GLEANINGS - Jewish Theological Seminary · learning and community is more fulfilled as a result?...

GLEANINGS Dialogue on Jewish Education from The William Davidson School S P R I N G 2 0 1 8

V O L U M E 5 , I S S U E 1

Jewish Education to Help Us Thrive When we sign up our children to participate in Jewish educational experiences, what are we hoping for? Is our goal merely to have our kids become active and knowledgeable Jews? Or, if we dig deep down into our souls, might we hope that everyone—not only our children—who engages in Jewish learning and community is more fulfilled as a result?

This is the paradigm shift starting to appear throughout the field of Jewish education. It is a shift predicted many years ago by Dr. Jonathan Woocher, z”l, a true Gadol, one of the greatest Jewish educational thinkers of our time. In 2013, Dr. Woocher stated,

Jewish Early Childhood Education Leadership Institute

Day School Leadership Training Institute

Jewish Experiential Leadership Institute

The Legacy Heritage Instructional Leadership Institute

JCC Leadership Training Institute

Education projects at The William Davidson School are currently funded by Alan B. Slifka Foundation, Amy Mandel/Katina Rodis Fund, The Avi Chai Foundation, Birmingham Jewish Foundation, Covenant Foundation, The Crown Family, the Jewish Women’s Foundation of New York, Jim Joseph Foundation, Leon Levine Foundation, Lippman Kanfer Foundation for Living Torah, The Wexner Graduate Fellowship Alumni Collaboration grant, and the William Davidson Foundation, as well as by endowments established for the Melton Center and the Mandell Berman Fund for Action Research and Evaluation.

The William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education is the largest multidenominational school of Jewish education in North America, granting master’s and doctoral degrees and providing professional development to educators currently in the field. Drawing upon cutting-edge thinking in both Jewish and general education, its pedagogy emphasizes experiential education, is informed by best practices and new developments in teaching, and engenders leadership in a variety of educational settings. Learn more at www.jtsa.edu/davidson.

LEADERSHIP COMMONS The Leadership Commons is a project of The William Davidson School dedicated to building educational leadership that works together to create a vibrant Jewish future.• Leadership Institutes• Research, Design, and Publications

continues on page 2 ››

http://www.jtsa.edu/master�s-degree-in-jewish-education

http://www.jtsa.edu/ivriyon-hebrew-immersion-institute-for-day-school-educators

http://www.jtsa.edu/the-legacy-heritage-instructional-leadership-institute





http://www.jtsa.edu/davidson

http://jtsa.edu/The_Davidson_School.xml

http://www.jtsa.edu/jewish-early-childhood-leadership-institute-jeceli

http://www.jtsa.edu/day-school-leadership-training-institute-dslti

http://www.jtsa.edu/jewish-experiential-leadership-institute-jeli


http://www.jtsa.edu/jcc-leadership-training-institute-jlti

http://www.jtsa.edu/davidson

http://www.jtsa.edu/jewish-leadership-training

http://www.jtsa.edu/jewish-research

http://www.jtsa.edu/masters-degree-in-jewish-education

GLEANINGS | Jewish Education to Help Us Thrive | SPRING 2018, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 1

2

“Twentieth-century Jewish education was designed to answer the question, ‘How can we ensure that individuals remain “good” Jews, even as they become good (and successful) Americans?’ Jewish education must respond to a subtly, but significantly, different question: ‘How can we help Jews draw on and use their Jewishness to live more meaningful, fulfilling, and responsible lives?’”

As a tribute to Dr. Woocher, who served for many years on The William Davidson School Advisory Board, we have asked a group of scholars and practitioners to respond to his visionary proclamation. In this issue, we learn how the idea of thriving aligns with ancient philosophies, Jewish texts, and today’s training of the next generation of Jewish educators. We will also see evidence of this approach in Jewish education emerging across the continent, from the early childhood classroom to the JCC to the synagogue school.

As you read through, consider: How might you inspire a shift in your own approach to Jewish education? How might you encourage those around you to follow suit, helping our learners and communities to lead more meaningful, fulfilling, and thriving lives?

Shalom,

Mark S. Young, Managing Director, the Leadership Commons

CONTENTS Values in Action and Vice Versa: Toward an Integrated Framework for Jewish Education in the Social and Emotional Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3DR. JEFFREY S. KRESS

How We Learn Is What We Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5ALLISON COOK AND DR. ORIT KENT

Toward a Modern Jewish Virtue Ethics of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8DR. YONATAN Y. BRAFMAN

Toward More Expansive Perspectives on Gender, Authority, and Role Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11DR. REBECCA J. EPSTEIN-LEVI

Modeling and Learning Thriving Through Civic Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13DR. MEREDITH KATZ

Outside In: Jewish Education That Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16RABBI SID SCHWARZ

From Piles of Schnitzel to Living Extraordinary Lives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18SHARON GOLDMAN, JD

The JCC Vision of Jewish Thriving Through Engagement with the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21DR. DAVID ACKERMAN

Taking the Time and Making the Investment to Thrive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23RABBI JENNIFER GOLDSMITH

Forging a Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25ANNA MARX


3

Values in Action and Vice Versa: Toward an Integrated Framework for Jewish Education in the Social and Emotional DomainsDR. JEFFREY S. KRESS

There is no shortage of terms for education in the intra- and interpersonal domains. Character education. Moral education. Education for ethics. Whole child. Social-emotional learning (SEL). Values or Middot. Identity. Meaning and purpose. Spiritual development. Positive psychology and Thriving. While there is a place for delving into differences, I suggest that there are areas in which these approaches intersect in ways that either reinforce or complement one another.

What is my rationale for this? To paraphrase a quote that I have heard attributed to both James Comer and Seymour Sarason (if anyone has an original citation, please let me know!), we don’t teach character education (or moral education or values or SEL, etc.), we teach children (or adolescents or adults, etc.). That is, the real lived experience of an individual cannot meaningfully be subdivided into the categories we’ve established to frame our work.

In considering the actual experience of the learner, I find it helpful to think of a number of intersecting elements. While some of these might be more strongly associated with one or another of the subfields of intra- and interpersonal education, I believe it is important to see these as intersecting in the lives of individuals.

A SUBSTRATE OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL SKILLSA comprehensive list of skills that comprise social and emotional functioning would be lengthy, yet it is possible to speak about broad categories such as those iterated by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). This list includes self-awareness (e.g., recognizing one’s emotions in a given situation); self-management (e.g., managing stress; staying motivated toward a goal); social awareness (e.g., empathy and perspective taking; reading social cues); relationship skills (e.g., communication skills); and responsible problem solving. As CASEL states on its website (casel.org): Self-awareness is “the ability to make constructive choices about personal behavior and social interactions based on ethical standards, safety concerns, and social norms.” Realistic decision-making is “the realistic evaluation of consequences of various actions, and a consideration of the well-being of oneself and others.”

A FRAMEWORK OF VALUESOne might use appropriate skills for inappropriate ends. “Please hand me that pencil” can be followed by “so I can finish my assignment” or “so I can throw it at Yossi.” Values, such as the middot that are part of the resurgent Mussar movement, provide the prescriptive framework for the pro-social uses of these skills. The value of kavod (respect or honor), for example, adds that not only must the skills of “polite requests” be implemented, but also that they be used for the benefit and not the harm of others. At the same time, the skills are the substrate for the enactment of values. Though one might intend to show kavod, a demand of “Gimme!!” would not be taken as such.

TAKING ACTION Values are strongly linked to social and emotional competencies. In fact, putting values into action often involves using multiple skills in unison, and value-laden situations are, in turn, opportunities to hone social and

https://casel.org/

http://casel.org


4

emotional skills. This applies to even the most seemingly basic cases; asking for a pencil with kavod requires an array of social skills such as choosing the right words and tone of voice, gauging the emotional state of the pencil-possessor to ascertain, among other things, “Is this a good time or does that person seem to want to be left alone?” and “Am I asking for something that the other person may not want to part with?” One needs to control impulses and not grab the pencil or not ask for it if the time is not right.

