Eli Kohn (eli@lookstein.org) is the Director of Curriculum Development Projects at The Lookstein Center of Jewish Education. In this role he was worked with teachers and schools in Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Hong Kong, South Africa, and the United States. He serves as Educational Director of the Jewish Curriculum Partnership (UK) and teaches at the Efrata and Orot teachers’ colleges in Israel. Rabbi Dr. Kohn has published in Religous Education, British Journal of Religious Education, Curriculum and Teaching, the International Journal of Jewish Education Research, and Jewish Educational Leadership.
Eli Kohn draws upon years of experience in collaborative curriculum development to describe a process through which schools can define their goals.
Introduction
In my work as Director of Curriculum Development at the Lookstein Center I have visited many Jewish schools throughout the world. During my school observations I am often struck by the question why students are studying the particular subject areas being taught in Jewish studies and what is the rationale for the time allocation given to each. Why, for example, is sefer A taught in grade X while sefer B is not taught at all in the high school years. Why for example, are X hours devoted to Talmud and only Y hours to Tanakh. Why, for that matter, should Tanakh be taught at all in that school at the high school level?
When challenged with these questions, the response is often: “that is the way we have always done it” or “the Principal told us that this is what has to be learned” or “these are the time constraints we have to work with.” There is often no underlying rationale as to which Jewish studies topics are to be learned and for how long at each grade level.
The purpose of this paper is to suggest a process for answering these questions within any given school. As schools are different in ethos and mission, the responses to these questions will obviously vary between schools. I have shared this process with Principals and administrators at various Lookstein Center workshops and hope that it will prove useful to readers as well.
Educational underpinnings for the process
The conceptual questions that lie at the basis of this process such as, “What is an educated Jew?” or “What would we consider to be the product of a successful Jewish education?” have been considered and reflected upon by some of the foremost Jewish thinkers and educators of our time. Scheffler (1992), for example, discusses the challenges being faced in educating the Jew in the modern period. He writes:
Now every feature of the premodern context has been destroyed or rendered problematic in the modern period. The emancipation and entry of the Jew into the mainstream of Western life broke the tightly knit harmony of home, school and community. The general breakdown of the medieval worldview shattered the inherited conception of nature and history shared by Jew and non-Jew alike, undermined traditional attitudes to their religious Scriptures, and destroyed the uniform traditional response to Jewish existence which constituted the basis of education in the past. (p. 21)
What, then, should be the purposes and contents of Jewish education in the modern period when large numbers of Jews have become ignorant of Jewish knowledge and alienated from Jewish life? In the 1990s a group of educational philosophers and thinkers met under the auspices of the Mandel Foundation to initiate a discourse within the Jewish community to respond to these core questions about the purposes of Jewish education. The members of the group were both learned in their special fields of study and knowledgeable about Jewish education and were deemed likely to integrate these qualities into visions of Jewish learning. Fox, Scheffler and Marom (2003) analyze the visions of the individual members of this group in their seminal work Visions of Jewish Education and we summarize here briefly the views of a number of them.
Twersky, the historian and specialist in Jewish thought within the group, sees the Bible as the primary source of Jewish education. The study of halakhah was also central not only in strengthening the commitment to traditional practice but also for deepening the philosophical understanding of such practice. Another member of the group, Menachem Brinker, scholar of Hebrew literature and philosophy, moved in quite a different conceptual territory from that of Twersky. Brinker’s outlook is secular rather than religious; his orientation pluralist rather than Orthodox. For him, acquisition of the Hebrew language is a key to a successful Jewish education as is familiarity with concepts and events of Jewish history preserved in the collective memory. A third member of the group, Michael Meyer, emphasizes the importance of educating toward core Jewish values. The goal of Jewish education today, declares Meyer, is the creation of an individual whose primary identity lies in being a Jew, yet open to a world of multiple traditions. Freedom and autonomy of choice lie for him at the heart of the education of our Jewish student.
