<HTML>Firstly, this conversation that can finally be conducted among educators
who are currently in the field and working in schools, has always been
something that I have wished would be instituted and I am deeply greatful
for Shalom's
initiative and the Lookstein Center's commitment for finally putting it in
place. Yeyasher Kochachem!!
It seems to me that before one can ask the questions regarding the ideal
texts for a vertically articulated Talmud curriculum, one must first
establish a) who the student body is, b) what the expectations of the
community are, c) what are the abilities and long-term goals of the staff
of the school, and d) what the discipline would ideally require for mastery
and life-long learning, i.e., grappling with Joseph Schwab's commonplaces.
Asking these questions per force creates the reality that an answer for one
type of school in one particular community might very well not be an answer
for another type of school or even the same type of school in another
community. While the argument that in general studies disciplines, a
certain degree of standardization exists, this is because in order to be
accredited by local governmental authorities , to do well on national
standardized tests, and in order for students to be competitive in terms
of university acceptance, there are certain givens that dominate both the
public and private school world. Furthermore, most day schools will not
hire general studies staff that do not have teaching credentials in the
subject areas which they teach, which further lends itself to
standardization of expectations.
These variables are not relevant to the same extent, if at all, with
regard to Judaic studies in Chutz LaAretz. While some day schools do have
to be concerned about the acceptance of their graduates to institutions in
Israel following graduation, the other factors simply do not play powerful
roles in setting the agenda for Judaic studies, hence the phenomenon
mentioned by R. Kramer, that Jewish studies educators are evaluated more
for their inspirational qualities than their educational expertise.
For example, here are some of the considerations that the commonplaces will
give rise to in terms of making decisions vis-a-vis Talmud in a day school:
a) Who the student body is:
Very few schools are homogeneous to the extent that one level can be
offered for all with respect to Judaic studies. This is particularly true
if schools are committed to enroll students who have not been in the school
from the very early grades, and therefore come in with a variety of
backgrounds and skill development. Therefore within even a single
school, individual decisions will have to be made. Most schools seem to
think LeChatchila of their best students, and only afterwards provide for
those of lesser abilities and/or motivation. Consequently the weaker
students, rather than learning a curriculum specially designed for them,
are given a watered-down version of what everyone else is studying. While
self-esteem considerations would contribute to the entire school learning
the "same thing" should such considerations override what is best for
individual students?
A second issue would involve the school's traditions in terms of what its
graduates typically do. When it is a given that the overwhelming majority
of students will continue to learn in Israel and even afterwards, the
curriculum per force will look differently than if senior year is the last
time that one can reasonably expect to expose students to Talmud. A third
variable is the time that is allotted to Talmud. A different curricular
look will arise if there is one period a day as opposed to two periods per
day; whether a significant portion of the population attends extra
learning sessions after school, on weekends, during the summer, have
Chevrutot, etc. Both quality and quantity of time that the students will
devote to Talmud has to play a role in curricular choice.
b) What the expectations of the community are.
Day school educators are the Shlichim of the parent body and the community
as a whole. Research has demonstrated that schools are able to change
students' value orientations and ideologies only slightly. Students
typically reflect the values of their parents, their community. When there
is communal support to Talmud learning, when parents will not object to
their children spending long hours studying Talmud both inside and outside
of the classroom--often at the expense of other disciplines or
extra-curricular pursuits--when there will not be parental objections to
what some might view as "aesoterica" then choices can be made that
otherwise might not be able to be made in other contexts. I have
professionally pursued a course where I have tried to influence not only
the school climate internally, but also the communal values by presenting
Shiurim in the community, exploiting opportunities to expose the adult
population to significant Talmud experiences, not only for their sakes, but
also with the hope that this will lend support to what these people's
children will be learning in school. Pushing students in the direction of
learning Talmud to the exclusion of other subject matter, a value that
might be subtly or even overtly promoted in Talmud classes will also have
to be considered in light of communal expectations.
c) What are the abilities and long-term goals of the staff of the school
A serious question regarding Talmud curricula is how well will the staff
be able to handle the material that has been chosen. It is well known that
even the most thought-out curricula once placed in the hands of the
classroom teacher, will only be successful if it allows for the teacher to
successfully present it. One Rosh Yeshiva stated publicly several years ago
that his experience has convinced him that most people teaching Talmud do
not have a basic understanding of the material themselves! Furthermore, in
addition to properly understanding the subject matter, the training of
teachers of Judaic studies in general, and in my opinion in Talmud in
particular, does not usually include significant time devoted to pedagogy,
styles of learning, etc. Talmud is a subject that while traditionally has
always been taught in a frontal manner, nevertheless due to its complexity
and abstract aspects, requires great skill and heuristic creativity in
order to reach students aside from the most gifted and self-motivated.