Welcome to the real world. We all face circumstances in which it is particularly difficult to enact values. In fact, one can say that the Jewish tradition flags some notably challenging situations, making them a part of Jewish practice and thus integral for us to teach as part of one’s Jewish education. Think about bikkur holim (visiting the sick), hachnasat orchim (welcoming guests), and kibbud av va’em (respecting parents). In real life, enactment of these practices may involve emotional triggers (our own sadness about a loved one’s illness or the intensity of emotions that characterize parent-child relationships).

Even adults confront situations in which the way to enact values is unclear (e.g., might there be situations in which showing kavod might actually entail refraining from visiting a sick person?), and those in which values conflict (e.g., should we demonstrate achrayut, responsibility, and intervene in an argument, or use savlanut, patience, and hold back?). As such, we can’t show learners the “right way” to handle complex situations. What we can do is scaffold a framework for approaching such situations—considering the values at play and the emotional dimensions involved, planning proactively for social interactions and anticipation of roadblocks to our best intentions, and reflecting afterward to consider how things went.

INTEGRATION WITH SELF AND BEYONDThe exercise of values-guided social and emotional skills and behaviors sometimes seems to run counter to cultural norms. Actions marked by impulsivity and lack of interpersonal consideration may be easier than value- and empathy-driven behavior. To hold fast to this mode of being, one must really value values-guided action in the world. Such behavior would go beyond “what I do” to become part of “who I am.” While this (and the rest) is of course a lifelong process because our identity continually evolves, Jewish educators can promote reflection that allows learners to place their actions in the context of their developmental narratives, which allows them to thrive both within the self and in an interpersonal context. Indeed, this process cannot start and end with “self.” Educational settings are natural places to both develop a sense of community and a sense that having a community is important, as well as how one can act to enhance the overall functioning of that community. One should come to feel connected to something beyond one’s self.

CONCLUSIONHow do we foster growth in values-guided, socially skilled, self-integrated, community-enhancing behavior? Certainly a subject for another essay (or series of essays). For now, two thoughts. First, we aren’t starting from scratch. There are longstanding, research-validated efforts that can inform our work. Second, the best framework for this work may not be teaching or educating. Instead, consider parallels to coaching: When one works intensely with a coach to learn a sport or craft, the goal is a holistic one. Action, abilities, and guiding values must come together; skills, an understanding of how to put them into action, and the ability to actually put them into action under stressful situations are all intertwined. As is, ultimately, a sense that the sport or craft is central to how one defines one’s self, and one’s responsibility to the team. Good coaches motivate, model, and promote practice and reflection, and they always remember that the players and the situations in which they find themselves are constantly evolving.

Dr. Jeffrey S. Kress is the Bernard Heller Associate Professor of Jewish Education and director of the Research Center of the Leadership Commons at the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education of The Jewish Theological Seminary.


5

How We Learn Is What We LearnALLISON COOK AND DR. ORIT KENT

Let us listen closely to what voices of Jewish wisdom teach us about learning:

• Each human being is created b’tzelem elokim (in the image of God). Each of us is immeasurably valuable in our own singularity (Gen. 1:27, JT Sanhedrin 37a).

• The entire community of Israel, through every generation, received the Torah (Shemot Rabbah 28, Midrash Tanhuma Nitzavim).

• Each person heard the Torah according to their particular capacity, in their own language (Talmud Shabbat 88b, Pesikta d’Rav Kahane, 12).

• The Torah isn’t sustained by one who studies on their own (Taanit 7a), and the Shekhinah (God’s emanation on earth) resides when we study in community (Shabbat 63a).

These sources, especially when we weave them together, offer profound instruction for Jewish education to meet the needs of our generation and to ensure that both Jews and Torah may flourish and thrive. From these teachings we learn that each person, in their particularity, possesses Torah that only that person can reveal, as shaped by their unique capacities, languages, and experiences. It is no wonder then that tradition teaches that learning in relationship with others becomes the ideal site of connection with Torah and God. When we learn together, we expand understanding of Torah beyond our personal horizons into new insights and implications for living as individuals and in a covenantal community. In order to thrive, people and Torah need one another to reveal and be revealed in mutual fullness. This ideal posits that through relationships grounded in mutual accountability, we will flourish. Thus, these sources represent not only core content—the “what”—of a Jewish education but they illuminate the “why” and guide us in the “how” of Jewish learning.

For Jewish educators, the work of designing and facilitating educational experiences must be guided by such an ideal, that learning should be centered around individual expression brought into relationship with others and with Torah in such a way that all of these participants, Torah included, need one another to grow and thrive. In this way we align the “why” of Jewish learning with the method. In the Pedagogy of Partnership, our Jewish professional development organization, we call this relational mode of partnership learning, “interpretive learning.” This mode is distinct from factual learning or personalization learning.1

The factual mode of learning is characterized by questions and activities that pursue one right answer that can be definitively pointed to in the text. In the factual mode, there is a concrete right and wrong. Learners can get inside the details of what a text says, memorize important textual facts, get the story or the law straight, and collect information. The factual mode is all about the text; it is not about the reader. Factual activities do not draw on or require the particularity of a learner’s individual experiences or reading of a text because the answers to factual questions will remain the same no matter who is looking for them. In Jewish education today, in many contexts, the factual mode remains a core goal and at the core of learning activities. In these contexts, learners are accountable to the content.

In contrast, the personalization mode is all about the individual. Questions and activities that animate personalization learning privilege individual expression and may use text or Jewish content as a springboard

1 The work of the Great Books Foundation provides one of the bases of this distinction that we are drawing. See for example, An Introduction to Shared Inquiry. 4th ed. Chicago: the Great Books Foundation, 1999.

Allison Cook

Dr. Orit Kent


6

for personal reflection and sharing, but the learning activity quickly leaves the text behind. To respond to a personalization question, the learners need only look into their own opinions, judgments, and experiences to formulate their responses. In this mode learners are accountable to themselves. In many contexts in Jewish education, the personalization mode dominates the learning activity. Plenty of room is made for individual expression and opinion. Very little room remains for the voice of the text in its own integrity to be heard and considered deeply on its own terms or even in relationship to its readers’ experiences.

Both factual and personalization learning are indeed important in the mix of learning activities. Within the dominant cultural forces that shape our generation, however, it is too easy for Jewish education to be pulled in one direction or the other. Taken to the extreme, the domination of factual learning can have an alienating effect, leaving individuals to feel that there is no room for their humanity and particularity. On the other end of the spectrum, personalization learning feeds into narcissism such that students learn that they need not be accountable to others or to a tradition that, in its wisdom, beckons us to look outside of ourselves. Ironically, both of these modes are often practiced for the purpose of bringing people into relationship with Torah and yet alone, cannot sustain that relationship.

There is a third way, interpretive learning. Jewish wisdom points us toward this mode and models it within our textual tradition. Educators in any context can make this third mode more central to the “how” of Jewish education. Different from the factual mode, learners in the interpretive mode explore questions that are personally meaningful—thereby bringing themselves to the table—and the questions have multiple answers. But different from the personalization mode, the answers depend on both the text and people’s particular experiences and knowledge. The text will place boundaries on answers so that there are wrong answers and those that are more compelling than others based on the evidence one brings to bear from the content. At the same time, each person may notice something different in the text and may pursue a different line of discovery based upon their personal framework. Furthermore, in interpretive learning, learners work in conjunction with other learning partners to discover much richer and deeper learning than they would if focused only on what was meaningful to them. In the work of interpreting, learners must draw upon their own views, questions, and voices while simultaneously honoring those of the text and their human learning partners.2

In other words, interpretive learning holds learners and Torah in relationship. In order to convert fixed words into living ideas, or expression into meaning, the Torah needs human partners to notice it, wonder about it, grapple with it, and appreciate it. In turn, individuals need the text to invite them, through its complexity, beauty, difficulties, and sacredness, into new horizons of understanding and growth—intellectually, ethically, and spiritually. And finally, individuals need one another, with their different insights, in order to shed light on the text’s meanings and to support and challenge one another to stay accountable to all of the participants in the learning encounter.

