Sara Rosenfeld is currently the Director of Curriculum for Foundation (Pre-1A) to Grade 12 at Yeshivah and Beth Rivkah Colleges (Melbourne, Australia). Mrs. Rosenfeld has extensive classroom experience at all levels. She is a member of the Menachem Education Foundation standards team, which has developed Zekelman Standards for Chumash and is currently working on furthering the development of Zekelman Standards for Toshba.

Sara Rosenfeld’s article focuses on how research helped two schools to change their programs to adapt their missions to a new population.

Background to the research

In relation to curriculum, each school or education provider faces difficult decisions about what to focus on in an increasingly crowded curriculum. This article argues that the answer should be sought in the organization’s aims and goals as well as its population or target population to make decisions appropriate for its community. School mission statements can help to identify the values guiding the organization. I found myself wrestling with such concerns and decisions when I was asked by a principal in a local Jewish day school to develop a curriculum for the Russian students in the school. (Note: “Russian” students refers to students whose families emigrated from the former Soviet Union). This specific curriculum was required because these students often come to the school with very little, if any, Jewish educational background.

Formal research had not been undertaken, and the idea to have a specially-designed curriculum drew on anecdotal evidence about the assumptions underlying provision and the sense that in the past there had been a failure to integrate Russian students. I therefore felt that the only way to approach this task was, first of all, to find out more about this target population in the two schools concerned: a girls’ school and its brother school. This formed the background to this research project – an examination of the experience of first and second generation Russian immigrant adolescents in the secondary (Grade 7-12) campuses of two Orthodox day schools.

Methodology

A qualitative research study was designed as a needs assessment to answer the particular question: “How can the Queen Esther School for Girls and the King Solomon School for Boys (pseudonyms) – while following their respective mission statements – provide optimal secondary education for their Russian student populations who have had minimal prior Jewish education?”

Information was gleaned from 38 returned questionnaires and 44 interviews which together represented the voice of forty seven families. In addition, 19 staff members and four members of the Russian community were also interviewed and school documents were examined. Parents and students were asked to identify the meaning of education and explored the feelings on a number of facets of Jewish identity as identified by Himmelfarb (1982, cited by Goldlust and Taft, 1993) and used in the studies of Steinkalk (1982) and Zaitzeva (1997). These facets included religion, communal involvement, social relations, Yiddish, Israel, defense of Jewish identity, and positive emotional involvement.

They were also asked what they considered to be the advantages and disadvantages of Jewish education, why they chose to come to the schools in question, what their expectations were of the schools in both Jewish and general studies, and how their expectation were or were not met. Finally they were asked what they perceived as the needs of the Russian students at the schools and to recommend ways the schools might improve their educational programming to better meet these needs. Interestingly, participants were also asked if they had read the school mission statements at any time, either before enrolling or while at the school.

Of 18 parents and 20 students polled, eight parents and eleven students indicated that they had never seen or read the school’s mission statement. Four parents and eight students claimed to have read the mission statement after enrolment, and only four parents read this statement before they enrolled their children.

Background of the schools

As Orthodox Jewish day schools, the schools in question see themselves – as do many similar day schools (Rietveld-Van Wingerden, 2003) – as the transmitters of Jewish identity through the valued knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of the Jewish religion, culture, and tradition of the past 3,300 years. This is accomplished through the offering of a dual curriculum, i.e. both secular and religious, since “the major instrument of enculturation adopted by a school is its curriculum” (Bullivant, 1983, p.52).

At both schools advanced Jewish studies curriculum is offered alongside a general studies curriculum leading into VCE (VCE is the credential awarded to secondary school students who successfully complete high school level studies in the Australian state of Victoria). The level of Jewish studies at the secondary schools requires an advanced knowledge of Jewish culture and religion. For instance, grounding in the Hebrew language and familiarity with textual study of the Bible in its original Hebrew are prerequisites for full participation in Jewish studies classes. Boys are also expected to have had a firm grounding in the study of the Talmud (written in Aramaic) and Jewish law. Consequently, the Hebrew alphabet is formally taught at both schools prior to the first grade. Textual Biblical studies begin in Year 1 in both schools and the boys begin their introductory study of Talmud in Year 3. Thus, students attending these primary schools are well-prepared to continue their studies at an advanced level in the secondary schools.

