The Future of Jewish Schooling in the United Kingdom

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Future of Jewish Schooling in the United Kingdom The Future of Jewish Schooling in the United Kingdom Author(s): Oliver Valins, Barry Kosmin and Jacqueline Goldberg Published: 31/12/2002 Preface Today Jewish schools are flourishing. They have never been as popular with parents or the British educational establishment. While recent decades have seen a decline in the British Jewish population and a decrease in its level of attachment to Judaism, during that same period the number of children in full-time Jewish day school education has rapidly increased. This growth in the demand for Jewish faith-based schooling means that there is now full-time provision for over 22,000 Jewish children in nursery, primary, secondary and special educational needs (SEN) schools. This report explores the reasons for this unexpected success, and highlights the future challenges facing this sector. It also records and analyses key performance indicators using some newly available data, and provides a detailed and nuanced assessment of Jewish day school education in the United Kingdom. The upward trend in Jewish day school enrolment is an indication of an increasing desire on the part of parents to educate their children in Jewish environments, be they Progressive, central Orthodox or strictly Orthodox. In general, schools in the United Kingdom straddle both the public and the voluntary sectors of the economy. What is interesting about all faith-based education, including the Jewish sector, is that many members of the community being served perceive both the fee-paying independent schools (voluntary sector) and the voluntary-aided state schools (public sector) as being 'their schools'. In the state schools, the Judaic element is paid for by voluntary contributions from parents; the income stream that funds this part of the curriculum is therefore the only part that officially falls within the Jewish voluntary sector, aside from contributions towards the capital costs of running schools. The Jewish day school movement is part of the larger context of faith-based schooling provision in Britain, including Catholic, Church of England and Muslim schools. There are currently 2,610 Catholic schools, only 6 per cent of which are independent, providing a service for 820,000 pupils. With nearly twice as many schools, a total of 4,774, the Church of England educates 904,000 pupils. More recently a Muslim school system has developed in Britain, and currently consists of 72 schools catering for 9,000 pupils, only 2 of which are state-sector voluntary-aided. This report is offered as a contribution to the wider UK discussion taking place in the political and educational arenas on the topic of faith-based education. It asks the crucial question of whether or not, from the perspective of both educators and parents, faith-based Jewish education in Britain is a success. The establishment of the Jews' Free School (JFS) in 1732 was the beginning of Jewish day schooling in the United Kingdom. This has now evolved over several centuries into a complex matrix of educational provision that includes wide variations in school type, geographical location, religious affiliation and funding basis, as well as both state-sector voluntary-aided and independent, fee-paying schools. In looking at the historical sweep of Jewish education, the effects of changes in ideology and fashion are evident, as is the fluctuation of educational policy and its consequences. This helps us take a long-term perspective in which we can see the proportion of Jewish children attending full-time Jewish day school education changing over time. This report does not deal with religious education per se. It is rather about education for an ethno-religious group. The term 'Jewish education' in this sense is a misnomer. While the education that takes place in Jewish schools certainly includes faith-based Judaic subjects-- instruction in Jewish texts, Judaism, Hebrew--most of it involves the general subjects covered by the National Curriculum. The Future of Jewish Schooling in the United Kingdom focuses explicitly on full-time day school education at primary and secondary levels. It examines the rise of Jewish schooling in the context of changes that have taken place in education in the United Kingdom over the years. Rather than the interlocking system of education that the UK state school system is perceived to be, the system of UK Jewish education is shown to be one of diverse niche markets. As such, it is more accurately conceptualized as a series of interconnected Jewish day school systems that do not overlap in terms of provision--primarily because practical and religious barriers limit parental choice and available options regarding their children's schooling. In addition to an assessment of the current provision of general and Judaic subjects in Jewish schools, the report highlights key strategic issues for the future, bringing together in-depth interviews with education professionals and parents. Overall strategic themes are identified and discussed: the provision of places, human