Learning in the interpretive mode teaches us that to thrive, we each must bring something particular to the task of making meaning of Torah and of the world around us. At the same time, it teaches us that we also are in need of others to stretch our thinking, go beyond the self, and hold ourselves, one another, and Torah itself accountable in a dynamic state of responsiveness to one another. Our mutual accountability makes learning in the interpretive mode an act of ethical engagement.

Whether it be in text study, in our interactions in Jewish communal life, or beyond to the town square,

2 For another discussion of this interpretive mode specifically in relationship to Tanakh education, see Allison Cook and Orit Kent, “Interpretive Experience as the Fulcrum of Tanakh Education.” Ha’Yidion (Summer 2012). 58–60.

http://www.ravsak.org/news/584/173/Doing-the-Work-Interpretative-Experience-as-the-Fulcrum-of-Tanakh-Education/d,HaYidion


7

Jewish education must focus deliberately on building the discrete skills and dispositions necessary for this interpretive engagement. It is not enough for these skills and dispositions to be in the hands of a few; they must be taught and made available to individuals of all ages. In the Pedagogy of Partnership we seek to do just this, because we believe that Jews and Judaism thrive in relationship and that how we learn is ultimately what we learn.

Allison Cook and Dr. Orit Kent are teacher-educators and researchers. They are the founders and co-directors of the research-based Pedagogy of Partnership (PoP), providing cutting-edge professional development to 21st-century educators.

PoP’s comprehensive model enables learners of all ages to develop the habits of wonder, empathy, and responsibility toward others and toward Torah. It also teaches learners concrete tools to improve their communication and interpretive skills and be better able to seek understanding, work collaboratively, and engage with Torah as an ongoing source of Jewish wisdom and instruction. For more information, visit www.hadar.org/pedagogy-partnership.

https://www.hadar.org/pedagogy-partnership


8

Toward a Modern Jewish Virtue Ethics of EducationDR. YONATAN Y. BRAFMAN

Modern moral philosophy is inhospitable to the notion of Jewish ethics. However, the recent rediscovery of virtue ethics provides opportunities for the development of a specifically Jewish approach to living the good life. While this opportunity is already being developed in academic studies of Jewish ethics, its most important contribution remains to be achieved in Jewish education. For, from this perspective, Jewish education should aim to identify and cultivate dispositions and practices for today that are essential for human flourishing.

Ethics is the answer to the question, “What ought I do?” Kantianism and Utilitarianism are the two major schools of modern philosophy that try to answer this question. They differ in fundamental ways: While Kantianism focuses on whether an action complies with moral duty, Utilitarianism concentrates on an action’s consequences. They agree, however, in their abstract universalism. Kantianism holds that morality provides a formal standard by which every action can be judged. Utilitarianism maintains that the morality of every action can be calculated by the quantity and quality of generic pleasure or pain that it produces. In both cases, the very idea of a Jewish ethics is ruled out from the start due to its particularity. It is not clear how it can be both “ethics” and “Jewish,” for either it imposes peculiar obligations on only a subset of humanity or it merely provides a specific means for attaining ends that are achievable in many different ways. But this is not just a problem for Judaism. In both cases, morality is extracted from the entirety of the individual’s life, not to mention the web of interpersonal relationships and skein of culture and history in which he/she finds himself/herself.

In After Virtue, Alasdair MacIntyre rejects the abstraction and universalism of modern moral philosophy in favor of a return to the virtue ethics of classical and medieval thinkers. Chiefly associated with Aristotle but continued by Thomas Aquinas and even preserved in modernity by Jane Austen and Benjamin Franklin, virtue ethics takes a broader view of human life and the role of morality within it. MacIntyre focuses on the development of a person’s virtues, that is, dispositions to feel and to act in certain ways throughout one’s life. While they are the possession of an individual, virtues are acquired in the context of practices that are shared with others. In fact, the practices and the virtues are mutually constituting, in the sense that the virtue cannot be acquired outside of the practice and the practice cannot be enacted without the virtue. Virtues are thus always particular to the practices in which they are embedded. Nevertheless, after their cultivation within a specific set of practices, virtues can be generalized and applied to new practices.

Indeed, practices and virtues are not static. Over the course of time, new interpretations of the virtue or the practice can be offered that transform them both. These interpretations, though, always make reference to how the practice has been performed and to how the virtue has been embodied previously. Reflection on practices and virtues thus always take place within a tradition shared with others both in the past and present. Lastly, if an individual’s life is not to decompose into unrelated practices that inculcate virtues that are indifferent at best and antithetical at worst to each other, they must be interpreted in the context of an image of a whole human life. This image structures the practices into an existential project and integrates the virtues into an ideal character. It is best represented, not by a standard or calculus, but by imagined or actual exemplars—individuals who have achieved the good life.


9

MacIntyre’s virtue ethics enables the reclamation of Jewish ethics in modernity. To start, it allows an appreciation of Jewish thinkers of the past who thought within this paradigm. Moses Maimonides, who, as is well known, was strongly influenced by Aristotle, presents a virtue ethics, which he connects with an account of the commandments and a theology. Presenting the main insight of this approach, in Eight Chapters, he writes, “Know, moreover, that these moral excellences or defects cannot be acquired . . . except by means of the frequent repetition of acts resulting from these qualities, which, practiced during a long period of time, accustoms us to them.” Virtues, dispositions to act and to feel, are inculcated through repeated performance of actions until they become acquired elements of one’s character. The commandments, in Maimonides’ view, are practices for the “the discipline and guidance of the faculties of the soul.” And though he does not make it explicit, such commandments and their virtues are surely understood by Maimonides as enacted within a community and interpreted within a tradition. The ultimate purpose of Maimonides’s virtue ethics is not bound by a tradition and community, however. In imagining one’s practices and virtues cohering into a whole life, one’s exemplar should be God. For, if one fully develops the virtues, one “will reach the highest degree of perfection possible to a human being, thereby approaching God, and sharing in God’s happiness.”

Maimonides illustrates this approach in his commentary on Ethics of our Fathers (3:15), which states, “Everything is according to the multitude of the deed.” Maimonides takes this claim to mean that quantity matters more than quality in the development of the virtues. He considers the question of whether it is better to divide one’s charitable giving among many different individuals or to give a single large sum to a single individual. One could imagine how a Kantian or a Utilitarian would analyze this question. The Kantian would examine it in terms of one’s general obligation to give charity to those in need. The Utilitarian would calculate what would maximize the general happiness and minimize the general pain. Maimonides, in contrast, approaches the question from the perspective of which alternative would best cultivate the virtue of generosity and decides that repeated instances of giving would be most effective in establishing a generous disposition.

Elsewhere Maimonides integrates the virtue of generosity into an account of flourishing that includes Jewish ritual and theology. In discussing how one should apportion one’s spending to fulfill the commandments of Purim, he writes, “It is preferable to spend more on gifts to the poor than on the Purim meal or on presents to friends. For no joy is greater or more glorious than the joy of gladdening the hearts of the poor, the orphans, the widows and the strangers. Indeed, he who causes the hearts of these unfortunates to rejoice emulates the Divine Presence” (Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Purim and Hanukkah,” 2:17). Fulfilling the commandment of matanot le-’evyonim (gifts to the poor) and even prioritizing it over other commandments both expresses and fosters the virtue of generosity. Moreover, in Maimonides’ view, this virtue is central to human flourishing. Generosity enables an individual to achieve divine joy.

