I appreciate the considerable feedback I have received since I released the preliminary results of the study, as well as the comments of those who responded earlier on Lookjed. Indeed, the purpose of the study was to raise questions, for both educators and their constituents to discuss, about future directions for schools. The suggestions which were raised by some of the respondents represent some of the many possible responses. The fluidity of identity raised by Michael Berger raises additional challenges, similar to those being addressed by 21st century learning, which shifts the focus from specific knowledge to be gained to skills of adaptivity to new environments. Is it possible, or desirable, to conceive and teach such a skill set for Jewish beliefs? The suggestion of a longitudinal study is well-taken. In fact, one such study was recently initiated for students on college campuses. The problem with long-term longitudinal studies is that by the time they are complete they may no longer be relevant. That, too, may eb a limitation of my study, as it provides insight into yeshiva high school education of 5-20 years ago. I imagine that the schools, their educational direction, and even their Jewish studies faculty have changed since then. Nonetheless, I believe that the value of the study lay in revealing patterns from the past which can inform our present and future.
Many of the comments sent me back to the data and to consider other avenues of thinking. Here are some which arose:
1. It seems clear that there are two populations which are not represented in this study. On one end of the spectrum are those who are completely disconnected - even socially - from the people in their high school experience. They would have had no access to this survey. On the other end of the spectrum are those who have chosen ultra-Orthodox lives and have limited access to Internet and likely no access to Facebook.
2. The study notes that there is a dramatic disparity between the ideological messages the respondents identified as being taught and those currently held by the respondents. One possible explanation which I did not mention suggests that perhaps the messages in high schools need to be more hard line because, from a developmental perspective, that is what students at that age need to hear. The disparity noted is the result of what one writer called part of the "theological maturation process." I believe that uncovering that kind of process is best accomplished through in-depth interviews rather than in a questionnaire.
3. One weakness in the data is clarity regarding whether those messages were prominent in the high school years or in the post-high school yeshiva/seminary experience. When I designed the survey I did not distinguish between those two because the survey was already getting too long (and I did get complaints about its length). Regardless, the point about the gaps between the perceived ideological messages taught, from wherever they stem, and the current beliefs, is a critical outcome of the survey.
4. In my analysis I noted that there seems to be a rebound to greater observance with marriage and a further leap when there are children present. One possibility which needs to be explored is that this reflects a cohort effect rather than a shift among individual participants. The idea of a cohort effect means that perhaps those who are married with children were always more observant, even when they were younger, and those who are of a newer generation will not necessarily become more observant and traditional as they move through the various stages of life.
5. This study consciously ignored the college years, yet those can have a significant impact on personal and religious development. The nature and intensity of Jewish life on campus, and the individual's involvement in that life, can be very significant factors. Indeed, they deserve their own study, and their is a long-term longitudinal study already being conducted with a focus on that. The function of the study was not to isolate all the factors involved in religious growth, but to examine specifically the factor of the high school years.
6. This study focused on students who attended yeshiva high schools 5-20 years ago. In that sense it provides a window of what was, but not necessarily of what currently is. This, of course, raises an entirely new set of questions for educators and lay people to consider.a. Are the teachers the same as they were a decade ago, and if not, in what ways are they more attuned to the challenges of the 21st century Orthodox teen growing up integrated into American society?
b. Have the schools adjusted their messages to be more attuned to 21st century religious and ideological challenges?
c. Given the extraordinary identity fluidity of millennials (and we are only beginning to sense the challenges of post-millennials), how can day schools prepare their students for these challenges.
Again, I thank you for your comments and feedback, and welcome more. I hope that that this helps to spark meaningful and productive discussion in the day school community - from the professionals to the lay leadership and to the parents - all of whom invest so much.
Kol Tuv,
Zvi Grumet
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2018 06:57PM by mlb.
