MAPPING ISRAEL EDUCATION

An Overview of Trends and Issues in North America

Preliminary Findings

Spring 2003

Karen Abrams Gerber and Aliza Mazor

GILO FAMILY FOUNDATION

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 2

Background........................................................................................................................... 4

Findings.................................................................................................................................. 6

Overview ....................................................................................................................................6

Breakdown by Educational Context ....................................................................................6

Day Schools .........................................................................................................................6

Supplemental Schools .......................................................................................................7

Summer Camps ..................................................................................................................7

Hillel and College Campuses...........................................................................................8

Jewish Community Centers..............................................................................................8

Educators .............................................................................................................................8

Overarching Themes ...............................................................................................................9

No Real “Field” of Israel Education.................................................................................9

Absence of an Ideological and Conceptual Framework........................................10

Paradigmatic of Broader Israel-Diaspora Relations...................................................12

Lack of a Systematic Approach....................................................................................16

Significance of Exposure to Modern Israel ..................................................................17

Need for Champions .......................................................................................................18

Recommendations from the Field...................................................................................... 19

Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 20

Appendices..................................................................................................................... A - 1

Informant list .........................................................................................................................A - 2

Interview Protocol................................................................................................................A - 3

Further Recommendations................................................................................................A - 4

Highlighted Programs and Practices...............................................................................A - 8

Mapping Surveys ...............................................................................................................A - 11

Gatherings ..........................................................................................................................A - 12

Directions for Future Inquiry .............................................................................................A - 14

Recommended Resources .............................................................................................A - 17

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Scope of Research In Fall 2002, the Gilo Family Foundation commissioned independent research to map the current state of the field of Israel Education. The goal of this study was to: identify the formal and informal venues in which Israel Education is provided to North American youth (ages 3-21); provide a preliminary assessment of the relative strengths and weaknesses of Israel Education as a whole; to identify gaps in the offering of Israel Education; and to formulate some preliminary recommendations that would contribute to on-going policy discussions. The initial phase of the study included: 21 interviews by phone and in-person, a review of over 50 primary resources, and participation in two symposia devoted to the topic of Israel Education. While this investigation is by no means comprehensive, it does begin to shed light on a broad range of programs, initiatives, and on-going activities that comprise the field of Israel Education. Overall Findings The study found that Israel Education is enjoying renewed attention and discussion in the various contexts where it takes place and in the Jewish community as a whole. This renewed interest is due in part to the current situation in Israel and its by-products (e.g. reduced travel to Israel, increased interest in Jewish camping, shifts in Israel-Diaspora relations) and in part to a growing sense on the part of educators that there are long-standing deficits in Israel Education that should be addressed regardless of the current situation. The study offers a summary assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities in each of the different educational contexts in which Israel Education takes place. Day schools and supplemental schools were found to have a strong commitment to Israel Education but to have difficulty in realizing that commitment due to crowded schedules and competing priorities. Summer camps were identified as a venue with great potential for Israel Education, but which reaches relatively few children. College campuses and Jewish Community Centers were noted as venues where Israel Education has become an area of growing importance in recent years but where mixed messages from the Jewish organizations and the larger community often influence Israel Education. Overall educators and educator training were identified as an essential factor in promoting Israel Education. The researchers identified six over-arching themes in Israel Education: Israel Education is, in essence, not a field. It lacks the focus, goals, specified body of knowledge, and educator-training that characterizes other educational fields. As a result, teaching about Israel varies greatly from institution to institution and may even be inconsistent within a given institution. This inconsistency is further exacerbated by the lack of a clear ideological and conceptual framework. Most institutions do not have an explicit answer to the question of “why” they are teaching about Israel and “what they are educating towards.” At best this leads to confusing messages and vague educational goals, at worst to a reluctance on the part of educators to teach about Israel at all. Shifting

3

paradigms in Israel-Diaspora relations also have a dramatic impact on the emphases and approaches in Israel Education. The significance of exposure to modern Israel is underscored. Yet informants noted that the recent return to “rescuing an embattled Israel” has undermined efforts to promote partnership, people-to-people exchange, and Israel experience as primary educational vehicles. Absence of a comprehensive and systematic approach to teacher training, materials, development, and on-going professionalization of the field were also noted. Lastly, there is a need for champions of Israel Education across the board (e.g. among federations, funders, rabbis). A critical mass of leaders is needed for the necessary change necessary to create effective Israel Education. The report provides ten preliminary recommendations for advancing the field and addressing the issues outlined above. The report also provides detailed suggestions from informants regarding additional recommendations, programs and practices deserving further attention and additional directions of inquiry for further study.

4

BACKGROUND In Fall 2002, the Gilo Family Foundation commissioned an independent research project to map the field of Israel Education. The purpose of the project was twofold:

• Identify the current state of Israel Education in North America – both its strengths and challenges.

• Provide a useful resource to those who set the policies of Jewish institutions active in Israel Education.

In collaboration with the Jewish Agency, the Gilo Family Foundation invited sixteen leading Israeli and North American Jewish educators to serve as an advisory body – contributing to the formulation of the research study and serving as primary informants in its initial phase. This body helped to map relevant players in the field (both individuals and institutions), highlight areas for investigation, identify important resources and suggest practical directions for policy change and further inquiry. Initially the study was conceptualized in two parts: An initial round of interviews with national informants (leaders of major Jewish institutions and experts in the field of Jewish Education) that would shape the overarching issues, and a second phase that would provide an in-depth look at Israel Education in four key communities. At this point, only the first phase of study has been completed. This initial phase includes:

I. In-depth interviews with thought leaders in the field of Israel Education from a limited “purposeful” sample of 21 informants.

II. Literature review (including general analyses, articles, studies, previous mappings,

websites, etc.).

III. Review of and participation in gatherings on the subject of Israel Education.

IV. Compilation of an extensive list of additional recommendations as well as a list of innovative projects identified by informants as utilizing “best practices.”

V. Review of mapping studies of five communities - Boston, New York, San Francisco,

Washington, D.C., and MetroWest, New Jersey - that are in process or have recently been completed.

5

Limitations of Findings The information gathered in the course of this study is based on open responses to interview questions. Due to the richness and depth of the material and the preliminary nature of this report, a comprehensive, in-depth analysis has not been performed. In addition, this study does not focus at all on the grassroots – teachers, parents, and students in the classroom. Their perceptions, insights, and ideas are critical to fully understanding this field. Since the sampling was purposeful and not random, there are important perspectives that may have been completely omitted. The nature of this sample is by no means comprehensive. In most cases we interviewed only one or two stakeholders from each educational context, and did not survey the full range of Jewish religious denominations. The findings that follow should be regarded as preliminary and serve as the basis for further inquiry. Acknowledgements The authors and the Gilo Foundation would like to thank all of the informants who were extremely generous with their time, insights, and resources. The “conversation” about Israel Education has spanned several decades. Individuals and institutions have devoted considerable time, thought, and energy to advancing the field. Many excellent pieces have been written over the years, most notably, the very comprehensive and insightful series: “Israel in Our Lives” (produced by Jewish Education Service of North America – JESNA – in conjunction with Charles and Andrea Bronfman Philanthropies). The goal of this mapping is to complement and extend those efforts, not to duplicate them.

6

FINDINGS This mapping identified resurgence in the area of Israel Education – renewed attention on the part of institutions, individual educators, and classroom teachers to the “hows” and “whys” of teaching about Israel. Some of this interest and discussion has been prompted by political realities. In the past five months (since this project began), informants cited nearly a dozen gatherings and the launch of several new initiatives devoted to Israel Education. Five communities are engaged in mapping projects (Boston, New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and MetroWest, New Jersey). Israel Education Month was successfully launched by JESNA and United Jewish Communities, linking educators to critical Israel resources. And numerous articles and analyses; including the comprehensive report “Israel in Our Lives” are being reread and re-examined. As mentioned above, the initial concept was to engage in multi-stage research to map the breadth and depth of the field at the national and local level. Additional phases of research are still being considered but may be different in focus and scope than originally envisioned. While this mapping is by no means comprehensive, it is intended to function as a stand-alone report and a trigger for further discussion. The stakeholders who contributed to developing and guiding the original report will be engaged in identifying appropriate next steps. OVERVIEW OF ISRAEL EDUCATION Israel Education takes place in multiple environments. Israel Education is a significant component of day schools, supplemental schools, summer camps, community centers, youth groups, Hillels, and Israel experience programs. Israel education takes place across denominations – Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist and non-denominational. What follows is an overview of some of the differing approaches to Israel Education in these settings. BREAKDOWN BY EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT Day Schools

Day schools, on the whole, aspire to a high level of Israel Education but are challenged by packed schedules and competing priorities. • “Day schools are pressured to fit a lot into the program – academics and Judaics.