As might be expected then, any students with limited, or no Jewish educational background are at a severe disadvantage when entering these schools in their late primary years or in secondary school. These students do not possess the assumed textual, cultural, and religious knowledge to be able to participate fully in the Jewish studies classes at the secondary level. They cannot read or write Hebrew fluently and are unfamiliar with holidays and their related practices; they are only vaguely familiar with ancient Jewish history as studied in primary school from Biblical texts and the role of the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition; they have only rudimentary familiarity with the main Jewish life cycle events; they are missing some of the basic Hebrew vocabulary and terms popularly used in Jewish life.

Because of this, the schools’ role as “transmitters of Jewish identity” through its curricula are compromised. Further, both schools’ mission statements emphasized three key areas : academic excellence in both Jewish and general studies, commitment to Torah and its observance, and the ability to take an active part in the wider community in which they would live. The mission statements of the schools were not attuned to this new population. To wit, when staff members were asked how they would determine school success for this particular cohort, they referred to demonstration of Jewish pride, graduates marrying other Jews, involvement in the Jewish community, and an allegiance to the school (e.g., demonstrated when students send their own children to the school). Staff felt that expecting students to become religious was not realistic, but that if they did, it would generate great pride.

Seven facets of Jewish identity

A closer look at the schools’ mission statements reveals an understanding of many different facets of Jewish identity as identified by Goldlust and Taft (1993), Simai-Aroni (1985) and used by Steinkalk (1982) and Zaitseva (1997). While the girls’ school mission statement says that it wishes to educate young women “with a commitment to Torah values,” the boys’ school mission included educating students to be “committed, loyal and devoted to their people” in addition to their religion. This statement could be interpreted to include other aspects of demonstration of Jewish identity in addition to “being practicing Jews.” Having Jewish friends, getting involved in Jewish communal affairs, being concerned for the survival of Jewish feeling in future generations and the fate of Jews around the world, could also be included as indicators of success in meeting, at least part of, the mission statement.

After analyzing student and parent questionnaires, this cohort was compared with Steinkalk’s (1982) cohort of Soviet adolescents and their parents in Melbourne on the seven facets of Jewish identification. Both the students and parents in this study identified more strongly with observance of the Jewish religion and being active in the Jewish community. Students in this study also rated “having Jewish friends,” “the survival of Jewish feeling in future generations,” and “the fate of Jews throughout the world” as more important. Without knowing who the adolescents were in Steinkalk’s study or the schools they attended, and considering that the students in this study attended religious schools, this result seems to support Goodman’s finding (1984) that Orthodox schools do affect religious attitude and world views and that having been educated in Orthodox secondary schools has indeed positively affected these particular students. At the same time, it could also support the view of Steinkalk (1982) and Cohen & Kelner (2007) that parents who believed in the efficacy of Jewish schools to impart these values were the ones who enrolled their children into the Jewish schools. Or, as Goldlust and Taft (1992) argue, it is parents with a greater interest in Jewish identification who choose Jewish days schools over state schools. Thus, it could also be parental attitude that had an impact on these results.

Interestingly, students and parents in this study were closely matched to Steinkalk’s cohort regarding their feelings of the importance of Israel in their lives and on the view of Yiddish language and culture. When comparing the views of parents in this study to those in Steinkalk’s, they were very similar on the importance of “having Jewish friends” and the “survival of Jewish feeling in future generations.” Interestingly, the parents of this study viewed “Yiddish language and culture” and “fate of Jews throughout the world” as less important than those in Steinkalk’s study. In summary, this cohort was not significantly different from the cohort studied by Steinkalk despite the education received in these Orthodox schools.

Variation of outcomes

While the vast majority of stakeholders were satisfied with the Jewish education they received, felt it met their expectations, and even relayed the effect their education had on their appreciation for the Jewish religion and Jewish culture, their academic outcomes in Jewish studies and many of their attitudes towards Jewish life and religion did not meet the expectation of the schools’ mission statements. These students were not religious, were living outside of the Jewish community, some were dating non-Jews, and many did not see the relevance of religion in their lives.