resources, financing, and communication and information. The strategic issues facing the strictly Orthodox sector, which has particular needs and concerns, are also discussed, as well as the provision for children with special educational needs, so placing these issues firmly on the communal agenda. This study is the fourth piece of research to be published as part of JPR's project, Long-term Planning for British Jewry. This four-year policy research programme aims to influence the development of policies and priorities for Jewish charities and other voluntary organizations in the twenty-first century. The programme is made up of a number of projects that slot together to form a comprehensive picture of British Jewry's communal organizations and services. These projects build on one another, feeding into a strategic document that will assist the community in planning its future. For social planning purposes it was necessary at the outset of the Long-term Planning project to map the parameters of the organized Jewish community. It emerged that the Jewish voluntary sector comprises nearly 2,000 financially independent organizations; thus, the income needed to maintain these organizations had to be substantial. The first piece of published research was commissioned in order to map systematically for the first time the income and expenditure of these organizations across all their funding streams. The report by Peter Halfpenny and Margaret Reid, The Financial Resources of the Jewish Voluntary Sector, estimated the income of the sector from all sources in 1997 at just over £500 million. This figure is several times the expected proportion of the UK national voluntary sector income. For the purposes of the financial resources study, the education sector was taken to comprise all charitable and other non- profit-making organizations with an educational purpose, including, but not only, independent schools. State-maintained, voluntary-aided schools were beyond the remit of this study, with the exception of the income streams directly related to the Judaic content in the curricula of these schools. The financial resources report reinforced the central role that education, including day schools, plays in the Jewish voluntary sector, with an estimated expenditure of £95 million in the 1997-8 financial year. In a related report by Ernest Schlesinger, Grant-making Trusts in the Jewish Sector, which examines trusts with specifically Jewish remits, it emerged that, in the 1997-8 financial year, over £10.5 million was granted to educational organizations. The existence of these 2,000 voluntary organizations requires that several thousand members of the Jewish community fill unpaid leadership posts on boards of trustees, take on the burdens of financial office and accept legal and moral responsibility for the running of each organization. JPR commissioned and published a recent report by Margaret Harris and Colin Rochester, Governance in the Jewish Voluntary Sector. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore the issues and challenges faced by those who currently serve on the boards of Jewish voluntary agencies in Britain. Chairs of boards of governors of schools were among those interviewed, giving another perspective on the running of such institutions within the Jewish community. Some key challenges for all boards were identified, including the pressure of change in terms of increasing professionalization, and the problems of recruiting volunteers and leaders. Five specific challenges emerged for the Jewish voluntary sector: the need for co-operation, the challenge of internal divisions, the need for a sense of collective responsibility, the changing demography of the Jewish population and the problem of resources. These same issues are also recurrent themes throughout the following report. Introduction Aims of the report The growth of Jewish day schools A brief history of Jewish day school provision in the United Kingdom A 'crisis' of Jewish education Structure of the report Aims of the report Education in the British Jewish community has changed radically over the last fifty years. An increasing number of children are now being educated in full-time Jewish day schools, and there has been a rapid decline in the take-up of part-time, supplementary (after school or at weekends) cheder education. Over the last thirty years, communal leaders have called for Jewish education to become the number-one priority for British Jewry. Communal expenditure on Jewish education now amounts to tens of millions of pounds. Jewish day school education has also been affected by a range of government educational policies that have fundamentally changed the provision of day school education across the whole of the United Kingdom. Despite these major changes, and the importance of proposed government initiatives on the future directions of Jewish schooling, there is still little knowledge or understanding of the effectiveness of current Jewish educational provision, in particular the strengths and weaknesses of Jewish day schooling. This report assesses the current provision of primary and secondary Jewish day school education in the United Kingdom.