There should be an integrative approach, but the schools aren’t there yet.” An integrative approach implies incorporating Israel Education into all other subjects, rather than leaving it as a “stand alone” topic.

7

• “There is pressure to limit the number of hours of Judaica, and humash (Five Books of Moses) and gemara (Oral Law) come first.”

• “Day schools are under pressure to be pre-occupied with academic excellence – to focus on getting kids into Harvard.”

Educators indicated that the place of Israel within day school education is unclear and that this was a significant obstacle. They also stressed the need to create an Israel-oriented culture that extends beyond classroom activities and courses of study: Israel must be present in the halls, students should be exposed to the rich diversity of Israeli culture, and trips to Israel for students and teachers should be built into the program (with the expectation that parents begin saving for them in kindergarten).

Supplemental Schools

Israel is not a priority topic in supplemental schools. These settings are designed to educate for synagogue participation and focus on facilitating fluency in prayer, learning about and celebrating holidays, and bar/bat mitzvah preparation. Israel Education is embedded in the study of tanach (Bible), prayer, and history. Most schools organize public celebrations of Yom Haatzmaut (Israel Independence Day). Many schools have Israeli faculty who do provide a cultural link to Israel. The discussion of current events is integrated into some classrooms. When Israel Education happens, according to one informant, it is a discrete topic of intense study limited by available resources: • “Typically the study of Israel shows up as a discrete topic of intense study

(1 semester to 1 year) around the 3rd or 4th year (5th or 6th grade). I believe that this is driven by the availability of an age appropriate textbook.”

Summer Camps

Summer camps were identified as one of the most successful venues for Israel Education. Camps offer an immersion experience where kids can be “unapologetically Jewish 24-hours-a-day.” One informant remarked: “Israel happens at breakfast, lunch, and dinner.” It was noted, however, that not all camps have this kind of intensive Israel orientation. Some of the facets of summer camp which lend themselves to effective Israel education include: • Deployment of shlichim (Israeli emissaries). The Jewish agency recruits and trains

over 1,200 shlichim to work in North American camps each summer.

• Generations of counselors who have visited and lived in Israel and provide an “Israel infusion” to camp atmosphere. In Spring 2003, counselors will be sent on a special Birthright program.

• Participation of Israeli campers. The Goldman Foundation is sponsoring 200 Israeli children to attend North American camps this summer.

8

• Hebrew language in everything from signs to songs.

• Israel Day programs – complete with food and cultural activities.

• Formal curricula on Israel topics from geography to current events.

• Israel Trips sponsored by camp for 15-16 year olds. These trips have tapered off in the last two years.

• On-going Israel Education for counselors and faculty. (A recent gathering of informal educators was held in Israel and focused on Israel Education; a special seminar on Israel Education at Camp is planned for Camp Directors in March, 2003.)

Several informants indicated that the model of summer camp Israel Education should be studied and adapted for other settings. It was noted that a relatively small number of North American Jewish children attend Jewish summer camps, so although the experience is powerful, it reaches relatively few children.

Hillel and College Campuses

Since the outbreak of violence in Fall 2001, many institutions and foundations have poured resources into Israel Education on campuses in an effort to empower Jewish students to respond to anti-Israel activity. It is not yet clear to what degree these efforts have been effective or have succeeded in engaging students beyond a core group of activists. Many of our informants noted that college is “too late in the game” to start building Zionist identity and that it is naïve to presume that college students will buy into un-nuanced messages regarding Israel. Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies has conducted focus groups among unaffiliated college students and found that many of the traditional “hasbara” (propaganda) materials framed by established Jewish organizations do not speak to students. Students are put off by aggressive campaigns that try to “tell them what to think.”

Jewish Community Centers

Over the past several years, community centers have increased their focus on Israel- oriented programs. JCCs have historically offered Israel Experience programs for teens and sponsored Yom Haatzmaut celebrations. In recent years, the JCC movement as a whole has engaged in systematic efforts to infuse more Israel culture into their facilities. This has included creating staff positions for shlichim, partnering with community centers in Israel, and significantly expanding cultural programs (music, dance, etc.). JCCs also host preschools that reach a significant number of Jewish families. Although the content of Israel Education is very basic, JCC preschool serves as an entry point and reaches families that are otherwise unconnected to Jewish frameworks.

9

Educators

Many informants indicated that the lack of educator training is a significant problem and an important starting point for addressing the broader issue of Israel Education. All of the educational settings outlined above – formal and informal – rely on educators to provide Israel Education in whatever form it takes. Focusing on educators is an expedient way to influence the culture of institutions, increase attention to Israel Education, and improve current curricula and activities. Gaps in educator training include: • Educators lack a strong knowledge base about Israel. • The educator population has limited personal experience with Israel. A majority

of educators in supplemental and day schools have not visited Israel; of those who have, many did so more than 20 years ago and lack current experience.

• Since these programs employ many former Israelis as educators there is often a

mistaken assumption that “Israel education will happen by osmosis.” These educators often bring their ambivalence and complex feelings regarding Israel into their teaching.

• Insufficient training and professional development around Israel Education.

“Some teachers are simply bewildered by teaching Israel – they don’t know what to teach or how.” Israel Education is not a “profession” so there is no defined body of materials to learn or skill set to master. Family educators – a growing cadre of education professionals across institutions – do not receive training in Israel Education as part of their formal studies.

• Lack of access to quality teaching materials. There is no centralized

clearinghouse for Israel Education materials. OVERARCHING THEMES Six main themes emerged from the preliminary findings:

1) No Real “Field” of Israel Education

2) Absence of an Ideological and Conceptual Framework

3) Paradigmatic of Broader Israel-Diaspora Relations

4) Lack of a Systematic Approach

5) Significance of Exposure to Modern Israel

6) Need for Champions

10

1) No Real “Field” of Israel Education

Israel Education as Diffuse Israel Education was described as “diffuse,” “not very integrated,” and “not really

a field per se.” As one informant described: “To say that there is a field is a euphemism. There is no field of Israel Education. There is a field of day school education and informal education, but there is no field of Israel Education.” Another informant elaborated: “All the fundamental building blocks that exist for other subjects are missing for Israel Education – [including] well-defined subject matter and conceptual frameworks; pedagogic translation into a developmentally appropriate spiral approach for young people.”

Embedded Nature of Israel Education Israel Education can be found in a diversity of places and often is embedded in a

variety of activities, particularly holidays, with many different elements but very little coherence. A few informants contrasted the un-integrated nature of Israel Education to the effective integration of Holocaust Education.

Suffers the Same Problems as Jewish Education in General Israel Education was described as suffering from the same ills of Jewish Education

in general – an attempt to teach a little about a lot, to “shove it all in there” with very challenging time constraints. Particularly, within day schools, there is a sense that academic excellence must take precedence and there is no time to add more.

Another explained: “Israel is there like G-d is there. It’s the same sort of awkward

thing. You can’t do Jewish education without talking about it, but it’s awkward to talk about and get a hold of.”

There is no clear educational goal of what Israel Education is supposed to

achieve, and no systematic approach. As a result, Israel Education is without focus and cannot be effectively evaluated.

2) ABSENCE OF AN IDEOLGICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Over half the informants identified the lack of an “ideological and conceptual framework” as one of the primary challenges in Israel Education. Institutions and educators have not paid significant attention to the question of why teaching Israel is central to Jewish education and what it is essential for students to learn. An underlying assumption is that Israel education is more than a “knowledge base” about Israel (facts, figures, history, geography, etc.) and that each educational institution is educating toward a desired relationship between its students and Israel. This relationship ranges from a generalized “love of Israel” (perceived by many to be the underlying goal of Israel education) to the mission of aliyah (a goal for some Orthodox and Zionist institutions).