While Maimonides is an example of medieval Jewish virtues ethics, it is not clear that he can serve as a direct model for today. Despite his incisive and inspiring analysis of generosity, patriarchy and elitism pervade other aspects of his thought. Further, the medieval kehillah and the unquestioned authority of mesorah in which he lived and thought has given way to looser Jewish communal structures and personalized Jewish commitments. Nevertheless, the basic structure that he describes remains relevant: Judaism as a tradition of cultivating virtues and pursuing human flourishing within a communally shared practice of commandments, whether they are understood as divinely revealed or socially constructed. The particular virtues and thus the image of human flourishing, however, remain to be developed by present-day Jews and Jewish communities. Certainly, for such flourishing and its constitutive virtues to be Jewish, it must emerge out of interpretation of the Jewish tradition. But, like all interpretation, it will be performed here and now in view of the contemporary Jewish experience, which includes being enmeshed within other moral traditions and social relationships.


10

While synagogues and Jewish centers should play a role in developing and fostering a modern Jewish virtue ethics, institutions of Jewish education are indispensable. This is primarily because they are already doing it to a certain extent. In addition to conveying the content of Jewish texts to students and familiarizing them with Jewish ritual, Jewish education also fosters ways of treating others and of orienting one’s life. Often this is understood under the rubric of “Jewish values” as teaching abstract ideas like tzedek, hesed, and ’emet. But, in practice, this should mean modeling and reinforcing through action embodied ways of acting with justice, kindness, and truthfulness, that is, through cultivating dispositions. Jewish practices, like daily tefillah, matanot le-’evyonim on Purim, or even confessions of viddui, inculcate these virtues and many others.

What is lacking is a clear vision of how various Jewish virtues like these coalesce into a complete Jewish life. This can be accomplished, not through historical research, theological reflection, or mission statements, but through vividly describing or imaginatively projecting those persons who manifested those virtues and integrated them in the lives that they lived. With such exemplars in mind, Jewish educators have the unique opportunity to specify their implicit conception of human flourishing, refine their practices to cultivate the virtues it entails, and develop a Jewish virtue ethics for our time.

Dr. Yonatan Y. Brafman is assistant professor of Jewish Thought and Ethics, as well as the director of the MA program in Jewish Ethics at JTS.


11

Toward More Expansive Perspectives on Gender, Authority, and Role ModelingDR. REBECCA J. EPSTEIN-LEVI

One of the most frequently quoted Talmudic passages—especially in my own subfield of Jewish sexual ethics—is Bavli Berakhot 62a, in which Rav Kahana hides under his master Rav’s bed while the latter is having sex with his wife. Kahana, apparently, is so shocked by what he overhears (the text tells us that Rav was “laughing, and talking, and doing what he required”) that he blurts out, “It is as though Abba had never sipped from the dish before!” Rav, unsurprisingly, is not amused, and he tells Kahana to scram. Kahana’s response—now, in its reception, nearly cliché—is that “This, too, is Torah, and I must learn.”

This text is usually deployed in service of the point that, for the Rabbis, everything, even sex, is worthy of serious study and modeling by a master. And, at first glance, this narrative may look like straightforward role modeling. But closer attention reveals ruptures: both Kahana and Rav are discomfited by the encounter. Rav’s sexual behavior is not what Kahana seems to have expected from his master, to the point where his exclamation may be read as rebuke. Kahana’s behavior, conversely—his initial intrusion, his undisciplined exclamation, and his retort to what is obviously a command—is clearly not what Rav expects from an obedient and attentive student.

Context highlights these ruptures. The passage is preceded by anecdotes of students who follow their masters into the privy and learn uneventful lessons that are passed down multiple generations. Linguistic and literary cues point even further toward the conclusion that the modeling that occurs between Rav and Rav Kahana represent a break in normal patterns of role modeling. And feminist readers will note that the gender dynamics of the text are troubling indeed: Rav’s wife does not speak and is not named. Indeed, she is present only by inference, not even meriting a pronoun of her own.

In our particular sociopolitical moment, matters of sex, gender, and authority have taken on greater visibility and urgency, as the recently viral #metoo movement—started 10 years ago by Tarana Burke—has drawn renewed attention to the ways in which the abuse of authority and power enables gendered and sexualized oppression. Yet we work with and within a cultural and textual tradition in which potentially problematic structures of authority are an integral and unignorable part. Whether these authorities are currently or recently living (rabbis, teachers, poskim, administrators, funders) or historically active (the Rabbis of the Talmud and of the medieval and early modern halakhot), our tradition is filled with figures who exert authority over our moral lives. And we, as Jewish scholars, rabbis, and other Jewish community professionals, also exert practical authority over others.

How, then, can we grapple with the role of authority—ours and others’—so that we may live more ethically bound and thriving Jewish lives? How shall we relate to authority that is integral to our traditions when it can function and does often function in ways that are problematic? How do we structure our own authority such that it does not reproduce unjust power structures?

These last two questions are intimately related. The relationships we cultivate with our texts and our histories will shape and condition the ways we relate to our fellow humans. we should, therefore, cultivate an ethic of respectful and creative questioning of authority in each case. We should honestly acknowledge the


12

problematic dimensions of rabbinic authority—their consolidation of intellectual and ritual resources, which, in turn, enabled them to normalize the exclusion and dehumanization of women, gentiles, and ammei-ha-aretz (non-rabbinic Jews). We also, however, should recognize the constructive and helpful functions served by their authority, particularly as we read rhat authority itself as a form of resistance against certain forms of imperial authority over them. In each encounter, we should seek out and recognize both destructive and constructive elements of their authority, and use each of these as guides (whether positive or negative) for our own ways of relating as authorities to others.

This means that we must embrace a more expansive understanding of what it means to be an authority and a role model. In the rabbinic virtue ethics tradition, the teacher and sage was a source of authority by both word and example. In this textual world, an apprentice learned from his master both interpretive skill and the fine points of day-to-day conduct, both from explicitly didactic lessons in the beit midrash and by watching his master’s personal conduct. Much of the time, the master was the exemplar and the student did well to copy his example. But occasionally, the master’s weaknesses and foibles provided a counterexample to the student, as we see hinted at in the Rav Kahana story—and as we think about more liberatory models of authority, we should attend to these occasions.

Such instances also give us clues about rabbinic texts themselves. Instead of relating to rabbinic texts as simple, top-down sources of authority that deliver unmediated rulings on our day-to-day lives, the texts’ authority is better understood in terms of role modeling. When we engage with a text at a given moment, it behooves us to think about that text neither as an object whose meaning we are trying to divine nor as an oracle handed down whole, but as a partner in the conversation we are having about how to live Jewish lives. This partner is older and wiser, but not infallibleror immune to rebuke. Indeed, this partner mayl with uncomfortable clarity, model how not to behave.

Thus, we return to the Rav Kahana story. As contemporary readers with concerns about authority and gender, we might notice all the troubline features I mentioned above; What, then, should we do with them? When we interact with this text, we might praise and emulate a certain commitment to experiential learning, to the existence of some sort of back and forth between teacher and student, and to a granular sort of recognition that all aspects of life have relevance to the sacred. But we can and should rebuke the text’s failure to establish and respect clear boundaries, and especially its failure to acknowledge and respect all the voices in the room—female voices, in particular. And in this process of dialogue and discernment with the text—whose age, wisdom, and place in the interpretive tradition grant it significant but not absolute or static authority—we can take both its positive and its negative examples as models for how we can build more and more just authority structures.

Dr. Rebecca J. Epstein-Levi is the Friedman Postdoctoral Fellow in Jewish Studies at Washington University in St. Louis. She is a practical ethicist who examines questions of sexual, biomedical, and environmental ethics through a Jewish lens.