Recommended publications
  • Antisemitism in the Radical Left and the British Labour Party, by Dave Rich
    Kantor Center Position Papers Editor: Mikael Shainkman January 2018 ANTISEMITISM IN THE RADICAL LEFT AND THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY Dave Rich* Executive Summary Antisemitism has become a national political issue and a headline story in Britain for the first time in decades because of ongoing problems in the Labour Party. Labour used to enjoy widespread Jewish support but increasing left wing hostility towards Israel and Zionism, and a failure to understand and properly oppose contemporary antisemitism, has placed increasing distance between the party and the UK Jewish community. This has emerged under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, a product of the radical 1960s New Left that sees Israel as an apartheid state created by colonialism, but it has been building on the fringes of the left for decades. Since Corbyn became party leader, numerous examples of antisemitic remarks made by Labour members, activists and elected officials have come to light. These remarks range from opposition to Israel’s existence or claims that Zionism collaborated with Nazism, to conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds or ISIS. The party has tried to tackle the problem of antisemitism through procedural means and generic declarations opposing antisemitism, but it appears incapable of addressing the political culture that produces this antisemitism: possibly because this radical political culture, borne of anti-war protests and allied to Islamist movements, is precisely where Jeremy Corbyn and his closest associates find their political home. A Crisis of Antisemitism Since early 2016, antisemitism has become a national political issue in Britain for the first time in decades. This hasn’t come about because of a surge in support for the far right, or jihadist terrorism against Jews.
    [Show full text]
  • Labour, Antisemitism and the News – a Disinformation Paradigm
    Labour, Antisemitism and the News A disinformation paradigm Dr Justin Schlosberg Laura Laker September 2018 2 Executive Summary • Over 250 articles and news segments from the largest UK news providers (online and television) were subjected to in-depth case study analysis involving both quantitative and qualitative methods • 29 examples of false statements or claims were identified, several of them made by anchors or correspondents themselves, six of them surfacing on BBC television news programmes, and eight on TheGuardian.com • A further 66 clear instances of misleading or distorted coverage including misquotations, reliance on single source accounts, omission of essential facts or right of reply, and repeated value-based assumptions made by broadcasters without evidence or qualification. In total, a quarter of the sample contained at least one documented inaccuracy or distortion. • Overwhelming source imbalance, especially on television news where voices critical of Labour’s code of conduct were regularly given an unchallenged and exclusive platform, outnumbering those defending Labour by nearly 4 to 1. Nearly half of Guardian reports on the controversy surrounding Labour’s code of conduct featured no quoted sources defending the party or leadership. The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018. Following extensive case study research, we identified myriad inaccuracies and distortions in online and television news including marked skews in sourcing, omission of essential context or right of reply, misquotation, and false assertions made either by journalists themselves or sources whose contentious claims were neither challenged nor countered.
    [Show full text]
  • The Labour Party
    The Labour Party Head Office Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT Labour Central, Kings Manor, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 6PA 0345 092 2299 | labour.org.uk/contact Dr Moshe Machover, zzzzzzzzzzzz BY EMAIL ONLY: [email protected] 30 November 2020 Ref: L1627330 Case No: CN-4925 Dear Dr Machover, Notice of administrative suspension from membership of the Labour Party Allegations that you may have been involved in a breach of Labour Party rules have been brought to the attention of national officers of the Party. These allegations relate to your conduct online and offline which may be in breach of Chapter 2, Clause I.8 of the Labour Party Rule Book. It is important that these allegations are investigated and the NEC will be asked to authorise a full report to be drawn up with recommendations for disciplinary action if appropriate. We write to give you formal notice that it has been determined that the powers given to the NEC under Chapter 6 Clause I.1.A* of the Party’s rules should be invoked to administratively suspend you from membership of the Labour Party, pending the outcome of an internal Party investigation. The administrative suspension means that you cannot attend any Party meetings including meetings of your own branch, constituency, or annual conference; and you cannot be considered for selection as a candidate to represent the Labour Party at an election at any level**. In view of the urgency to protect the Party’s reputation in the present situation the General Secretary has determined to use powers delegated to him under Chapter 1 Clause VIII.5 of the rules to impose this suspension forthwith, subject to the approval of the next meeting of the NEC.