11

Need for an Explicit Israel Agenda Informants suggested that most Jewish educational institutions lack an explicit

agenda or ideological statement regarding Israel that can serve as a “compass” for its Israel education. Some institutions have even gone to great lengths to avoid articulating a mission statement regarding Israel (and educational goals related to Israel) for fear of stirring up controversy or provoking discord. Some of the main concerns in this regard include:

• How does Israel fit into the institution’s conceptualization of Jewish identity

and Jewish history -- is Israel regarded as the spiritual center of the Jewish people or an equal counterpoint to a vibrant Diaspora?

• Are they educating towards a special relationship with Israel or general

responsibility of all Jews toward one another (kol yisrael arevim zeh b’zeh)? • The concept of “teaching love of Israel” (the stated goal of many educators

and institutions) is vague and affective educational goals are hard to measure.

• It is not clear what aspects of Israel students should be taught to “love” –

should it be “unconditional” love; a love reserved only for the aspects of modern Israel which resonate with a particular institution; a “familial love” that includes critique but is ultimately unconditional.

• It is difficult to teach about Israel without engaging the complexities regarding

the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Once the “conflict” is on the agenda, there is fear of the discussion becoming “political”, battle lines being drawn within a school or synagogue, and teachers being criticized by parents for airing their personal political views.

Without an ideological framework, it is difficult for institutions to set priorities for

Israel education (as a stand alone subject, integrated curricula, or event-centered activity). It is equally difficult to design the content of learning experiences, allocate time for its instruction, and train teachers to impart the knowledge and cultivate the affective relationship that the institution aspires to. Some informants noted that Israel education appears as a “hidden agenda” in their institutions. Without an explicit ideology and framework, teaching is haphazard and inconsistent. Teachers can even find themselves de-motivated in the face of such complexity.

Informants strongly endorsed the idea that each educational institution needs to

engage effectively with these questions of ideology. Specifically, it is less an issue of developing a unified ideological approach to Israel education (something that is probably impossible to achieve) and more an issue of giving each educational institution the tools to have a productive internal dialogue and frame an ideological statement regarding Israel and Israel education which is in keeping with the values, goals, and spirit of that institution.

12

“How you teach Israel is so bound up with ideology. All Jewish education takes

place in a context of values and ideology. We have abandoned the idea that there needs to be an ideology, but each institution needs to have one.”

Re-visiting Zionism Informants emphasized the need for a positive Israel ideology, particularly at a

time when the community is focused on issues of crisis and relief. In addition to clarifying “where the institution stands on Israel,” the leadership must also identify and highlight the positive aspects of connection to Israel that are central to that institution’s worldview. They also noted the need for an ideological approach that explains the “meaning of Israel for contemporary American Jews” and is “unapologetic.”

Some informants concurred that the “need for a Jewish state” is generally not

taught or given sufficient attention. “It is not obvious that Israel has to be a part of the curriculum.” This was attributed to a generalized discomfort among Diaspora Jews with the notion of an idealized Jewish homeland that they have chosen not to live in. “We teach pro-Israel sentiment, but not Zionism and its critique of Diaspora Jewish life. Regardless of what position you take, it is worth engaging in the critique.”

Several informants stressed the need for “re-visiting” Zionism or establishing a New

Zionism (as a response to post-Zionism). They emphasized the need for an over-arching ideological framework that reconfigures the role of Israel in modern Jewish life. They felt that some questions that theoretically had been “laid to rest” in the Zionist discourse of previous decades (such as the centrality of Israel to Jewish spirituality and peoplehood, what it means to have a meaningful connection to Israel, the obligation of Diaspora Jews towards Israel and vice versa, etc.) should be re-opened. They suggested that this conversation is less the responsibility of individual institutions, and belongs to the world Jewish community as a whole. “Zionism is not advocacy for a specific position. This is about the fact that we saw the need for national existence and created it in our lifetime as an extraordinary event.”

As one informant stated: “The question of why we even need to have a Jewish

state should be at the center of this discussion and its educational focus – the mirror that you hold up when you ask this question is the entire value of ‘why be Jewish?’”

3) PARADIGMATIC OF BROADER ISRAEL-DIASPORA RELATIONS

Informants overwhelmingly endorsed the notion that the challenges and gaps in Israel education reflect broader issues and themes in Israel-Diaspora relations. Since the founding of the State (and even prior) the North American Jewish community has enjoyed an intimate and complicated relationship with the people and government of Israel. One informant described the lack of current understanding, knowledge, and engaged relationship with Israel as “the single greatest problem in the American Jewish Community.”

13

Shifting Paradigms Several respondents provided a rendering of the evolution of this relationship and

some of the key paradigm shifts since the founding of the state. They noted that the primary trends in Israel education have followed these shifts and mirrored this changing relationship. An overview provided by one informant can be summarized as follows:

The “nation-building stage” was characterized by an instrumental relationship.

Israel sought funds, aliyah, and lobbying. North American Jewry fulfilled its connection primarily through philanthropy. Following the Six Day War in 1967 and the struggle for Soviet Jewry we entered a new era – “civil Judaism” – where Jews everywhere were united by a common agenda and shared pride. The past fifteen years marked yet another shift between North American and Israeli Jews. Israelis began conveying that Israel no longer “needed” North America. American Jews became alienated through issues such as “who is a Jew?” They perceived Israelis as arrogant and not respectful of Diaspora Judaism. The response to this distancing was a move towards partnership and exchange – a sense that each community had something of value to offer the other and an acknowledgement that both communities struggle with issues of Jewish identity. This shift could be seen in new relationships regarding funding, people-to-people exchanges, and ultimately in Birthright – the first time Israel committed resources to building North American Jewry. This process was abruptly cut off two years ago and the relationship was propelled back to the old model – where Israel is the suffering victim and North American Jews mobilize around an emergency. Once again many feel there is a sense of distance, a patronizing relationship, and a move away from partnership.

Many informants noted that in previous decades there was an “organic”

commitment of the Diaspora to Israel symbolized by blue JNF boxes in every home. What was once a “given” now needs to be cultivated as a conscious process.

Another informant characterized the shift in Israel/Diaspora as a vacuum: “The

old paradigm of Israel relations has atrophied and no new paradigm has risen to replace it.”

Several informants stressed the fact that the established Jewish community and

Zionist institutions have a strong investment in the “old paradigms” (and the recent revival of old paradigms) because they make a strong case for Israel support.

• “Jewish organizational life has a specific vision about Israel – it knows how to

defend its message, but it doesn’t know how to change it.” • “Organizational hegemony is very threatened by open dialogue.” • “American Jews have a vested interest in keeping a safe distance from

Israel.”

14

Barriers to Deeper Relationship In addition to the historic ebb and flow of relationship, there are barriers that

contribute to psychological distance and feelings of ambivalence towards Israel among North American Jews:

• A majority of Diaspora Jewry has only a “symbolic” relationship with Israel –

they have not visited and do not have direct connections with people there. • Diaspora Jews yearn for a “homeland” they have never lived in. They are

referred to as a “Diaspora” but the place they dispersed from is Europe or somewhere else – not Israel.

• North American Jews – a majority of whom identify with liberal religious

movements – have been alienated by Israel’s lack of recognition and respect for the Judaism that they practice.

• The North American Jewish community has shifted over the past two decades

towards a more inward focus – issues such as continuity and renaissance have predominated the communal agenda.

However, one informant offered an alternative point of view as to the impact of

the relationship between communal focus on “continuity” and Israel Education. Instead of turning American Jews away from Israel, “Israel Experience [became] a key discussion in every community” as a part of the “continuity” movement: “Israel scholarships, ‘Passport to Israel’ savings programs, and the Israel experience enterprise saw tremendous growth [in those years]. Until 2000, finances were considered to be the main barrier to participation in the Israel experience programs, with security only a secondary threat.”

Promoting the Mythic Israel Ambivalent feelings towards Israel, persistence of old paradigms, lack of

communal discussions, and psychological distance also contribute to the on-going promotion of an “outdated and mythic view” of Israel. Rather than grapple with current Israel in all its complexities, educators and institutions prefer to relate to the Israel they remember prior to their ambivalence and conflicted feelings. “Little is taught about cultural, social, and ideological realities – imperfection is actually vibrant and attractive, but it conflicts with the mythic Israel and the Israel of crisis and there is too much investment in that image…” Another respondent noted that when young people do not have the opportunity to explore Israel critically in a Jewish context, it is a rude awakening to encounter this critique later on. “Kids are disillusioned when they realize that they were ‘sold a bill of goods’ about the mythic Israel and that they had to go to college to hear about it.”