Very few did well in their Jewish studies, became fully observant and established homes within the Jewish community – the markers of success of their Jewish education as measured by the schools’ mission statements. For the very few who did become committed practicing Jews, parental involvement and support in choosing this path was paramount as was the importance of observant friends who consistently invited them to celebrate Shabbat and Jewish festivals with them. Thus, this study affirms the research of Cohen (1992), Eisikovits & Beck (1990), Glass (1994), Katz & Parker (2008), Kelmen (1992), Markus (2011), Reimer (1992), Rutland (2008), and Sacks (1994) that the efficacy of a Jewish day school is directly correlated with the priorities and involvement of the parents.

Exploration of needs

It is not surprising that there were different perceptions of the needs expressed by the staff than by the Russian students and their parents. Staff identified student needs as relating to to their lack of engagement in Jewish studies classes, lack of knowledge of Jewish religious observances and Hebrew language, and thus also a lack of commitment to the ethos and religious observance encouraged by the schools. Parents and students, however, saw their needs as relating to acceptance, tolerance and celebration of their unique background; in their words, social factors were paramount. In addition, building Jewish friendships, knowing about Jewish culture and history and getting good VCE results, were more important to them than learning how to practice Judaism in day-to-day life.

The key theme emerging from participants as the basis for an improved delivery of the schools’ mission statements is the need for the schools to take on a more holistic view and approach to Jewish education. Not only must more be done to make the subjects learned more relevant to the students, especially in the boys’ school, but the schools must also see as part of their mission the responsibility to involve marginal parents in both curricular and co-curricular activities.

In addition, time and time again participants relayed the crucial role the broader Jewish community played in their ability to internalize the teaching of the school and in forming their attitudes towards Jewish religion and practice. Personal connections with classmates and teachers, and invitations to celebrate Jewish festivals with observant families, affected students much more than the teaching in the classroom. The social aspects of schooling and community had a stronger impact than pure academia. Schools need to be more involved in ensuring that all families with minimal Jewish background feel part of the school community and that the more religiously observant families informally adopt families of their children’s classmates, so that not only are the children exposed to the practice of Judaism but their parents are as well. This responsibility needed to extend beyond graduation; maintaining contact with alumni, especially those from families who are not active in the Jewish community, was also seen as an important component in ensuring any long term effect of the Jewish education received.

Beyond a needs assessment

This study, while rooted in a needs assessment, has also become a significant analysis on the meaning of Jewish identity in contemporary Melbourne, how that identity is formed and the efficacy of Jewish education in affecting this formation of identity.

A key factor in the cultural dissonance experienced by Russian students concerned the differing views maintained by students and parents versus those of the schools on the purpose of Jewish education and the meaning of Jewish identity most important for Jewish continuity. While it is true that the varying facets of Jewish identity used in many other research studies were also identified by this cohort as important to their own identity, it was also clear that facets other than religious observance – as identified by the majority of the interviewees – did not seem to impact on views of intermarriage, which is the greatest risk to Jewish continuity. Eight of the 17 unmarried students, including three of the four boys interviewed, were not opposed to intermarriage of their close relatives or siblings. When analyzing this response in comparison to previous responses concerning other facets of Jewish identity, a revealing picture emerges. Six of these students still agreed that religion played a central role in Judaism, and five also indicated that religion was very important to them. Yet, paradoxically, none of these students was strictly observant of Shabbat, the laws of keeping Kosher, or any Jewish festivals other than Yom Kippur, with two only loosely observing this holiest day on the Jewish calendar. Of particular note, seven of these students listed Jewish feeling as the most important aspect of their Jewish identity among other identity factors, such as Jewish friends, the fate of Jews, and Israel. This tallies with Schneerson’s (1957, 1973) and Kafka’s (1966) assertions that Jewish identity absent observance of Jewish practice is insufficient to prevent assimilation.

Since intermarriage is one of the greatest threats to Jewish continuity, given the centrality of Jewish continuity in their respective mission statements through Torah observance, it would seem imperative that the schools do much more to include this phenomenon in a relevant part of their curriculum. To encourage unaffiliated students to take on more religious practices and observances in their personal lives, by extension means that the schools must also do much more to involve unaffiliated parents into Jewish life, a result echoing Markus (2011). It is not only a reflection of contemporary society that Jewish schools have become the bearers of responsibility to pass on Jewish traditions to the next generation instead of the parents, but they must also include the parents in their educational endeavors.