13

Modeling and Learning Thriving Through Civic EngagementDR. MEREDITH KATZ

How can Jewish students, in all their various educational settings, thrive both in the Jewish community and in broader society? In the United States, the broader society aims toward a pluralist democracy. A plan for thriving in that society must include experiences navigating and balancing one’s multiple identities, particularly through engagement with others. In addition to building connections with Jewish texts, values, and rituals, engaging as a Jew must include interacting with the others with whom we live on equal terms. This approach builds on, but is not the same as, a commitment to tikkun olam that while valuable, often frames the interaction on unequal terms: Jews giving the help to those “others” receiving it.

How can we envision a more expansive type of thriving, especially in the short term, while we have students in our programs? Civic education has always been the main project of the public schools. Historically, progressives and traditionalists have consistently touted model citizen production as the outcome of their pedagogical approaches of choice. Jewish education, in its predominantly complementary forms, has gone through ebbs and flows itself in emphasizing the “American” component of students’ hybrid identities. In the 1920s, Jewish institutions responded to pressure to prove the compatibility of their religious and cultural agenda with American values. However, an effort to promote the engagement of Jewish students in the broader society has since not been the main focus of the many Jewish educational endeavors focused on Jewish continuity.

How, then, might we start to frame civic education today? Dr. Diana Hess—in her book Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion—argues for the centrality of controversial issues as subject matter around which to build skills of deliberation. She atomizes deliberation into concrete skills that must be practiced as part of civic education, including reason giving, listening, and perspective taking. While these skills can be integrated into different content areas, including Judaic studies, working with these skills in isolation does not promote civic engagement by osmosis. Learners need direct, facilitated opportunities to deliberate about their roles as Jews in the broader society and to engage with others inside and outside the Jewish community. Ideally, this deliberation leads to action. These are tall orders for programs used to seeing themselves as battling American culture in order to make head and heart space for Judaism. How might a focus on the skills of deliberation accommodate the identity-building program of Jewish education?

The Jewish Court of All Time (JCAT), a 10-week online simulation for American and Canadian middle school students in the Prizmah Jewish day school network, blends these two desired outcomes—exploring Jewish identity and practicing deliberation. JCAT was started by the University of Michigan’s Interactive Communications and Simulations Group and is currently administered by The William Davidson School in partnership with the University of Michigan, with generous sponsorship by the Covenant Foundation and the William Davidson Foundation. Through an online platform across several schools, students research and play historical and current personalities who debate a complex issue that situates Jewish history in a broader context. The characters are assigned through student choice with teacher discretion. They represent a variety of backgrounds—Jewish and those of other faiths. Students research their characters and are introduced to the background of the case by their classroom teachers. They then respond to prompts in character and initiate interaction with other characters through a variety of public and private channels on the website. There are always twists and turns, the building of alliances, and a vote to bring closure. In the fall of


14

2017, 450 students from 15 day schools participated in two parallel simulations. Characters ranged from the Jewishly predictable—Theodor Herzl, Emma Lazarus, and Benjamin Netanyahu—to the less expected—Han Feizi, Frieda Kahlo, and Bob Dylan.

JCAT plays out over 10 weeks; as such it is an extended role-playing activity. This allows students the time to “become” their characters as the games advances. Significantly, the process of figuring out what one’s character would say starts with the questions: What would I say? Why do I feel this way? What from my previous experiences and background leads me to answer this way? Students explore their own identities as they explore the identity of their characters.

Each year the JCAT case is purposefully structured around big ideas. This year we debated the need for a memorial for the passengers of the MS St. Louis. Students engaged with the ideas of memory and memorialization and issues of personal vs. group or national responsibility. The case connected current American conversations about memorials and immigrants to the Jewish historical experience, underscoring the hybrid identities of North American Jews.

In this excerpt, PBS personality Gwen Ifill, played by a JCAT project director, interviews St. Louis Captain Gustav Schroeder, played by a sixth-grade student:

Gwen Ifill: What motivated you to assist the passengers of the MS St. Louis, especially when you didn’t know them and aren’t Jewish yourself? Was there a moment in your life that served as motivation to take action?

Gustav Schroeder: It was the right thing to do. Just because I was not a Jew at a time when some people hated Jews did not mean that I had to hate them too. Although I did not share their beliefs nor understand all of their traditions, I made sure to give them space where they could pray.

Ifill: Do you consider yourself a hero?

Schroeder: No. I did what’s right, that’s all. If you did what was right, I would not call you a hero. If doing the right thing makes me a hero, then I guess we all are heroes sometimes.

This exchange showcases the deliberation skills of questioning, reasoning, and perspective taking, and, one has to imagine, the internal monologue of a Jewish boy playing a non-Jewish German ship captain in the 1930s.

Certainly, role-playing and deliberation can and should take place offline, face to face. However, as an online program, JCAT offers some unique advantages with regard to civic education. The extended time frame is matched by an extended character pool way beyond the diversity of a single class of characters. An online simulation also provides a useful opportunity to practice interaction in an unpredictable social setting akin to the real-world social media outlets with which the students are familiar. At the same time, the asynchronous format gives students space to reflect on comments coming in and to research and draft answers, often with feedback from teachers and classmates. This “wait time” is an important aspect of civic behavior.

Obviously, JCAT on its own is not real-world engagement between Jews and people of other backgrounds, although individual schools often arrange programs in their communities as a result of their participation. Rather, JCAT is a starting point for framing Jewish identity as a balancing act that requires engagement with the other. JCAT role-playing offers a sustained opportunity for students to reflect their character’s


15

ideas against their own and to deliberate with others—Jewish people and people of all backgrounds. Notably, when students are asked what they are taking away from the JCAT experience, the most common response has to do with the idea of multiple perspectives. Students gained “the knowledge of what people that think differently than me think about” and “the ability to see a problem from more than one perspective.” This ingredient, evolving empathy for the other, is crucial as we engage our learners in a Jewish experience that enables them to thrive as human beings and engaged participants in a larger society.

Dr. Meredith Katz is clinical assistant professor of Jewish Education in the William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education of The Jewish Theological Seminary. She is also a project director for the Jewish Court of All Time (JCAT). Meredith’s background as a social studies educator drives her current research interests in Jewish history and Jewish civic engagement curriculum in Jewish educational settings.


16

Outside In: Jewish Education That MattersRABBI SID SCHWARZ

Jon Woocher and I both grew up on the South Shore of Long Island. His father was my childhood dentist and our parents were friends. I had two connections to Jon, one intellectual and one personal. His book, Sacred Survival: The Civil Religion of American Jews, came out in 1986 and had a big impact on my thinking. He understood, as few others did, that a religious heritage could manifest itself not just in people’s patterns of religious observance, but also in their civic behavior. In fact, if our metrics were synagogue attendance, belief in God, and religious observance, Jews would be described as among the least conventionally religious ethnic groups in America.

Yet Jews are, arguably, the most civically engaged ethnic group America has ever seen. That is true both in the way that the Jewish community organizes itself (e.g., the Federation system, ties to Israel and world Jewry, educational institutions, social service agencies, and thousands of Jewish non-profits serving every cause under the sun), as well as the way Jews are over-represented in the social, political, and civic institutions that underpin American society.

When PANIM: The Institute for Jewish Leadership and Values was founded in 1988, Jon headed up the Jewish Education Service of North America (JESNA), and I asked him to serve on PANIM’s Advisory Board. His enthusiasm was precisely the kind of validation that a young social entrepreneur needs. Our working relationship continued for over 25 years, a time he reflects upon in the chapter he wrote for my book, Jewish Megatrends: Charting the Course of the American Jewish Future (2013). Jon’s chapter, entitled, “Jewish Education: From Continuity to Meaning” argued that the key question facing the field of Jewish education today is not group preservation but rather conveying a sense of personal meaning.