This “mythic” view of Israel, which disregards the current challenges and

complexities of the Jewish state, can be distinguished from a “timeless” and “spiritual” Israel, which transcends the current political reality and focuses more on the role of “Israel” as a part of Jewish identity. Informants discussed that we need both – a grounded understanding of an imperfect Israel and a recognition of the “timeless” Israel that is not bounded by current statehood.

15

Impact of the Current Crisis The current “matzav” (literally, “situation” – used as a term of reference for the

violence since Fall 2000) was cited by many informants as a force that has intensified the return to old paradigms, heightened a sense of alienation and distancing, and increased reluctance to engage in Israel education. Several disturbing trends were noted:

• Dramatic decrease in visits to Israel – less people-to-people contact, lack of

continuity in programs that rely on Israel experiences as a significant training component; soon there will be a generation of young people who have missed out on the Israel Experience.

• Dismantling of infrastructure for educational programs in Israel (closing and

cutbacks at major institutions). • Mixed messages from rabbis and communal leaders about whether or not

people should visit or send their kids – heightens the “crisis of faith” and the expression of moral support and solidarity.

Informants noted that this has had a direct and detrimental effect on Israel

education:

• “People don’t know what to do in this new area of grayness – don’t know what to teach, so they don’t teach it.”

• “Schools not addressing Israel because of the matzav sends an awful

message – that we are embarrassed and hiding something” • “Before the matzav the question was “why” teach Israel, now we wonder

where to begin.” Mixed Messages Several informants noted that the Diaspora reaction to the matzav – mobilizing in

the name of crisis and emergency – sends mixed messages to kids and parents.

• “You walk into the JCC and what is the first thing you see – the big red barometer – Israel is in crisis, it is mizken(unfortunate); we must raise money and rescue it; on the other side is a pile of brochures – come visit Israel, send your kids – it sends a very confusing message.”

• “Solidarity missions are supposedly really great for Israel. [But] they are very

short – you go to the hospitals and see trauma victims – you don’t shop, you don’t see life, you don’t spend money. You go home, bentsch gomel and thank G-d you did not send your kids.”

The back and forth messages take their toll on the Jewish community as a whole

and on Israel Education in particular. The complexities and contradictions move some institutions to avoid Israel Education altogether. Others engage with it superficially, aware that they are not preparing students for “the real world.” “Kids are media savvy – they watch CNN, they read the papers – our community is not giving them real answers to the conversations outside.”

16

Education vs. Hasbara Informants remarked that students are bombarded with media images and anti-

Israel propaganda, particularly on college campuses. They complained that Israel Education (too little, too late) cannot keep pace with this onslaught. However, others remarked that it is critical to differentiate between education and “hasbara” (propaganda) and that if the community was stronger in education, it would not need to devote so much energy to “hasbara.”

• “You need to teach kids Zionism and history before you teach them to refute

arguments.” • “All of a sudden it is all about hasbara. The problem is defined as not having

trained our kids in the ‘technique’ of hasbara. We realized that the problem is not one of hasbara, but basic knowledge.”

Window of Opportunity Several informants noted positive opportunities that have emerged from the

“crisis.” Although they view the current situation as an extremely challenging chapter in Israel-Diaspora relations, they felt that good might come of new paradigms and initiatives. Positive developments of note included:

• More Israelis are coming to North America as emissaries, speakers, and guests

(e.g. young people at summer camp) – an exchange that used to go in primarily one direction is now going two ways.

• It is an opportunity to re-examine the communal focus on Jewish continuity. In

some ways continuity was a North American rejection of the centrality of Israel. This is an opportunity to balance this perspective.

• Educators are traveling to Israel in lieu of their students. (While informants

noted that student trips must be resumed, they appreciated that resources diverted from youth programs enabled many educators to visit over the past two years.)

• Some informants advocated the creation of “Israel Experiences” in the US as

an interim measure. Programs such as “virtual mifgashim (encounters)” were identified as models.

4) LACK OF A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH

The underlying issue it seems is not an absence of Israel Education but a lack of systematic national planning and thought. With only a few exceptions, comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, developmentally and sequentially appropriate approaches to Israel Education are lacking.

17

Integrated Curriculum Overall, there was a recommendation that Israel be integrated into every topic,

and not be taught as a stand-alone subject. Embedded in this is a sense that teachers are not prepared to effectively talk about Israel. The curricula exist, but teachers do not know how to use them.

Glut of Materials but Not Useful There may be great “boutique programs,” and some even described that there is

a “glut of materials.” Yet there is a dearth of something systematic that links them and builds a skill set from year to year. As one informant shared, “There is a vast collection of materials that is disorganized, an unfocused mass often of questionable quality, often with hidden or submerged ideology that has been neither accepted nor verified by anyone using them.”

Lack of Specific Resources While there may be lots of materials, there are holes with particular resources

missing, (e.g. no good book on the history of Israel, only one comprehensive structured graded curriculum.)

Need for Comprehensive Knowledge-Management Israel Education Month, sponsored by 17 organizations, offers an important start

for centralizing materials, curricula, and other practical resources for educators. However, informants pointed to a larger need for cataloguing materials, convening ongoing conversations, and accessing ready-to-use programs. It has also been suggested that there is a need to evaluate existing materials and offer guidelines which aid in their appropriate use.

5) SIGNIFICANCE OF EXPOSURE TO MODERN ISRAEL

In almost every interview, the Israel Experience was raised as a crucial ingredient for Israel Education. Along with camps and youth movements, Israel trips were cited as one of the most vibrant forms of Israel education. Informants explained that people need personal narratives and real connections with Israel and shared a sense that “nothing can replace the Israel Experience.” Critique of and Recommendations for Israel Experience Several critiques were offered and recommendations made for strengthening the

impact – both during and afterward – of these programs. One critique is that while trips are very successful and compelling, the educational message has not really changed over the years, and perpetuates a mythic view of Israel. Among the recommendations was to insure ongoing programming once participants return to North American, with an underlying recognition that program usefulness was contingent on effective follow-up.

18

The “Bubble” Approach There was disagreement as to whether or not the “bubble” effect is useful in

creating an ongoing relationship with Israel. Some informants stressed the importance of seeing the “real” Israel, beyond the planned trips, while others emphasized the importance of such a “bubble,” at least for the initial encounter, to create a commitment to Israel based on a sense of the potential of what Israel can be. Once they have seen the ideal, then participants can look at how the ideal manifests or does not manifest in reality.

Centrality of Spending Time in Israel as an Educational Goal One informant echoed the views of others when she said: “Israel should be an

instrumentality for Jewish education.” Many informants referenced a difference between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox worlds with regards to the emphasis on the Israel Experience: The Orthodox community stands out as an exception – a place where spending time in Israel is an expressed goal. “No one graduates from Modern Orthodox high schools without spending a year in Israel.” “The Orthodox community has figured something out.” It was not clear how much of this is a result of formal curriculum or something else. Several informants recommended looking more closely at the Orthodox community to gain insight and potentially garner transferable ideas and models.

Hebrew as Access Point Informants indicated that Hebrew is an access point to Israeli culture, yet modern

Israeli Hebrew is not being widely taught to a sufficient level of fluency. The result, one informant explained, is that: “We don’t have a conversation with modern Israel and its mainstream culture.”

6) NEED FOR CHAMPIONS

Several informants spoke of the lack of champions for Israel Education – on the Federation level, funding level, and even among rabbis. Without this core leadership, the kind of massive culture change that needs to happen to make Israel Education central cannot happen. One informant explained: There is “no leadership and no vision. Someone should get up at a plenary at the Jewish Funders Network and declare what you are finding in this study. The venture capital for Jewish life are these foundations and the super-structures do listen to them.”

19

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE FIELD Informants provided over 50 specific recommendations for how Israel Education might be advanced. Ten of the key suggestions are outlined below. Additional recommendations are presented in the appendices.

1) Facilitate communal discussion to shift the paradigm of Israel-Diaspora relationship away from “crisis, emergency, and rescue.” Propose alternative models for fostering long-term positive identification with Israel.