Therefore, the curricula that is put into the hands of the teachers, i.e.,
the Masechtot/Sugyot that are chosen, have to reflect who the staff is and
what their capabilities and personal preferences are, in addition to
including suggestions, approaches, contexts that will contribute to the
materials successfully being conveyed. It is my view that it is
insufficient to look upon a Talmud curriculum as simply choosing which
Gemorot, Rishonim, Acharonim to present to students and for which to hold
them responsible. On-going, long-term in-service instruction can train
teachers once they are on a school's staff, but training and particularly
apprenticeship with master educators are naturally best accomplished while
one is still a student. Regular staff meetings in the event that everyone
is teaching the same subject matter--which might not be ideal for some of
the reasons listed above in a)--might help to address some of these issues.
d) What the discipline would ideally require for mastery and life-long
learning:
Naturally the kinds of questions that Rabbi Kramer posed will also be
relevant to choosing subject matter, i.e., in light of mental
development middle school vs. high school; in terms of building skills an=
d
vocabulary Masechtot or Perakim that are more basic or address particular
needs as opposed to others that while classical in the sense that they have
been traditionally studied, nevertheless do not serve educational purposes
in the best sense; with respect to creating a love of learning--skills
without emotional and spiritual commitment is comparable to words of
Tefilla without Kavana; as far as a prerequisite knowledge base is deemed
essential in order to accumulate the Yediot that higher levels of learning
take for granted. From this perspective, it is important to consider the
relevance and immediacy that the Talmudic material might have again for
students who inherently are not necessarily committed to learning such
material in depth, at least from the outset.
While the above is the theory that in my opinion should inform Talmud
curricula, I would like to respond to some of the particular issues that
were raised in R. Kramer's query:
I do not believe that at any level, skills should be emphasized over
subject matter or vice versa. There constantly has to be a mix. Teachers
have to self-consciously emphasize from 6th grade through 12th grade, key
words, sentence structure, basic concepts, hermeneutic approaches, logical
thought patterns, even as they plumb the actual Sugya itself for its
Halachic and spiritual significance. Talmud should be viewed by the student
as rich, multi-dimensional subject matter rather than as something
monolithic and monodimensional.
To expect that sufficient skills will be in place by the time a student
enters HS depends upon many of the variable listed above. But like in many
other disciplines, math in particular, unless students constantly learn,
breaks such as summer vacation, winter hiatuses, etc. will inevitaly erode
continuity. That is why the year(s) of learning in Israel after HS are so
powerfully effective. There is undistracted and essentially uninterrupted
Talmud learning for a rather intense and prolonged period of time,
something that is simply impossible in the years leading up to this
experience.
My only issue with developing skills has to do with the length of the
Sugyot and the developmental level and motivation of the students. Longer
Sugyot will inevitably develop not only short-range skills, but also help
develop the ability to follow an argument, keep in mind many
considerations, compare and contrast numerous points of view. Younger
students and those with less interest and ability, will become frustrated
and will in the end retain little when long Sugyot are presented. Usually
in any Masechet there are Sugyot of various lengths, but some, e.g.,
Berachot, Shabbat, Megilla, etc. of course lend themselves to presenting
shorter sections than others. If one is adventurous and prepared to take
Sugyot from different Masechtot (see below for my response to the objection
to move away from a particular Masechet), then an umbrella theme could be
chosen that would unify these sections, e.g., Kavod HaZulot, including
issues like Hezek ReIya, Tza'ar Ba'alei Chayim, Yachasim LeNachrim, etc.
My own preference for Middle School, is learning major sections of
Mishnayot with the commentary of the Tiferet Yisroel. The Mefaresh presents
a great deal of Lamdut. Key words and concepts can be introduced at that
point, the subject matter moves along--many positive aspects for Middle
School students. However the politics of day school are such that as is
noted with regard to learning one Masechet as opposed to Sugyot, unless you
are a certain type of school with a certain type of community, and for that
matter with certain types of teachers, it will not be acceptable to defer
Talmud in favor of Mishnayot. This is an excellent example of how some
commonplaces dominate others, not necessarily in the best interests of
long-term education.
Once a school decides what and how the respective classes should be
learning, expectations can be set, and objective tests ought to be
established that would hold the teacher and the class to those
expectations.
Finally, I am not convinced that learning a Masechet in sequence,
particularly in light of how much is typically covered during the course of
a day school Shiur, is justified. One can choose Sugyot from a particular
Masechet and still have students say that they are learning a single
Masechet, if we are concerned about what they will tell their friends. I
find the larger problem with such an approach is that it is not respected
by the Bochanim who come from Israel to test our students on behalf of the
Yeshivot where we hope they will continue to learn after graduating High
School.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Jack Bieler
Asst. Principal for Judaic Studies 7-12
Hebrew Academy of Greater Washington
Silver Spring, MD
301-587-4100 x18</HTML>
