Crossposted from Mifgashim:
I found the article “Re-Designing American High Schools for the 21st Century†by Patrick Cook-Duncan (Stanford Social Innovation Review, June 27th, 2016), referenced in Mifgashim Volume 8 Issue 381 - [
listserv.biu.ac.il] - not only interesting in broad educational terms, but specifically with respect to Jewish education in general, and Jewish day school high schools in particular. Assuming that one accepts Cook-Duncan’s basic premise based upon research that the organizational and educational structure of the typical contemporary school is not a place where most students are properly and meaningfully engaged, what are the specific challenges presented by a Jewish day school environment to meaningful reform and change?
In light of the ongoing concern, confirmed at least by anecdotal evidence, that many of those who are the recipients of an intense Jewish education do not necessarily go on to live their lives in accordance with what they have been taught and experienced in their homes and communities while growing up, the need for carefully assessing constructive recommendations regarding the schooling they received becomes that much more acute.
One observation and implied recommendation that leaps out at the reader who views this article from a day school perspective, is the issue of hours of instruction. Cook-Duncan writes, “It’s crazy to expect them (hs students) to sit down at a desk and absorb information for 6 hours straight, starting at 7:30 am.†The author is referring to a single-curriculum school, where only secular studies are presented to students.
It begs the question how should a dual-curriculum school respond to such a critique?
Two possibilities present themselves: a) the curricula have to be subject to a “triage†approach whereby it is accepted that certain topics and skill sets currently taught will simply have to be foregone in order to achieve students’ maximum attention and involvement (all curriculum planning involves not only determining what should be taught, but also what will not be); or b) the same sorts of materials will be presented, but in a more efficient manner. Rethinking how to teach classical subjects and which ones to include, on both sides of the curriculum, becomes the first order of business. Although subject matter teachers are notoriously turf-protective, engaging an entire staff to try to formulate a more engaging educational experience for the student body will hopefully produce robust discussion and significant self-reflection, something that all professionals would do well to engage in.
With regards to specific subject matter, aside from moving away from a general emphasis upon “regurgitation of information†and “validating external achievement,†something that is typically deeply entrenched within the day school culture due to a concern about acceptance to the most desirable post-high school programs both in the US and Israel,
Asking questions such as: “what big issues do students want to address in the world and why?†and “what do they want to contribute to the world, and what do they need to learn to do so?†bespeaks a curricular and extra-curricular approach that is “bottom-up†rather than the more traditional “top-down.†The challenge particularly in an Orthodox school is that traditional subject matter is sometimes more theoretical than practical, and universal themes have to be inferred rather than directly defined and applied. Perhaps one practical implication is that greater attention should be paid to contemporary responsa material and journal articles that address issues that are of immediate interest and pertinence.
Cook-Degan’s urging for schools to engage in developing within students “self-regulation or emotional awareness†as well as “mindfulness†is evocative. While such objectives are typically understood as the purview of the guidance program, the interactions of counselors with most students, is usually intermittent at best, and formal guidance programming over the course of a year, does not take place that often. Individual teachers, as part of asides during their classes, or conversations outside of class, might from time to time deal with such topics, but once again, not in a concerted, pre-meditated, vertically articulated manner. Pro-active thinking that would gravitate towards gearing more and more learning in the direction of self-improvement and taking personal responsibility could be an important improvement for Jewish day school education.
Cook-Deegan’s advocacy for individual teachers assuming the role of “mentors†would more clearly serve to overtly send a message to the faculty that working on student’s personal development as a central focus is an ideal, but it must be pointed out that not all teachers in a Jewish day schools are necessarily personally suited for such interactions.
Furthermore, will a double standard be created with Judaic studies staff members being tapped for such a role and not general studies faculty? In other words, to what extent will these “mentors†be expected to engage in “religious guidance†and what would the ideal profile for an appropriate mentor in such a context?
Finally, paralleling the philosophy that informs the hiring of teachers for Judaic as opposed to general studies, should there be two types of mentors, some assigned to work on personal development in general, while others would attempt to address religious issues associated with “self-regulation and emotional awareness� Seeking to hire for a Jewish day school individuals who are comfortable in both the religious and secular worlds would appear to be an important implication of such reforms. Of course, whether this becomes a criterion for hiring and retention of faculty will depend upon the pool of teachers from which a school is able to draw.
Finally, taking a step back, thinking about designing curricular and extra-curricular presentations that would focus upon personal development and emotional intelligence would constitute a sea-change in both the way that day schools perceive their educational missions both with respect to Judaic and secular studies, as well as how they are perceived by the general community. Such fundamental changes in the manner that day schools would teach their students draws attention to the difference between public and private schools. Whereas the latter are functions of and regulated by the government, as well as funded for the most part by citizens’ taxes, private schools are to a much greater extent consumer-driven, both with respect to enrollment and financial support.
For a decentralized, individual school to have the confidence to strike out on its own in terms of approach and subject matter, risking the potential and present parent body’s judgment that it is offering an inadequate educational experience and not preparing students for the next levels of their educational experience, is expecting a great deal. Once there is significant progressive reform in the public sector, it will become easier for at least some Jewish day schools to “dip their toes in the water.†It probably would be more reasonable presently to engage in a gradual process whereby, each year, more and more time would be devoted to the personal dimension of students’ development, without radically retooling the entire school process.
These are preliminary thoughts how Patrick Cook-Deegan’s article might pertain to Jewish day high schools. Responses and continuing the discussion, in my opinion, would be most valuable.
Jack Bieler
jackbieler@aol.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2016 01:16PM by mlb.