2) Address the issue of ideology on an institution-by-institution basis by providing

the tools to engage in conversations about “why Israel matters” and develop an institutional approach that is in concert with their values and mission.

3) Refresh and develop new curricular materials and lesson plans to move beyond

a “mythic Israel” and towards a realistic and engaging view of the modern state. Materials should be appropriately tailored for different ages, religious movements, and settings.

4) Bring more young people, educators, and communal leaders to Israel for

quality, intensive, repeat programs. 5) Expand “people-to-people” programs that match North American and Israeli

schools, teachers and students on an on-going basis. Where appropriate, advanced web-based technology should be employed.

6) Mobilize rabbinic, philanthropic, and communal leadership to champion the

cause of Israel Education and press for systemic change. 7) Create a field of Israel Education with a defined body of knowledge and

professionalize the field through teacher training and specialization. Develop a resource clearinghouse (possibly web-based) that can provide teachers with quality lesson plans, curricula, and program ideas.

8) Evaluate programs identified as best practices to determine how they can be

further enhanced, adapted, and brought to scale. 9) Ensure funding for implementation and follow-up, not just development of

curriculum or ideas. 10) Centralize efforts through the development of a North American Center for

Israel Education. Consider a consortium model like Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education (PEJE) for elevating and advancing the field of Israel Education as a whole.

20

CONCLUSION Over the years, several institutions and many individuals have invested significant time, energy, and thought towards advancing Israel Education but to create a viable and thriving field of Israel education, an additional investment of time, energy and financial resources is required at all levels. In recent months, this topic has received renewed attention, and momentum for new initiatives and approaches has increased. This momentum should be harnessed and channeled towards creating lasting change in the field. There is an emerging recognition that Israel Education cannot be addressed satisfactorily until the community as a whole and institutions devoted to Jewish education in particular, address the ideological underpinnings of Israel Education. This is both a community-wide and context-specific conversation that needs to take place in a thoughtful and systematic fashion. Leading Jewish educators have called for Israel Education to become a field in its own right – with the requisite development of a curricular approach, systemized training, professionalization, and the creation of a “central address” to coordinate and streamline this process. The current political reality in Israel and the North American Jewish community gives urgency to this charge, but should not be seen as the primary motivation. The North American Jewish community has a long-standing need to refine its approach to Israel Education. Many informants in this study suggested that the key to Israel Education lies in engaging with “modern Israel” – its language, culture and people. They urged increased emphasis on Hebrew language instruction, renewed efforts to increase participation in Israel Experience programs despite the political realities, and a significant increase in resources to promote “people-to-people” programs (both virtual and exchange-based) and to bring Jewish educators to Israel for extended repeat programs. Israel Education is framed in the broader context of Israel-Diaspora relations and therefore Israel-Diaspora collaboration is key to implementing the necessary changes and advancing the field as a whole. Careful attention should be paid to minimizing mixed messages that are inherent in fundraising campaigns centered on “rescuing Israel” and out-dated paradigms of Israel-Diaspora relations. Strong, vocal leadership in both countries is required to shift these messages and collaborate effectively for the promotion of Israel Education. The Gilo Family Foundation is committed to facilitating and advancing the field of Israel Education together with institutional partners and individuals in Israel, North America, and beyond. In the coming months, the foundation will share the findings of this report broadly throughout the Jewish community and work together with stakeholders to identify next steps and develop a coherent and effective plan of action.

Appendices - 1

APPENDICES Appendices Page

Appendices.......................................................................................................................................1

Informant list ...............................................................................................................................2

Interview Protocol......................................................................................................................3

Further Recommendations......................................................................................................4

Highlighted Programs and Practices.....................................................................................8

Mapping Surveys .....................................................................................................................11

Gatherings ................................................................................................................................12

Directions for Further Inquiry ..................................................................................................14

Recommended Resources ...................................................................................................17

Appendices - 2

INFORMANT LIST Yossi Abramowitz Chief Executive Officer Jewish Family Life! Media Rabbi Rami Arian Executive Director Foundation for Jewish Camping Roger Bennett Vice President, Strategic Initiatives Andrea and Charles Bronfman Philanthropies Barry Chazan, Ph.D. International Director of Education Birthright Israel (Taglit) Gail Dorph, Ph.D. Director Mandel Teacher Educator Institute Arnold Eisen, Ph.D. Daniel E. Koshland Professor of Jewish Studies Stanford University Elan Ezrachi, Ph.D. Director of Educational Programs Jewish Agency for Israel Peter Gefen, Ph.D. Founder Abraham Joshua Heschel School Alan Hoffmann Director-General Education Department Jewish Agency for Israel Barry Holtz, Ph.D. Professor of Education Jewish Theological Seminary Bethamie Horowitz, Ph.D. Scholar and Consultant Mandel Foundation Israel Shaul Kelner, Ph.D. Research Associate Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies Brandeis University

Alisa Rubin Kurshan, Ph.D. Vice President for Strategic Planning and Organizational Resources UJA-Federation New York Daniel Margolis, Ph.D. Executive Director Bureau of Jewish Education of Greater Boston Deborah Price* Executive Director Jewish Education Association of MetroWest New Jersey Shlomi Ravid, Ph.D. Director Israel Center Jewish Community Federation San Francisco Menachem Ravivi Director of North American Region Jewish Agency for Israel Joseph Reimer, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Jewish Communal Service, Director of Institute for Informal Jewish Education Brandeis University Kenneth Stein, Ph.D. William E. Schatten Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History and Israeli Studies Director of Institute for the Study of Modern Israel Emory University Leah Strigler Program Officer for Education Jewish Life Network Meryl Weissmann, Ph.D. Head of North American Team Education Department Jewish Agency for Israel Jonathan Woocher, Ph.D. President Jewish Education Service of North America

* Deborah Price provided valuable information to this study but was not formally interviewed.

Appendices - 3

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

1. What do you see as the current state of the field for Israel Education in North America?

2. What are the gaps and/or under-addressed areas?

3. What surveys or studies have you heard of or are familiar with on the topic of

Israel Education? Any feedback that you think might be relevant as we review it?

4. Who are the potential audiences for a mapping study like this?

5. Should curricula be the primary focus of this study? What other factors might be relevant?

6. Who are some of the leading experts and/or thought leaders on the topic of

Israel education?

7. Which institutions, local and national, are involved in Israel Education? And which do you think are potentially doing some of the most innovative work on this? (In broadest possible terms, K-12 (both formal and informal, e.g. camping), college campuses, etc. Any feedback on preliminary list provided?

8. What do you think are some of the relevant factors in choosing cities for a more

detailed mapping?

9. What are some of the important questions to be asked in this study? • of Teachers? • of Administrators? • of Students? • of Thought leaders?

10. Do you think it is relevant to identify and explore with institutions and teachers

who are NOT engaged in Israel Education? Should additional efforts be made to reach this group if they do not appear naturally in the survey? If yes, how might we find them?

11. Are there any topics that you think make sense to avoid?

12. How do you envision an advisory committee for this process? What might the

committee’s role be?

Appendices - 4

FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS Informants made over 50 specific recommendations regarding ways that Israel Education could be enhanced, improved, and advanced over time. Recommendations ranged from proposed framings for the “ideological conversation,” to increasing funding for proven strategies, to bringing specific programs to scale. What follows is a synthesis of these recommendations. These recommendations are presented as an addition and complement to the core recommendations presented in the document above.

Conceptual Framework: Numerous respondents noted the importance of a clear conceptual framework

as a pre-requisite for effective Israel Education. Recommendations towards achieving this clarity included:

• Build a body of conceptual thinking around Israel Education and translate

that thinking into the creation of subject matter areas. This process would include defining core knowledge, translating knowledge goals into curricular materials and experiential learning, and ensuring that this education is provided across institutions.

• Facilitate communal discussion (professionals, intellectuals, and lay leaders) to

define the scope of Israel Education. Topics for discussion include: Israel Education as a stand-alone subject vs. integrated into all aspects of the curricula, articulation of core knowledge, how to facilitate connection to Israel in the current reality, how a connection to Israel plays into Jewish identity, etc.