PANIM’s mission was to inspire young people to assume leadership roles on the local, national, and international stage, and to be activists on issues of concern to the Jewish people and to the world at large. The methodology involved integrating Jewish learning, Jewish values, and social responsibility. In effect, PANIM was a beta test in using Judaism as a vehicle for individuals to live thriving, meaningful lives.

It is worth reflecting on how PANIM attracted thousands of Jewish teens to a fairly serious Jewish educational program at a time when the vast majority of teens were not flocking to such structured Jewish educational programs as Hebrew high schools or synagogue post-confirmation classes. One, the program was billed as a “trip to Washington D.C. to explore politics, social justice, and service.” This is what got most of our participants to sign up. Two, we planned the experience to be personally transformational. Our aim was for PANIM to change the way that these young people would forever understand the relationship between their Jewish identity and their responsibility to the world. We were, in effect, following Jon’s prescriptions for what Jewish education and should be aiming for.

A key principle that guided our entire educational methodology: Every concept had to be developed from the outside in, not from the inside out. An “inside-out” methodology assumes that a Jewish value, a biblical quotation, or a Jewish rabbinic text will have inherent significance to students. That is the approach that typifies most Jewish educational strategies in conventional Jewish institutions. We, however, made no such assumption about our teen participants. In fact, we assumed that they came to us skeptical of the relevance of Jewish texts and values. The outside-in methodology had a different starting point: “How does X (e.g.,


17

human rights, poverty, discrimination, climate change, war, hunger, refugees) affect the world you live in and how can you make a positive difference?”

Few things are more motivating to a teenager than to be empowered to make a difference in the world. PANIM’s programs ended with meetings on Capitol Hill and with members of Congress. We challenged teens to exercise their democratic right to petition public officials. The primary tool they had for these meetings was the information they garnered during our policy sessions. Given that virtually every public policy issue has a moral/ethical dimension, the integration of Jewish wisdom was therefore organic and welcomed. Every educational unit we developed and curriculum we published integrated the wisdom of the Jewish tradition with analysis of social and political issues that would dramatically impact the world these teens were about to inherit.

We didn’t have to preach Jewish pride to our teens; rather, they instinctively understood that their heritage included generations of wisdom about how we need to repair a broken world. Thus, they learned that Jewish people were among the most politically engaged citizens of America. Jews learned the hard way what can result when political regimes don’t protect the most vulnerable among us.

Jon often used the term “civil religion.” It involves asking, “How will Jews behave toward each other with people of other faith and ethnic backgrounds and with the people and institutions that lead our society and the world?”

Every Jewish school, synagogue, and organization would do well to take a step back and ask whether or not they are advancing a Jewish framework that matters to their respective constituencies, and how they can practice “outside in.” This is what gives people a sense of meaning and purpose. This is what releases the power of Judaism to help people flourish and thrive. When this is offered by Jewish institutions, the identity and continuity questions take care of themselves.

Rabbi Sid Schwarz is a senior fellow at Hazon where he runs two national programs, the Clergy Leadership Incubator (CLI) and Kenissa: Communities of Meaning Network. He was founder and president of PANIM for over 20 years. He is the founding rabbi of Adat Shalom Reconstructionist Congregation (Bethesda, Maryland), where he continues to teach and lead services. He also is a past Covenant Award recipient for his contributions to the field of Jewish education.

http://www.cliforum.org/

http://www.cliforum.org/


18

From Piles of Schnitzel to Living Extraordinary LivesSHARON GOLDMAN, JD

I have many fond memories of cooking with my grandmother in her kitchen. As we flipped over seemingly endless schnitzels, I remember asking, “Who’s coming for Shabbat dinner?” “You, your parents, and your brother,” she replied. She put three pots on the stove. “Who else?” I asked. “That’s it,” she answered. I felt incredulousness welling up in me. There was enough food to feed an army.

I remembered learning about the Holocaust generation and the link between living with shortages and later generations of overcooking. Yet, I wondered what making rice for 20 instead of five had to do with the richness and vibrancy of our heritage. Perhaps it didn’t? While this post-survival–style Shabbat dinner seemed to work for my grandmother, I was in the middle of my college career and searching for something more. The overcooking was a small representation of an expression of Judaism that lacked relevance for me.

I found that relevance as a mother and educator-administrator at a school, Moriah Early Childhood Center, with its vision, “Inspired by Judaism, our children, teachers, and families immerse and participate in joyful learning for living extraordinary lives.” You may be asking yourself, “How does a Jewish early childhood program move us from Jewish overcooking to Jewish extraordinary living?”

Reggio Emilia pioneer Carla Rinaldi quotes Jerome Bruner as stating, “School is not a preparation for life, but is life itself.” (Bringing Learning to Life, xi). The children and families that walk in our doors every morning are experiencing Jewish living, not a preparation or “gateway” for Jewish living. Our school is a microcosm for Jewish living as extraordinary living.

So what then is extraordinary Jewish living?

Jewish living is creating and sustaining high-quality relationships . Relationships are promoted and practiced on every level. When children count their friends at morning meeting, it is not only to develop numeracy skills. The community wants to know who is missing and why. All students in the classroom are integral. When a student is absent, the other students miss him/her and eagerly make a “mitzvah call.” On the other side, the ill child eagerly awaits the call. Some parents even call into the school, asking for their mitzvah call because their child won’t take a nap until it comes. My mitzvah call experience as a parent came when my youngest was hospitalized at a year and a half with a respiratory infection. For six days, I held her little body in my lap, working around the many cords and tubes tied to her. When the phone rang, her eyes were closed. She opened them as she heard her teacher’s voice. As she watched her closest friend toddle over on FaceTime and stroke the phone, a smile appeared on her pale face. It was the first smile she had mustered all day. I hid my tears of joy under a tissue as I watched her classroom community bring her physical and emotional strength.

Jewish living is practicing appreciation . In every classroom, the children and teachers participate in the Modeh Ani (the morning prayer we say to thank Hashem for restoring our soul). One class, in particular, had spent weeks exploring the concept of thankfulness. We became more aware as a collective of all the good in our lives: a sunny day, a new bike at


19

the park, a hug. The children made a festive meal to celebrate Thanksgiving in the classroom together and decided on their own to invite the school chef to thank her for all the delicious meals she prepares for them. They wrote her an invitation, hand-delivered it with giggles of glee, and decorated her place at the table with great love and care.

Jewish living is pursuing peace that allows for differences that make up a whole . One classroom of four-year-old children decided that they wanted a place in the classroom to discuss and resolve issues. They named it “the Helping Spot” and decorated it (according to their taste and with the help of parents bringing materials) with fabric, carpeting, and LED lighting. Over time, the children began to seek out the toranim (the children assigned as class leaders for the day) to come to the Helping Spot. Over time, through the documentation and reflection we practice at Moriah, the teachers noticed that the children’s ability to reframe, or thoroughly express the issue, increased. The teachers also noticed that the children began to solve more complex conflicts on their own, such as allowing others to join in their play and negotiating space and materials where they had not been willing to do so before.

Jewish living is taking responsibility and giving space for others to do the same .The teachers in one of our classrooms for two year olds observed that the children were craving and inventing jobs for themselves. They wondered how they might foster the children’s desire to act as helpers and contributors in the class. They responded by co-constructing jobs with the children and creating a visible chart in the room where the children race over first thing in the morning to see who is on duty. The teachers reported that the children saved a place for the line leader, letting her know that it was her turn to be in front. They excitedly urged her to take her spot at the front of the line. It is uplifting to hear about the respect and acknowledgment the children have of their friends’ roles at such a young age.