    [Show full text]
  • Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UEL Research Repository at University of East London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email protected]!)>+>,5?! (>)6>*,+!$D!G?*8*+D$%)>&*$+H!?58*,+5?!&$!?*8(%5?*&!F$%A9+!>+?!&'5!.5D&!C*+,!$D!&'5!3>A$@%!
    [Show full text]
  • ANTISEMITIC MISCONDUCT Britain, 2017
    Indirect discrimination could inadvertently occur, where actions have the effect of selectively disadvantaging Jewish people even though no hostile motive towards Jews is present. Once a case of such discrimination comes to light, those responsible should take all reasonable steps possible to eliminate the problem. Unwillingness to take such steps would be evidence of antisemitism. The systematic murder of millions of Jews (and so many others) during the second world war is exhaustively documented. It is therefore inconceivable that Holocaust denial or expressions of doubt over its scale could be Declaration on motivated by genuine investigatory scepticism. The implication of antisemitic intent is, for practical purposes, inescapable. What is - and what is not * See Institute of Jewish Policy Research report Antisemitism in Contemporary Great ANTISEMITIC MISCONDUCT Britain, 2017 7. Overview This document has been prepared by Jewish Voice for Labour and Free Speech on Israel as a contribution to the Labour Party’s consultation on its The understanding of antisemitism on which this analysis is based reaffirms Code of Conduct on Antisemitism. It also has a wider significance. the traditional meaning of the term. This is important in the light of attempts to extend its meaning to apply to criticisms often made of the state _____________ of Israel, or to non-violent campaigns such as BDS. A charge of antisemitism carries exceptional moral force because of the negative There has been extended controversy over the adoption by the Labour connotations rightly attaching to the term. It is illegitimate to make such Party of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) claims to discredit or deter criticism, or to achieve sectional advantage.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 1 August 2018–31 July 2019
    Annual Report 1 August 2018–31 July 2019 RESEARCH EDUCATE ENGAGE Innovative | Interdisciplinary | Independent | Inclusive Annual Report 1 August 2018–31 July 2019 Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism Professor David Feldman, Director 19 November 2019 Contents Overview of the Year 3 Institute Staff 4 Research 5 Grant Income 5 Publications 5 Conference Papers 8 Pears Institute Workshops and Seminars 9 Visiting Fellows 11 Teaching 12 Policy Engagement 14 Connecting Research and Public Policy 14 Policy Advice 15 Public Engagement 16 Public Exhibition: Jews, Money, Myth 16 Public Events 17 Pears Institute in the Media 20 Opinion Pieces 21 Interviews 21 Appendix 23 Selected Publications and Activities of Associates 23 3 Overview of the Year This annual report presents the Institute’s key achievements in 2018/19 across four main areas of activity: research, teaching, public policy and public engagement. It highlights how these achievements contribute to the Institute’s strategic objective of reframing the understanding of antisemitism and seeking to connect the study of antisemitism and racialization, acting as a catalyst for change. Significant accomplishments this year include: • Mounting the award-winning exhibition Jews, Money, Myth with the Jewish Museum London • Publication of the edited volume of essays Boycotts Past and Present: From the American Revolution to the Campaign to Boycott Israel • The development of a new short course, ‘Facing Antisemitism: Politics, Culture and History’ • The Institute’s growing reputation in the public sphere as a measured and clear voice on antisemitism • Three successful grant applications for young scholars • Lecturer Brendan McGeever selected as BBC Radio 3/AHRC 2019 New Generation Thinker.