• Create space to identify and openly discuss resistance to Israel and Israel

Education. • The question of “why Israel matters?” should be based on what links us to one

another and defining how there are many different ways to be Jewish. • Focus on cultivating “emotions and deeds” as well as knowledge. Israel

Education needs to nurture an emotional relationship and promote specific actions, such as visiting Israel, as well as teaching facts and figures.

• The implicit goal of Israel Education should be to get every Jew to visit Israel.

Curricula/Materials: Informants noted that there is a wealth of “lesson plans” but a lack of curricula

that address the learning needs of specific age groups and that organize materials for systematic presentation and learning. Informants provided recommendations regarding both the structure and the content of curricula and a preferred process for curriculum development.

• Curriculum development needs to be a very collaborative process that

includes teacher training. Teachers need to be the decision-makers, change

Appendices - 5

agents, and opinion leaders. If they don’t own the changes, they won’t implement them.

• There needs to be a serious five-year curricular project, which brings a

sophisticated approach to curricularization for every age group and builds a skill set from year to year.

• Recognize the importance of Israel Education across the lifecycle; starting

with pre-school. • Develop curricula that devote several years of study (by students) to the

indivisible link between Israel and Judaism, focus on contemporary Israeli society and focus on positive aspects such as culture (as opposed to divisive issues such as “who is a Jew?”), and focus on the case for Israel’s existence.

• Reconceptualize “curriculum” as the comprehensive development of

programming starting with basic philosophy and the community – what the community needs and what is feasible for educators.

• Develop media based curricula on DVD Ram and train teachers effectively in

their use. • Figure out a rating system and rate individual programs and materials.

Catalogue materials in a way that will help teachers discern what is more and less valuable. Then put this on line so that people can search it.

• Curriculum design needs to be based in the US. “‘Official Israel’ cannot

produce what we need here – we have a very media savvy, curriculum savvy constituency.”

Teacher/Educator Training: Interviews highlighted the critical role of classroom teachers and other educators

as the transmitters of Israel Education. Informants stressed the need to invest more resources in training and supporting teachers.

• Convene 100 Master Teachers to cultivate a new culture of Israel Education.

• Focus on teachers as the point of influence and get them to put Israel

Education on their school’s agenda.

• Provide more training for informal educators (camp directors and counselors). Educators are more important than curricula at camps.

• Organize Israel trips for Hillel Directors and Camp Directors. Use the fact that

the “matzav” has created opportunities to send more educators.

• Look for ways to help teachers continue to integrate the Israel Experience once they have returned from travel programs. Single transformative experiences are not sufficient for long-term integration.

Appendices - 6

• Create a university-based program to train Israel Educators. This should be complimented with serious local teacher training.

• Teach more teachers about the history of Zionism and modern Israel.

Israel Experience: Israel Experience programs were noted as another example of “excellence” in

Israel Education and an important vehicle for fostering a sense of connection and commitment among North American Jews. Suggestions in this regard related to how Israel Experience opportunities can be deepened and expanded and what should be done in the current period when fewer students are willing to travel to Israel.

• Design programs for the year between high school and college, and create a

culture of participation in the same way that the Orthodox do.

• Organize worldwide quality programs for Jewish kids based in Israel – model Knesset (like model UN) or a better version of the Maccabiah. Tap into teens’ interests and create a sense of peer-to-peer community.

• Re-structure and resume Israel Experience programs – find creative ways to

address the situation and don’t enable the Israel Experience to “skip a generation.”

People to People: People to People programs were sited as another important opportunity for

forging lasting connection and commitment to Israel. Recommendations in this regard include:

• Ensure that “people-to-people” encounters are meaningful and well

integrated.

• Implement more “people-to-people” programs and virtual mifgashim at camps to enable extended contact over time.

Technology: Several informants noted the important role that technology could potentially

play in linking classrooms for “people-to-people exchanges” and enhancing Israel Education overall. Recommendations included:

• Network 100 schools in the US and Israel by providing subsidies for T-1 lines and

facilities for video conferencing. Provide more facilities to camps and schools for “virtual mifgashim” (encounters).

• Create an internet-based resource center that includes a database of texts

and other curricular materials. Provide web-based knowledge management – a place to see best practices and resources.

Appendices - 7

• Link with the Jewish Family Life! Technology Project (co-funded by the Nash and AviChai Foundations), which focuses on teacher development. Add an Israel Education component and bring it to scale nationally.

Convening the Conversation: Informants provided some important insights as to how the “conversation”

regarding Israel Education might be advanced overall. They cautioned against “top down” models and urged collaborative work between local and national entities. Some suggestions include:

• The national bodies are not really capable of making local change. There is a

need to bring leadership together from all areas (schools, camps, Israel trips). • Bring together an elite group of funders and schools to approve

adventuresome, risk-taking initiatives. • Get Stephen Spielberg to do a movie about Israel–popularize the topic.

Leadership: Informants repeatedly mentioned the need for strong, vocal leadership on the

topic of Israel Education. Concrete suggestions include: • Rabbinic leadership needs to deal with this topic more effectively. Training

needs to begin at the seminaries. • Federations should finance travel to Israel. This should be a priority and it isn’t.

Federations’ leadership needs to be educated and recruited to this task. • Convene a group of teachers, principles, academics, educational leaders

and BJE heads to strategize a long-term game plan for Israel Education. The group should have specific objectives and a tight timetable. This work would need a fabulous project director.

Appendices - 8

HIGHLIGHTED PROGRAMS AND PRACTICES These institutions were noted by informants for their high level of commitment to Israel education and implementation of innovative programs. In some cases, they were also cited for creative and dynamic leadership in the field. When leadership was noted, it is indicated in parenthesis. Since the review of “best practices” and “model programs” was not systematic and emerged as commentary offered in the course of the interviews, detail is not provided for all programs mentioned. When an informant did suggest “how” a specific program is innovative or “what” served to distinguish the program in their eyes, this detail is provided. This list is provided to serve as the basis for further exploration and to call attention to programs that may be relevant or noteworthy for further discussions and planning.

Day Schools

• Jewish High School of Metro Detroit – chartered a plane to take all its students to the Israel rally.

• Heschel School NYC – has a policy statement on the teaching of Israel and

Zionism. Sends each eighth grade class to Israel (parents start saving for the trip from first grade). Launched Kivunim (teacher training in Israel). Facilitates virtual teacher training with Israel experts and cultural exchanges between classrooms.

• Ramaz NYC – extra curricular program with a strong emphasis on Israel.

• CHAT, Toronto – high percentage of Israeli shlichim as teachers. Canadian

Day Schools in general were noted as being more Zionist in their orientation than their US counterparts.

• Jewish Community Day School of Boston – bilingual education program

where Hebrew is integrated into all subject matter. Recruits only “shlichim” teachers, not yordim, (Israelis who have left Israel).

• Solomon Schechter Schools of Essex and Union, NJ – send a large number of

students to Israel each year.

• Milken School, LA

• Schechter School, Boston

• Charles E. Smith, D.C.

Appendices - 9

Teacher Training/Educator Gatherings

• Kivunim (coordinated through PEJE) – brings day school teachers (15-20 per year) to Israel for an intensive two -week training seminar. Experience is extended to secular as well as Jewish teachers and even includes Israeli faculty. Goal is to provide an intensive, high quality, repeated experience (teachers cycle through on return trips every several years).

• Heschel School, NY – teacher training using high tech video conference to

bring North American and Israeli teachers together at modest cost.

• Melton Mini-Schools – promoting intellectual coherence in other fields. This model could be applied to Israel Education.

• “Teaching Teachers to Teach,” a joint project among Jewish Family Life,

JESNA, and AviChai and Nash Foundations. The project involves experimentation with using technology to “teach teachers how to teach” via a two-and-a-half week on-line course. The project is about to scale nationally, and Israel education courses could be created for this format.

• Jewish Agency – has many professional development programs that focus on

and support Israel Education.

• Bar Ilan University – runs an annual seminar for Day School Principals.

• UJC Israel Education Task Force – monthly planning calls

• Mandel Teacher Training Institute

• Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University – continuing education programs for Jewish educators

Hillels/College Campus

• University of Michigan (Michael Brooks)

• UCLA (Haim Siedler-Feller)

• Harvard (Bernie Steinberg)

• Brandeis – sends a large delegation of students to Israel each year; school actively encourages it, provides credit, and generally makes it easy

• Parent/Student Project (Michael Paley) – convenes discussions for parents

and students to figure out responses to anti-Israel propaganda before heading off to college.

