what they are looking for.
Walking the lines between education, socialization, and spirituality is a tricky task in pluralistic settings, but one that I would certainly argue is necessary to examine seriously. These schools, representing a unique experiment in Jewish education, need to continually reexamine themselves as they clarify and implement their missions.