Jewish living is asking tough questions and relentlessly pursuing answers . A group of four-year-old children went to the sanctuary (as they often do) to look at the siddurim (the prayer books). After finding the Sh’ma in the prayer book and reciting it together, the discussion about the Sh’ma prayer flowed into deep topics such as life and death, gender, and the concept of “forever.” They debated whether God is a boy or girl name as they grappled with whether God is a he, a she, or both. They wondered how they might find out by seeing God. When one child suggested that when they are dead, they can see God, another responded with a probing question, “If they are dead and their eyes are closed, then how can they see God?” As the conversation moved organically into whether God is married, a child responded in a way that only children can, weaving depth and innocent humor, “God does not need to be married because if God is married then there will be two Gods and then we’ll have too many rules. God’s wife will make more rules for us. God is also a true God and if we have another God, then God will not be so special.” What makes this conversation special is that it isn’t special. This type of discourse is commonplace among the children.

To echo Jerome Bruner, we in the Jewish early childhood center are not in the business of preparing people to live extraordinary lives. The children, families, and teachers are currently living extraordinary lives as a result of living Jewishly.


20

While my grandmother’s delicious schnitzel can also be part of extraordinary living, I make enough for whoever is coming to dinner, rather than an army unit. I live with the faith that tomorrow will bring a new day that will start with Modeh Ani and go extraordinarily from there even when I don’t have leftovers in my fridge.

Sharon Goldman is the assistant director of documentation and research at Moriah ECC. Sharon began her career as an educator when she taught and trained new teachers with Teach For America. Enjoying the advocacy involved in working in the public school system, she pursued a law degree and worked as a litigator. Sharon left the practice of law to spend four and a half years in Israel, attending seminary and researching Jewish Value Based curriculum as a Dorot fellow.


21

The JCC Vision of Jewish Thriving Through Engagement with the World DR. DAVID ACKERMAN

The quest for meaning is nothing new; every generation has searched for it. What has changed is the source of meaning and its relationship to identity formation. Historically, the group was the source of personal identity and meaning was achieved by fulfilling your obligations to the group. Now, the individual is seen as primary and the group, secondary. The question of what carries meaning has shifted from one’s obligations to Judaism (or the Jewish people or Jewish history) to what Judaism can do for the individual. The challenge for Jewish educators is to help people find personal inspiration in the accumulated wisdom of the Jewish people while also offering compelling reasons for participating in Jewish communal life.

The JCC Movement’s Statement of Vision and Principles identifies the JCC as:

A primary destination for Jewish engagement, a locus of learning and celebration and a connector to Jewish life: a place where individuals and families can encounter Jewish ideas, principles, practices, and values; where they encounter Israel and explore the ideal of Jewish peoplehood in their lives; and a public square for convening important conversations both within the Jewish and among the broader community.

The JCC aspires to be a welcoming environment dedicated to Jewish living and learning. It does not separate living from learning: they are one and the same. It also does not specify the end product of any inquiry. Rather, it trusts the learning process to yield an outcome in its own time. The JCC does not prescribe a specific way of living Jewishly, nor does it privilege a particular domain of Jewish endeavor over another; rather, it helps individuals identify what being Jewish means to them and encourages them to act upon that meaning in their daily lives. The JCC’s educational vision is action oriented.

The educational philosopher David Hansen distinguishes between traditionalism, which seeks to preserve the past intact, and respect for tradition, which honors cultural history while recognizing nothing stays the same forever. Adherents to traditionalism react to change impulsively and without thought. Those with respect for tradition respond to change deliberately and with consideration. Traditionalism assumes we already know the answers. Respect for tradition means we are permitted to ask questions about those answers. Traditionalism assumes the expression of values remains fixed. Respect for tradition recognizes the relevance of deep, guiding values even while the expression of those values may change over time. Distinguishing between traditionalism and respect for tradition brings into focus one of the JCC’s goals for Jewish education, which is to help individuals find answers to the timeless questions: where do I come from and where am I going?

Navigating the tension between past and future and between old and new requires a home base that offers a sense of stability and security. A sense of rootedness provides a firm foundation for looking backward and forward. And as it was for avraham avinu (Abraham, our father), the journey away from home is external and spatial, as well as internal and psychological. It forces a constant examination of not only the things that are global, new, and different, but also those that are local, old, and familiar. It recognizes that one influences the other. The ability to respond, rather than react, to the past and the future is what Hansen calls a “cosmopolitan attitude,” which manifests in a reflective loyalty to the local and old, alongside a reflective


22

openness to the global and new.

The JCC is what Hansen calls a canopy of cosmopolitanism, a sheltered environment dedicated to bringing the past and future, along with the local and the global, into meaningful dialogue within the present. The diversity within the group (which is a social manifestation of the diversity (read: inconsistency) within each of us becomes a strength to build upon. As individuals learn to appreciate the differences in beliefs and practices between them, they also learn how their distinctiveness binds them together. The group, not the JCC, is the source of this learning. The relationships between the individuals power that learning. And as a group, they can venture further afield than they could as individuals.

The JCC’s educational vision is shaped by its understanding of God’s command to Abraham, “Be a blessing” (Gen. 12:2). This imperative transcends ideological, theological, and behavioral divides, and can be expressed in many ways. But it does define a thriving life as one committed to and engaged with the larger world. So, when the JCC reinforces the stability of the home base, it does so to empower individuals to travel into the world and make a difference.

The JCC can only structure the living and learning activities it offers; it is always the individual who determines those activities’ meanings. So, the JCC can never predict the direction an individual will go. But it doesn’t need to. The JCC’s model for a thriving life derives from Ben Zoma’s cosmopolitan attitude: “Who is wise? The one who learns from everyone” (Pirkei Avot 4:1).

Dr. David Ackerman is the director of the JCC Association’s Mandel Center for Jewish Education.


23

Taking the Time and Making the Investment to ThriveRABBI JENNIFER GOLDSMITH

How are we helping our learners today draw on their Jewishness to live more meaningful, fulfilling, and responsible lives?

It sounds like it should be so simple.

We spent the last decade talking about the importance of getting our learners in the door and excited to be there, of opening the arms of Jewish education wide, for example, engagement in coffee shops, a congregant’s home, or while on a bike ride or hiking. Of shifting the learning model to be student-centered, project-based, outside of the building. Words like “meaning” and “mindfulness” entered the Jewish educational lexicon. Suddenly the goal—as articulated by Aryeh Ben David in “Launching the Third Stage of Jewish Education”—was to bring Jewish learning into our hearts and feel a deeper personal connection to the sources. Many part-time Jewish educational programs, in settings such as synagogue schools, integrated these innovations into their educational programs.

Yet the question of how to draw on our Jewishness to live more meaningful, fulfilling, and responsible lives is not simple at all. We believe the answer is quite complex, requiring a new approach to Jewish education and educational leadership roles. An intense planning process at The Jewish Education Project in New York ultimately led us to a new theory of change for our agency, something that we had not tackled for almost a decade but can serve as a model for our constituents.

We arrived at a new agency vision: for more Jewish children, youth, and families to experience a Jewish education that helps them thrive as Jews and in the world today. Now we are working to define thoroughly what we mean by “thrive” and then take the necessary steps and time to make thriving a reality in every corner and setting of Jewish education.

Our work is inspired by positive psychology and Dr. Martin Seligman. In his book Flourish, Seligman puts forth a theory of well-being that can lead to an increase in personal and communal thriving. Organized with the acronym PERMA, it includes five measurable elements: Positive Emotion (happiness, fun, gratitude), Engagement (losing ourselves and becoming absorbed in work, hobbies, the moment), Relationships (those that touch our hearts, our souls, our minds), Meaning (a sense of purpose and fulfillment), and Achievement (learning and moving forward with our endeavors big and small; knowing and using our strengths). Each element has unique properties and, applied independently, can add value to a Jewish educational enterprise. Yet to thrive, all of these elements must be applied together.