• Jewish/Muslim Dialogue, Dartmouth College

Appendices - 10

Summer Camps and Youth Movements

• Foundation for Jewish Camping – raising and disbursing grants to bring over Israeli campers. Facilitating (with Jewish Agency) better placement and training of Israeli summer shlichim. Sending North American Counselors on Birthright. Convening camp directors to discuss Israel Education.

• Camp Ramah – effective integration of Shlichim, strong emphasis on Hebrew

language.

• Camp Young Judea Sprout Lake – (Helene Drobonair) ceramic tile project and virtual mifgashim.

• Habonim, Hashomer, Young Judea and B’nai Akiva – strong Zionist education.

• National Federation of Temple Youth (NFTY) Texas

• Camp Tamarack, MI, and Camp Edward Isaacs – hosted hundreds of Israeli

campers Israel Experience

• Birthright Israel (Barry Chazan)

• Shoreshim (Anne Lanski)

• Nisiyah (Charles Herman)

• Aish Hatorah and Orr Sameach – effective at recruitment, but not necessarily Zionist

• Alexander Muss High School in Israel

Funder Initiatives

• Avi Chai Foundation – shlichim training for Ramah Camps

• Mandel Foundation -- teacher training

• Goldman Foundation – funding for Israeli campers to attend camp in North America

• Maurice Amado Foundation – grants to enable innovative projects in Jewish

camps particularly with regard to Israel education. Religious Movements

• Reconstructionist Movement – dedicated staff for Israel Education

Appendices - 11

ADDITIONAL MAPPING SURVEYS One of the interesting discoveries in conducting this research was the existence of a variety of community mappings. Some of these surveys have taken place in the past several years, and others are in the process of being launched. Below is a listing of the surveys that were mentioned.

Boston Teaching about Israel in Boston Area Jewish Schools: Implications for the

Community, conducted by the Bureau of Jewish Education in Boston, summer 2002. Based on interviews with 13 schools (5 day schools. 7 congregational schools and one communal school) to find out how Israel is currently being taught in the Boston area.

New Jersey Israel Education Survey 2001/5761, conducted by the Jewish Education

Association, MetroWest, New Jersey. This survey became the basis for the Israel Education Task Force.

New York The Bureau of Jewish Education conducted a purposeful, stratified cluster

sampling of a small number of congregational schools and day schools using telephone interviews to gather information about Israel Education.

San Francisco Israel Education Survey, co-sponsored by the Israel Center and the Bureau of

Jewish Education of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties. This survey focuses on Israel Education throughout the Bay Area including curriculum, staff training, and staff development. The study serves as a needs assessment, and is being sent out to all day schools, overnight camps, supplemental schools, and the Board of Jewish Education. Follow-up in-depth interviews will be conducted in each area. Focus groups may also be conducted.

Washington, D.C. The Jewish Agency for Israel has been commissioned to conduct a wide-scale

mapping of the Washington, D.C. area regarding Israel Education, scheduled to begin in Spring 2003.

Appendices - 12

GATHERINGS Israel Education at Camp (IE@C) Convened by The Foundation for Jewish Camping, in March 2003. This two-day

conference provided an opportunity for Camp Directors and program staff to explore how to maximize the effectiveness of Israel education in their particular camp setting. Exemplary models of Israel programming and best practices were shared. For more information, contact Jenny Leibowitz at <jenny@jewishcamping.org>.

Teaching Israel Today

Sponsored by Rabbinical Students for a Just Peace, January 2003. This seminar was a consultation for Jewish educators (including rabbis, rabbinical students, teachers, education students, campus educators and informal educators). It offered the opportunity to look at current curricula and lesson plans on Israel, identify "best practices," and begin to design teaching tools to help teach about Israel in classrooms, congregations, campuses, camps, and youth groups. A resource packet was compiled for the consultation.

Educational Engagement with Israel

Hosted by the Jewish Agency for Israel, February 2003. This gathering included leading educators and representatives from educational institutions, which focus on Israel Education. The meeting agenda included discussion of the conceptual and content framework for a national Israel Center.

“Educating About Israel in New York: Current Status and Needs for the Future" An Israel Education Symposium held at UJA Federation-NY, February 2003. This

daylong symposium brought together formal and informal Jewish educators, and provided an opportunity to take a hard look at how New York stands with regard to educating its youth about Israel. Experts from Israel and the United States laid a foundation for understanding the current situation and for examining the strategic implications and practical significance of the ideas presented at the symposium for future application. An “Israel Education Resource Database” was compiled from the suggestions of symposium speakers and participants. For more information, contact Rebecca Rettig at <rettigr@ujafedny.org>.

North American Alliance for Jewish Youth (NAA) Conference convened for 400 Informal Jewish Educators (Hillels, summer camps,

JCCs, etc.) in Ein Bokek, Israel in January 2003. The conference focused on strategies for Israel Education in informal settings. This was the most well-attended conference of the Alliance in recent years.

Mifgash on North American Jewish Education Convened by The Association of Directors of Central Agencies (ADCA) in

cooperation with the Jewish Education Service of North America (JESNA), March 2001 and Summer 2002. In March 2001, Israeli and North American educators came together to: identify and explore the most critical issues facing North American Jewish education; develop a joint action agenda for cooperation; develop a set of procedural guidelines for future collaborative decision-making on the services/programs; focus collective efforts on both centers of Jewish educational life

Appendices - 13

(Israel and North America), and clarify the roles of key participating institutional players. In the summer of 2002, the mifgash took place again.

Three working groups were created on the following topics: Israel education and

curriculum, Jewish peoplehood, and teacher training. Each of the groups was comprised of a mix of representatives from American and Israeli institutions and created drafts of strategic initiatives. For more information, contact Deborah Price at <DPRICE@JEAMETROWEST.ORG>

Teaching Israel: Education for Commitment and Critique

Mandel School, July 2002. Provided an intensive teacher educator institute with four foci: 1) exploring the role of Israel in Jewish education; 2) exploring forms of commitment – the range of ways people can be committed/show their commitment to Israel; 3) exploring the ways in which solidarity with, and criticism/critique of, Israel differs in Israel and in the Diaspora; and, 4) exploring the limits of “acceptable critique” from a Diaspora perspective.

Teacher Workshop on Modern Israel Institute for the Study of Modern Israel, Emory University. The objective of this intensive

6-day workshop is to provide teachers with a high caliber of scholarship on topics that relate to modern Israel. Scholars and curriculum specialists from the United States and Israel and Emory University faculty participate in the workshop. Intended for teachers of grades 5-12, as well as principals, education directors and headmasters. Sponsored in part by the AviChai Foundation. For more information: http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/JewishStudies/stein/TeacherWorkshop/ATLTW2003.html

Training Day School Principals at Harvard University

Conducted by the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel, Emory University and funded by the AviChai Foundation. One hundred and twenty-five day school principals gathered for an intensive training on teaching Israel. For more information, contact Ken Stein at http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/JewishStudies/stein.html.

Strengthening and Preserving the Israel Experience A MetroWest Community Symposium (New Jersey), February, 2003. A one-day

symposium for lay and professional leadership that provided the opportunity to: review the current status of the Israel Experience programs, recruitment and funding issues, and projections for the coming year; learn about national initiatives and responses to the changed circumstances; brainstorm and discuss alternatives and possible actions for MetroWest. This is part of a community-wide effort to engage in meaningful Israel Education. For more information, contact Deborah Price at <DPRICE@JEAMETROWEST.ORG>.

Appendices - 14

DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY The original conceptualization of this study proposed multi-stage investigation, carried out over the course of a year or more. Initially it was believed that in order to effectively map the field, it would be necessary to engage in detailed mapping of Israel Education in several communities; conduct focus groups with teachers, administrators, parents, and students; and continue to systematically review curricular materials. Based on our findings in the first stage of inquiry, next steps are currently under review. In the course of the interviews, informants suggested many potential directions for further inquiry and some even suggested creative methodologies. A summary of those comments is provided here. Whenever possible, the original language of informants is used.

Ideological Approach Several informants suggested ways to further investigate the role that ideology (or

its absence) plays in Israel Education. Suggestions included:

• Analyze missions of day schools to see if and how Israel is mentioned.