    [Show full text]
  • ANDREW MARR SHOW 26TH JANUARY 2020 LEN Mccluskey
    1 LEN McCLUSKEY ANDREW MARR SHOW 26TH JANUARY 2020 LEN McCLUSKEY AM: Len McCluskey joins me now. Welcome Mr McCluskey. LM: Good morning. AM: Immediately after that shattering election defeat I asked John McDonnell if he took personal responsibility for some of that. You were a great supporter of the previous Labour leadership, do you take some responsibility for the defeat? LM: Well, I think all of us have to take responsibility. The fact of the matter is that unfortunately Labour spent two years, 18 months sliding into being perceived as a remain party. Now, Jeremy Corbyn was under a lot of pressure from people saying he should do that He was under pressure from people like me saying there would be consequences in our heartlands if he did that. At the end of the day a policy was arrived at and we suffered the consequences of that. AM: But you were one of those calling for that election to go ahead. You said we would have to have a general election first, before Brexit was resolved. Tony Blair said that has been a huge elephant trap for the Labour Party and the Labour Party solemnly walked straight into the trap and fell over. LM: I think it was a trap, and to be honest I would have preferred to have had Brexit resolved much earlier. In my opinion Theresa May’s Brexit probably provided enough issues to try and reach a view and try and reach a compromise. The fact of the matter was once the SNP and the Liberal Democrats had made it clear that they were going to support the government, then Labour was committed to a general election.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Jewish Organizations Für Recht Auf BDS Juli 2018
    Global Jewish Organizations Affirm the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement New York, London, Berlin, Tel Aviv (July 17, 2018) – From South Africa to Sweden, New Zealand to Germany to Brazil, for the first time ever over thirty Jewish organizations across the globecame together in a statement condemning attempts to stifle criticism of Israel . The statement warns of a growing trend of legislative campaigns to target organizations that support Palestinian rights, particularly the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. “From our own histories we are all too aware of the dangers of increasingly fascistic and openly racist governments and political parties, ” the global letter states. “The rise in antisemitic discourse and attacks worldwide is part of that broader trend. At times like this, it is more important than ever to distinguish between the hostility to or prejudice against Jews on the one hand and legitimate critiques of Israeli policies and system of injustice on the other.” The United States has witnessed increasing legislative efforts to criminalize the boycott of illegal Israeli settlements and repress advocacy for Palestinian human rights by defining such acts as antisemitic , with two bills currently under discussion in US Congress. Such efforts are mirrored at the state level , where more than 25 state legislatures have considered or enacted various forms of targeting advocacy for Palestinian rights. Of particular concern is the usage of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ( IHRA ) definition of antisemitism, intentionally worded such that it equates legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.
    [Show full text]
  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 10, 2020 Jews Across
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE December 10, 2020 Jews Across the Globe Applaud Statement by Palestinian and Arab Academics, Journalists, and Intellectuals We, Jewish groups and individuals from across the globe, applaud the recent powerful statement and set of principles signed by 122 Palestinian and Arab academics, journalists, and intellectuals regarding the definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and the way this definition has been applied, interpreted and deployed. As the letter states so compellingly: " The fight against antisemitism should not be turned into a stratagem to delegitimise the fight against the oppression of the Palestinians, the denial of their rights and the continued occupation of their land." It avers: "Antisemitism must be debunked and combated. Regardless of pretense, no expression of hatred for Jews as Jews should be tolerated anywhere in the world. We also believe that the lessons of the Holocaust as well as those of other genocides of modern times must be part of the education of new generations against all forms of racial prejudice and hatred." And it also makes clear: "The fight against antisemitism must be deployed within the frame of international law and human rights. It should be part and parcel of the fight against all forms of racism and xenophobia, including Islamophobia, and anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism. The aim of this struggle is to guarantee freedom and emancipation for all oppressed groups. It is deeply distorted when geared towards the defence of an oppressive and predatory state." See the full statement from Palestinian and Arab academics, journalists, and intellectuals ​here​.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distinctive Political Status of Dissident Minorities
    American Political Science Review (2020) 114, 4, 963–975 doi:10.1017/S0003055420000659 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use. The Distinctive Political Status of Dissident Minorities DAVID SCHRAUB University of California, Berkeley issident minorities” are members of marginalized groups who dissent from the consensus “ group position on matters seen as critical to their group’s collective liberation. This paper D articulates the distinctive political status—powers, vulnerabilities, and obligations—of dissident minorities. Dissident minorities may be especially vulnerable to slurs or ostracism as “self- hating.” But they also can wield significant public influence by positioning themselves as exceptional and https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000659 . exemplary members of their group. Both the powers and vulnerabilities of dissident minorities, in turn, converge around the prospect of “tokenization”—the use of the dissident minority’s dissident opinion by majority group actors as a means of discharging a stipulated obligation to engage with the minority group writ large. While dissident minorities should be free to hold and advocate for their divergent positions in public spaces, they retain a distinctive obligation to not offer themselves out as adequate replacements for engagement with the broader group.