For this to occur, we not only must consider how and what the learner is learning (the content of the education), but also how we can support the educators, clergy, administrators, teachers, and lay leaders delivering this new vision. Our new paradigm must insist that we support the whole delivery system. We can no longer only be about implementing innovative models of learning. That can only get us so far. We must now intentionally help educational leaders and their teams thrive. This includes developing a thriving educational team that understands one another’s strengths and weaknesses, is trusting, grows together, fails forward together, supports one another, and creates a shared vision. Only then can they, in turn, create communities that lead their learners to living fulfilling lives.


24

What small first steps can you, as a Jewish educational organization take to begin to make this new vision a reality?

1 . Create a Common Language: To start, take the time to learn together. Begin to understand what thriving can mean to you and your organization. Assign the whole staff a book on the topic and then meet to discuss it. (Examples include: Flourish by Martin Seligman; Becoming a Soulful Educator by Aryeh Ben David; and Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol S. Dweck.) Schedule time in staff meetings or informal conversations to talk about how you would define thriving and thriving Jewishly as an individual and as a team. Share examples of learning that you feel leads to thriving—unpacking why you feel that way and what can be learned and possibly replicated in your setting.

2 . Shift Your Organizational Culture: You can’t expect your constituents to accompany you on this journey if they have not bought into it yet. What small but intentional changes can you make that will begin to bring people along? A suggestion: pick one element of PERMA and see how many experiences in your programmatic year support growth and development in that area. Create opportunities for parents to deepen their relationships with each other as well as with the staff. Begin faculty meetings with strength spotting, raising up something you are proud of that you accomplished over the last week or something you spotted in a colleague. Start to use this different language when drafting curriculum, communicating with key stakeholders, or creating new signage.

3 . Take the Time for You, Personally, to Thrive: As an educational leader and one that may be leading this change process, make sure you are taking time to understand what you need to thrive. What do you need to do to nourish yourself? Carve out time to write or read. Use all of your allotted vacation days in a given year. Finally spend that professional development money on an experience that will help you grow.

The steps outlined above will help you and your educational team begin the conversations necessary to transform learning in a way that uses thousands of years of Judaism to help meet people’s desire for a deeply meaningful life. Thriving and positive psychology provide us new vessels to deliver our ancient tradition in a way that will help our learners—indeed, our whole communities—live more fully, meaningfully, and responsibly.

Rabbi Jennifer Ossakow Goldsmith is the managing director of Congregational Learning and Leadership Initiatives at the Jewish Education Project in New York. Born in Cleveland, Ohio, and raised in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Jennifer received her BA from the University of Michigan and rabbinic ordination and MA in Religious Education from HUC-JIR.


25

Forging a PathANNA MARX

The term “thriving” has begun to sweep through the Jewish community. This concept is a paradox in that it is both a complete paradigm shift and also already deeply embedded in Jewish education.

For a number of years now, I have had the pleasure of meeting with educators and communal leaders across North America to consider the future of Jewish education. Before I even heard the term “thriving,” I was sharing related ideas. I have discussed the “big scary world” our children are growing up in and the resources Judaism has to prepare them to walk tall and proud through it. I have spoken about how Judaism has made my life and so many lives I know better, more full, and more meaningful. I have shared visions of Jewish educational programs that focus on creating young people who have strong moral compasses, sharp critical thinking skills, and empathy for fellow human beings.

I have shared these thoughts in different settings with different sets of leaders in small and large groups, in person and in writing. I have yet to hear a person reject these thoughts. Of course not. It’s why we’re in this business. It is the purpose of what we all do. Synagogue educators, most of all, have nodded with great enthusiasm when I’ve spoken these words. They have been the ones, with tears in their eyes, who have thanked me for speaking what they know to be true. And that is how I know that these concepts are already embedded in Jewish education and that they are very close to the hearts of our educators. These ideas are familiar and powerful.

And yet, at the very same time, when we take a closer look at the educational programs in synagogues (“religious schools”), we see that they are still far from achieving these goals. The primary achievements of these programs remain preparation for b’nei mitzvah, much to the chagrin of many educators and clergy. Resting firmly in organizations whose business models depend on a steady influx of members, the educational programs are seen as critical sources of income. Their success continues to be measured by the number of synagogue members they attract and retain. I have been approached by countless synagogue leaders interested in transforming their educational models so that they can attract more young families. I have never been asked to help make their children’s lives better. I have yet to be asked for expertise on how they can help families to have more fulfilling experiences.

Here is where the paradigm shifts: how does one move from believing a vision is worthy and true to having a clear understanding of the path to achieving it?

It has been over a year now since Shinui: the Network for Innovation in Part-Time Jewish Education began to adopt this new vision for part-time education. This network, made up of representatives of 10 community education agencies across North America, has been meeting together for a number of years to support one another in the effort to change educational models inside and outside of congregations. Together, we have wrestled with defining “innovation” and identifying worthy models to share with one another. We have developed strategies to collectively spark, nurture, and spread innovation across the continent. Last spring, with the guidance and support of The William Davidson School Leadership Commons, we have begun to draft a theory of change that would shift the field to a focus on helping learners thrive in the world.

Always far ahead of the rest of the field, Dr. Jonathon Woocher gave this call five years ago when he asked, “How can we help Jews draw on and use their Jewishness to live more meaningful, fulfilling, responsible lives?” These words are both a tremendous paradigm shift and also deeply embedded in our collective beliefs. It’s hard for me to imagine people would say they do not wish for children to grow up to

http://www.shinui.org


26

live meaningful, fulfilling, responsible lives. But, somehow, we did not focus our energies on creating a Jewish educational system that intentionally and compellingly would nurture this vision.

When the members of the Shinui network agreed that we would adopt this new vision for part-time Jewish education, this concept we called “thriving,” we found ourselves facing the same paradox. This new outcome felt right and familiar, but how should we accomplish this change? Believing that a vision is worthy and true is a far cry from clearly understanding the path to achieving it.

So far we have adopted the following short-term strategies:

• Learn what others have to say about thriving . While this is new to us, many others have been investigating thriving for many years. We have found thriving exploration in positive psychology, anthropology, and urban planning. What makes a human being thrive? And what makes a community or culture thrive?

• Experience thriving . It’s hard to imagine successfully implementing a paradigm shift without first experiencing it. We are finding ways to bring thriving into our personal lives and to our colleagues. We are becoming our own lab rats.

• Find more bright spots . It is difficult for most of us to change to what we don’t know. We can explain it and try to paint a picture. But real examples can inspire action and demonstrate possibility.

• Think Like a Network . No one organization can accomplish this paradigm shift alone. We have acknowledged, as a network of organizations, that we can only accomplish this goal by working with one another and many others. When all those who share in this paradigm shift work with one another, we will make it a reality.

Turning theory into practice will be the greatest challenge in this process. Yet it is a process to which we are committed. We see the vision of a bright future where young people access their Jewish heritage and experiences to thrive fully in the world. The road to get there appears untamed and rocky. Together, we plan to forge a trail. We hope you join us for the journey.

Anna Marx is chief strategy officer of Jewish Learning Venture in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the project director of Shinui: the Network for Innovation in Part-Time Jewish Education, a network of 10 communal agencies from Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Toronto. She was also a former research assistant for Dr. Jonathan Woocher, z”l, a gift for which she will be forever grateful.


27

Gleanings Editorial Committee

Dr. Charlotte AbramsonDirector, The Legacy Heritage Instructional Leadership Institute, The William Davidson School

Elan KaneSenior Manager of Communications, The William Davidson School

Dr. Meredith KatzClinical Assistant Professor of Jewish Education; Coordinator of the Online MA Program, The William Davidson School

Dr. Ray LeviDirector, Day School Leadership Training Institute, The William Davidson School

Beth MayerowitzAssistant Director of Communications, The William Davidson School

Dr. Bill RobinsonDean, The William Davidson School

Mark S. YoungManaging Director of the Leadership Commons, The William Davidson School

Date post:	09-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

GLEANINGS - Jewish Theological Seminary · learning and community is more fulfilled as a result?...

Documents