While this discourse has enriched my own reflections about the critical question of the purposes of a Jewish education that is at the heart of the process I will describe, such thinking, I posit, should not be the exclusive province of educators or scholars. If it is to be effective it should elicit the reflections of all segments of the Jewish public, whatever their vocation, profession or communal affiliation. Within the framework of a Jewish school, the school’s mission statement, agreed upon by all school stakeholders, should lie at the center of curriculum decision making.
Analyzing mission statements – the problem
In theory, the school’s mission statement should provide the overall direction as to what is to be learned in a school. However, in most cases, mission statements are too brief and general to help us in the process. The following is an example of a mission statement from a school in Alaska. (Yes, there is no Jewish day school in Alaska but the mission statement itself is authentic!)
At Beit Yoseph we strive to produce Jewishly committed, ethically sensitive graduates who are well prepared for the academic social and religious challenges of college life and adulthood. In both our Judaic and general studies curriculum our goal is to develop in our students critical reasoning skills to prepare them for success in the future. In particular, our course of Judaic Studies emphasizes the instruction, utilization and rationalization of rigorous critical thinking skills in the time honored tradition of the finest Jewish academies of learning.
We integrate the ethical into the cognitive, the moral into the cerebral, such that our students learn to analyze and evaluate personal and community dilemmas through the prism of reason within our traditional system of values. It is our goal to provide our students with every opportunity to excel in all areas of education.
While the above mission statement gives some direction as to the need for the Jewish studies program to be rigorous and foster critical thinking, we have no indication from it as to what areas of knowledge should be learned within the Jewish studies curriculum.
Ideal graduate model
To deal with the issue of vague mission statements, we developed a model that would help schools define their Jewish studies curriculum in more detail. Using their mission statements as their point of departure, schools are challenged to define their ideal graduate of 12 years of Jewish learning.
The following assignment is given to the various stakeholders in a school.
Examine your School’s Mission Statement and, based on that, define what you would want your ideal school graduate to have learned, with particular reference to her Jewish Identity.
Use the following four categories:
- Values-Beliefs and Philosophies
Example: She believes in the importance of the existence of the State of Israel
- Values-Behavioral Characteristics (Middot)
Example: He behaves in a way that demonstrates sensitivity when dealing with others
- Jewish Studies/Hebrew Language Skills
Example: He has the ability to read, write and converse in modern Hebrew
- Jewish Studies Knowledge
Example: She is familiar with major events in Jewish history
Participants write approximately six statements for each category and formulate, at this stage, general statements (e.g. in Jewish knowledge-familiarity with Humash stories, rather than specify particular Humash books or chapters). Following the writing of these statements, participants prioritize each one. This process lays the foundations for defining the Jewish studies subjects to be taught at the school and the time allocation for each. The higher the prioritization, the more time it should be given in the curriculum.
The school can then define the overall goals of each subject in terms of knowledge, skills and values and student outcomes to be attained in Jewish studies by the end of Year 12. This model, based on the principles of the “Backward Design” curriculum concept (Covey, 1994; Wiggins and McTighe, 1998), is particularly suited both to clarify the end goal for students of 12 years of Jewish education.
In the words of Covey, “To begin with the end in mind means to start with a clear understanding of your destination. It means to know where you’re going so that you better understand where you are now so that the steps you take are always in the right direction” (1994, p. 32). In the backward design model, the curriculum planner starts with the end, the desired results, and then derives the curriculum from the evidence of learning called for by the attainment expectations and the teaching needed to equip students to perform to meet these attainments.
Our premise is that by defining and agreeing on a common set of curriculum entitlements, educators with various roles – such as Principals, teachers, rabbis and learning support staff – share a language about Jewish learning and promote high expectations of pupils that maintain consistent progress in attainment. Moreover, defining the curriculum in terms of what pupils should attain in their Jewish learning helps teachers to cooperate in realizing learning outcomes and to share criteria for assessing pupils’ progress in personal growth and attainment.