Further, this study has highlighted that the needs assumed by the mission statement are not necessarily congruous with the needs of the students as perceived by them and their parents. An ideal mission statement will only be wholly successful if all parties concerned are in agreement that the goals of the mission statement fulfil their needs. This information can only be ascertained by speaking to parents and students directly, either during in-take interviews or through surveys of students and their parents.

Finally, surveys on the perceived needs and the effect of educational programming need not be limited to graduates of the school. Systematic and repeated surveys, over the years of a student’s schooling, can highlight problems with school programming that may be impinging on the effect of a school’s mission statement. By gaining this information before students graduate, the school has the opportunity to address concerns before students leave the environs of the Jewish educational institution.

References

Bullivant, B. M. (1983). Transmission of tradition in an Orthodox day school: An ethnographic case study. In B. Chazan (Ed.), Studies in Jewish education (Vol 1), 39-72. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University.

Cohen, S.M. (1992). What we know about…the marginally affiliated. In S.L. Kelman (Ed.), What we know about Jewish education, pp. 115-127. Los Angeles, CA: Torah Aura Productions.

Cohen, S.M., & Kelner, S. (2007). Why Jewish parents send their children to day schools. In J. Wertheimer (Ed.), Family matters: Jewish education in an age of choice, pp. 80-100. Brandeis University Press.

Eisikovits, R.A. & Beck, R.H. (1990). Models governing the education of new immigrant children in Israel. Comparative Education Review, (34)2, 177-195.

Glass, H. I. (1994). Parent involvement practices and attitudes: A comparative study of public schools and private Jewish day schools. Doctor of Education Thesis. Florida International University.

Goldlust, J. & Taft, R. (1993). Jewishness of Soviet emigrants of the 1970s. Research Report: Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs.

Goodman, Y.M. (1984). A correlation study of Jewish education and hashkafa among college-age Jewish students. In M. Rosenak (Ed.), Studies in Jewish education (Vol 2). Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

Kafka, Franz (1966). Letter to his father. Brief an Den Vater (Kaiser & E. Wilkins, Trans.). New York: Schocken Books.

Katz, B.D., & Parker, M. (2008). The Jewish education of parents. In R.L. Goodman, P.A. Flexner & L.D. Bloomerg (Eds.), What we now know about Jewish education, pp.151-159. Los Angeles, CA: Torah Aura Productions.

Markus, A. (2011). Jewish continuity. Melbourne: Monash University Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation.

Reimer, J. (1992). What we know about … Jewish family education. In S. Kelman (Ed.), What we know about Jewish education, pp.177-185. Los Angeles, CA: Torah Aura Productions.

Rietveld-Van Wingerden, M. (2003). A dangerous age? Secondary education and moral-religious training: the case history of Dutch Jewish secondary education 1880-1940. Journal of Beliefs & Values. 24(1).

Rutland, S.D. (2008). Jewish education in Australia. In J. Wertheimer (Ed), Family matters: Jewish education in an age of choice, pp. 441-447. Brandeis University Press.

Sacks, J. (1994). Will we have Jewish grandchildren? Ilford: Vallentine Mitchell.

Schneerson, Rabbi M.M. (1957). The Jewish people as a minority and the Jewish individual [Letter]. Retrieved from www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/1843836/jewish/The-Jewish-People-As-A-Minority-And-The-Jewish-Individual.htm

Schneerson, Rabbi M.M. (1973). The key to Jewish survival [Letter]. Retrieved from www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/1274/jewish/The-Key-to-Jewish-Survival.htm

Simai-Aroni, R. (1985). Effects of Jewish and non-Jewish Schooling on Jewish identity and commitment. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Steinkalk, E. (1982). The adaptation of Soviet Jews in Victoria: A study of adolescent immigrants and their parents. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Zaitseva, I. (1997). Jewish identity of the recent immigrants from the former USSR to Melbourne: A preliminary analysis. (Postgraduate thesis). University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.