    [Show full text]
  • A Community of Communities
    A Community of Communities Report of the Commission on Representation of the Interests of the British Jewish Community March 2000 2 Adar 5160 The lnstitute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) is an independent think-tank which informs and influences opinion and decision-making on social, political and cultural issues a{fecting Jewish life. The Commission on Representation of the lnterests of the British Jewish Community was established as an independent working party in 1998 by JPR, which provlded the secretariat and a home for the Commission. Members were drawn on an ad personam basis from a cross-section of Britlsh Jewry in terms of gender, region and rellgious outlook. The Commission's task was to examine how the interests of the Britlsh Jewlsh community are represented at various levels-withln the community, to Jewish communities abroad and in the wider UK soclety. The Commission was also asked to make recommendations on how the representation of these interests can best be organized for the twenty-first century. JPR pledged to publish the report of the Commission Members of the Commission / Report a uthors Davrd Blackburn Lucie Hass Stephen Chelms Maurlce Helf gott Adrian Cohen Proiessor Ba rry Kosmin Ruth Deech Dr Mary Rudolf Krom Jean Gaffln, OBE Melanie Ph llips Professor IVargaret Harris Carolyn Taylor Secretariat Antony Lerman Dr Winston Prckett Andrea Margolit Lena Stanley-Clamp Contents Summary 1 Recommendations 3 l lntroduction I 2 For What Sort of British Jewry ls Representation Being U n derta ken? 13 3ln What Kind of Britain ls Representation Taking Place? 15 4 The Current Pattern of Representation 19 5 Gathering ldeas: The Consultation Exercise 23 Appendix 1 Jewish Communal Organizations Engaged in Representation 34 Appendix 2 Representation in Five Jewish Communities- France, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and the USA by Daniel E lazar 44 Appendix 3 United Kingdom Legislation Concerning Jews by His Honour Judge Aron Owen and Sheriff G.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter July 2012 Volume 4 Number 1
    Newsletter July 2012 Volume 4 Number 1 Ira M. Sheskin Editor, University of Miami Department of Geography and Director, Jewish Demography Project of the Sue and Leonard Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies President’s Column O nce again I'd like to thank Ira Sheskin for his diligent editing of an ever-expanding newsletter. It's a great way for all of us to find out what's going on with each other. I'd like to welcome our new European representative to the Board, Jonathan Boyd. Jonathan is the Executive Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) in London. He holds a BA and MA in Modern Jewish History from University College London, and his doctoral research at the University of Nottingham is in the field of educational philosophy. He was formerly a Jerusalem Fellow at the Mandel Institute in Israel, and has held professional positions in research and policy at the JDC International Centre for Community Development in London and Paris, the Jewish Agency for Israel in London and New York, and the UK-based United Jewish Israel Appeal and Holocaust Educational Trust. He is the editor of The Sovereign and the Situated Self: Jewish Identity and Community in the 21st Century (Profile Books, 2003). His most recent research examined the identities of Jewish students in Britain, the attitudes of Jews in Britain toward Israel (both co-authored with David Graham), and child poverty and deprivation among British Jews, and he's currently involved in research initiatives examining antisemitism across Europe, the educational philosophy of Limmud, and the dimensions of Jewish peoplehood.
    [Show full text]