Case study: Issues of controversy and debate in one school
This process, while clarifying the rationale of the Jewish studies curriculum, can lead to major issues of controversy within a school. For example, in one school the main issues of debate were in the following three areas:
- The relative importance of modern Hebrew in the ideal graduate profile.
- The tension between a skills versus values based approach to the study of Jewish texts.
- The place of Israel and student responsibility to the Jewish and wider community in the curriculum.
Modern Hebrew
Hebrew language teachers contended that Ivrit must be a central pillar of the curriculum and complained that graduates of Jewish schools in the UK are Hebrew language illiterate. In the words of one: “How can it be that a student goes through 12 years of life in a Jewish school and cannot put together even half a sentence in Hebrew when he is in Israel?”
By contrast, Jewish studies teachers were much less concerned about this aspect of students’ Jewish education. In the words of one:
When our time is as limited as it is, our focus has to be to try and transmit Jewish knowledge and values to our students. What do I care if they know how to say “How much a falafel costs” in Hebrew when they visit Israel?
We are battling to ensure our students remain Jewish and marry Jews. All our efforts have to be channeled to reach that goal. Knowledge of Ivrit does not help with this at all.
Because of these issues, the term “familiarity” rather than “fluency” with modern Hebrew was agreed as the compromise statement for the ideal graduate profile above.
Study of Jewish texts
Jewish studies teachers differed strongly in their discussions about the purpose of textual study in the curriculum. While all agreed that Tanakh should be a core text in the curriculum, they differed as to what their students should gain from the learning of these texts. Some were adamant that it was the values that needed to be emphasized. In the words of one teacher:
We are wasting our time if we think that students will achieve any fluency in Hebrew textual skills. We have to focus on these texts in English and emphasize the values that emanate from the texts and their relevance to students in today’s age.
Other teachers, however, argued strongly that students need to be challenged to analyze text and commentaries whether in Hebrew or English. In the words of one:
Why should a student, just because he is personally not observant of all mitzvot, be robbed of appreciating thenuances and deep readings of the Biblical text. He gets a rigorous English and Science education – why not a challenging and probing Jewish education as well?’
As regards the wording of the ideal graduate profile, just as this particular school decided that “familiarity” rather than “fluency” with classical Hebrew, was most appropriate for their school, “knowledge of selected texts” was agreed upon rather than “independent analysis of text.”
Israel and the community
The third issue, the place of Israel and the community, was highlighted by students aged 16-18. When asked which area within the Jewish studies curriculum they wished to learn more about, many students felt that the study of Israel and the Jewish community were areas that were neglected in the formal Jewish studies curriculum. In the words of one 17 year old student:
All our schools have Israel programs in which students visit Israel for different lengths of time during their years in school. But not all our schools give sufficient time in the formal curriculum to the study of Israel. I’d also love to know more about Jews in other parts of the world too. I know nothing about the Jews in Europe or America and too little about the make-up of the UK Jewish community. What about our responsibility to the wider community and particularly issues of social justice? Let’s talk more about people rather than books.
Students were, in fact, the main catalysts for change in the ideal graduate profile in which Israel and the wider community was given a more prominent place in the formal curriculum.
Conclusions and reflections
In conclusion, the ideal graduate model, based on the school’s mission statement is one process that can be helpful in answering our question: What should I have learned as a Jew after 12 years in a Jewish school? As we have seen from one case study, the process can be fraught with controversy as stakeholders define for themselves, perhaps for the first time, what should be the elements of their Jewish studies program. However the process of debate, discussion and reflection can be in itself the most valuable outcome of this effort.
References
Covey, S. (1994). The seven habits of highly effective people. Salt Lake City: FranklinCovey.
Fox, S, Scheffler, I. and Marom, D. (2003). Visions of Jewish education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scheffler I. (1992). Jewish Education: Purposes, problems and possibilities.
Curriculum, Community, Committment, ed. D.J. Margolis and E.S. Schoenberg. West Orange, NJ: Behrman House.
Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)