• Ask teachers and principles to articulate their goals and objectives in teaching Israel.

• Survey the community to find out why people think it is important to learn

about Israel.

• Ask people why Israel Education is important for 20 years from now. What sort of future are they building towards in Israel-Diaspora relations?

• Analyze Israel celebrations and events and see what is being messaged

through them. Who is being featured as the major speakers on the circuit?

• Analyze existing philosophical frameworks and what “drives” them – what are the clusters of ways of thinking about Israel?

Stakeholder Opinions Informants identified multiple “stakeholders” in the field of Israel Education –

parents, educators, administrators, the Jewish community at large and students themselves. There is little information available about how various stakeholders perceive the situation or what they might propose as remedies.

• Survey parents and teachers to see how they view the field of Israel

Education. They may view the state of the field and what is missing differently from national leaders.

• Interview shlichim to see what they identify as the primary issues around Israel

education.

Appendices - 15

• Survey kids to understand what they know and feel about Israel. Collect examples of student work from middle school projects that were done on Israel. What can we learn about what children understand about Israel from their projects?

• Survey the Internet and the press. Kids have a lot of access to these and they

are probably influencing their ideas about Israel.

• Ask what people know about Israel and what they are willing to invest to know more.

• It would be beneficial to profile entire communities for a snapshot of where

that community stands in relation to Israel Education. The profile should include: a) key leaders (where are they personally in terms of Israel), b) overall (is this community very Israel-oriented), c) institutions – synagogues, youth movements, campuses, etc. How does the picture fit together? What sort of a matrix appears?

Teachers While there are many stakeholders in Israel Education, informants agreed that

teachers are key to advancing and influencing the field. There is a general lack of information on what is available to teachers in terms of training and materials and how teachers themselves perceive the field of Israel Education. If teachers are targeted for further inquiry, they suggest the following:

• Map the resources offered to teachers at the local level by Bureaus of Jewish

Education – what curricula/training do they provide on Israel. Do they have an Israel expert on staff?

• Survey a community – how many teachers identify themselves as “Israel

Educators”?

• Sample teacher attitudes about Israel – what they think and what they actually teach.

• Ask teachers what they are teaching about the Palestinians and the

settlements – figure out where the discomfort is coming from.

• Find out about teaches personal connection/commitment to Israel.

• We need some baseline information on what teachers teach and how they teach it. Ask teachers if they are reluctant to teach Israel and why. Ask them how they deal with the current situation.

• Ask teachers how they understand Israel Education. What role would they like

it to play in Jewish education? What would they like to be teaching that they are not teaching today? What would this require – training, funds, time?

• Ask teachers what “success” would look like for them in Israel education.

Appendices - 16

• Map teacher training institutions – what they teach and what they emphasize.

• Ask teachers what their priorities are. If they could allocate classroom time

any way they liked, how would Israel fit in? Pedagogy and Curricula Several informants indicated that not enough is known about the content of

Israel-oriented curricula or how that content is conveyed in the classrooms. Others suggested that there might be important lessons to be learned from how other fields of education have overcome the challenges inherent in their subject matter.

• Engage in further mapping of available materials in both formal and informal

educational environments – lesson plans, curricula, etc.

• Conduct an in-depth analysis of 2-3 popular curricula to assess their content and emphasis.

• Study how people access other subject matter that is “foreign” to them such

as Bible and prayer.

• Hire a philosopher to analyze the content and contradictions of Israel education curricula.

• Do a systematic comparison between the Orthodox system where Israel

Education is very effective and the liberal religious movements.

• Survey 12th graders every year – what do they know about Israel? Set standards for basic Israel knowledge at every grade level.

• Find a major curriculum transformation from the past 25 years and write it up

as a case study. How could this be applied to Israel Education?

• Examine the Spencer Study of Jewish Day Schools and see how that information (on how Jewish Day schools contribute to Jewish identity) might be relevant to Israel Education.

Appendices - 17

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES During the interviews, informants mentioned numerous surveys, studies, curricula, textbooks, articles and websites in the area of Israel Education. For the most part, they did not provide feedback on the quality of resources, but merely mentioned their existence. It should be noted that a more comprehensive (but dated) bibliography appears in “Israel in Our Lives” series. Below is a partial listing of recommended resources.

Curricular Resources

• Bureau of Jewish Education, Boston. Israel Education Curriculum • Schechter, Boston Integrated curriculum • Cleveland Notebook – curriculum published in the early 90s – note: Cleveland

also produced a special curriculum in response to the crisis. • Melton Center Curricula – 12 modular units with eight themes – never

published • NYC BJE Curricula – written by Shoshana Glazer • Yisrael Shelanu

• Israel Education Month – The purpose of IEM was to serve as a catalyst to

generate long-term efforts to connect American Jews, both in their hearts and minds, to the land, history and people of Israel. IEM is a partnership of seventeen agencies. One of the many resources that is available is an extensive reading list. The resource bank remains online at: www.israeleducationmonth.org.

• Jewish Family Life Curriculum Proposal (written by Jeff Spitzer – outlines what a

comprehensive curriculum should look like)

• Rabbis for Peace and Justice – preliminary collection of lesson plans • Babaganewz – Magazine for day school students with a regular Israel feature

–produced by JFL Media Articles

• “What About Israel? The Kivunim Approach to Israel Education for Educators”, Peter Gefen, Contact, Winter 2002.

• “Teaching Israel in the Twenty-first Century,” Barry Chazan, Curriculum and

School Structure.

Appendices - 18

• “After the Israel Experience, then What?” Dr. Joel Schindler, Educational Forum.

• “J’accuse,” Barry Chazan, Jewish Education News, Summer 5755.

• “What We Know about the Teaching of Israel,” Barry Chazan, The Teaching of

Israel.

• “We need to teach more about Israel,” Alisa Rubin Kurshan, The Jewish Week, January 10, 2003.

Textbooks

• Behold the Land (Helen Fine)

• Israel Today (Henry Reagon) Research

• The Israel Experience: Educational Program in Israel. Summary report to the Jewish Education Committee and the Jewish Agency for Israel, submitted by Annette Hochstein, Jerusalem, June 1986.

• Making Meaning: Participants’ Experience of Birthright Israel. Shaul Kelner,

Leonard Saxe, Charles Kadushin, Rachel Canar, Matthew Lindholm, Hal Ossman, Jennifer Perloff, Benjamin Phillips, Rishona Teres, Minna Wolf, and Meredith Woocher. Publication of the Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, Birthright Israel Research Report 2, November 2000.

• A Mega-Experiment in Jewish Education: The Impact of Birthright Israel.

Leanard Saxe, Charles Kadushin, Shaul Kelner, Mark I. Rosen, Erez Yereslove, Maurice and Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, January 2002.

• Does the Teen Israel Experience Make a Difference? Barry Chazan, Israel

Experience, Inc., November 1997.

• The Israel Experience in North American Jewish Education: Embracing the Challenge of Cultural Change. Professor Jehuda Reinharz, Israel Experience, Inc. in cooperation with JESNA, December 1998.

• Israel Advocacy on Canadian Campuses: A Needs Assessment for UIA

Canda. Yonaton Gordis, November 2002.

• The Israeli Mishlachat at US Camps. Institute for Informal Education at Brandeis University, draft.

Appendices - 19

Studies & Thought Pieces

• Israel in Our Lives, a fifteen part series edited by Barry Chazan, Ilan Ezrachi, Rafi Sheniak, and Barbara Sutnick. A comprehensive overview and in-depth analysis of Israel Education with an extensive bibliography and resource guide. This series was intended to serve as a catalyst for community and institution-wide discussion on how to promote a meaningful and engaged relationship between North America and Israel.

Position Paper

• MetroWest [New Jersey] Israel Education Position Paper, guided by a cross-denominational and wide range of agencies, synagogues, day schools, etc. and developed by over 21 formal and informal educators. The impact of the position paper is most evident in individual institutions, with increased commitment, additional shlichim in some of the schools, increased participation in Israel seminars, and “more going on.” This effort is helping to engage community dollars and institutions in Israel Education.

Useful Websites

• jajz-ed.org.il

• jesna.org

• jskyway.com (a site for teachers run out of JFL)

• MyIsraelSource.com

• myjewishlearning.com