סתיו תשע"ה • Autumn 2014

Mission & Vision

Reenvisioning Day Joseph Telushkin 10 School & Responses 50 on the Rebbe’s Mission in this issue: RAVSAK News Columns: From the Editor, page 5 • From the Board, page 6 • Good & Welfare, page 7 • Dear Cooki, page 8 • Jonathan Woocher, Keeping the Vision, page 34 Programs: Hebrew Poetry Contest, page 17 • North American Jewish Day School Conference, page 19 • Moot Beit Din, page 23 • RA VSAK Welcomes Yael Steiner, page 29 • HoS PEP, page 38 • Judaic Art Contest, page 53 • Head of School Survey, page 60 • Thank You to All Our Donors, pages 66-67 • Nevatim Conference, page 69 • JCAT, page 71 • Reshet Roundup, page 75

A Bold New Visio n Beyond Continuity, Literacy and Identity: Making a Compelling 10 Case for Jewish Day Schools to 21st Century American Daniel L. Lehmann A Bold New VisioN: Respo nses 18 The Creativity Imperative Miriam Heller Stern A Compelling, Yet More Demanding, 21 Vision for 21st Century Day Schools Michael S. Berger 24 Enacting the Case: A Response from a Practitioner’s Perspective Susie Tanchel 26 Pluralism: An Inquiry Steven Lorch 28 Pluralism, Ethnos, Creativity and Shaul Magid 30 A Mission and Vision of the Present Rivy Poupko Kletenik 32 A New Theory of Vision Jon Levisohn 36-37 Mission Statements from our schools Bialik College, , • B’nai Israel Community Day School, Gainesville, Florida • Hillel Academy, Tampa, Florida • Bialik Hebrew Day School, Toronto, Ontario • New Community Jewish High School, West Hills, California • Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Northridge, California Producing Missions 40 The Power and Practice of Visioning Robert Leventhal 44 Crafting Effective Mission and Vision Statements Ray Levi 46 Establishing an Integrated Community and School in Israel Ayelet Lehman 50 Leadership Lessons from the Rebbe Interview with Joseph Telushkin Using Missions 54 Mission Driven Teachers Tzivia Garfinkel 56 From Mission Statement to Disciplinary Policy Mark H. Shpall 58 Partnering with Parents: It’s All About Mission Alli Debrow Thinking About Missions 62 הידיעון Giving Our Missions a Why Jeffrey Schrager 64 Eliana Lipsky The Pluralistic Mission in Everyday Practice • HaYidion 72 Building Community Using Mission Statements Menachem Hecht and Pinchos Hecht 76 Complexity Leadership for Complex Day Schools Sharon Pollin [3] A New Theory of Vision ¿ By Jon A. Levisohn

The world of Jewish education has been To begin to answer this question, we can go of “aims” and “purposes,” rather than “vi- thinking about “the vision thing” for a de- back all the way to 1959, when Fox—thirty sion.” But this diagnosis is consistent with cade or more. Of course, that phrase reminds years old, working as an assistant to Chancel- his later critique of the absence of vision, in us that the concern for vision has a long lor of JTS Louis Finkelstein with oversight Visions of Jewish Education (p. 8): history. Back in 1987, then-Vice President over the Camp Ramah system—published a Bush was criticized for lacking a vision at paper titled “A Prolegomenon to a Philoso- Why do we emphasize vision? Without a guid- the outset of his presidential campaign. His phy of Jewish Education.” In that paper, he ing purpose, an educational system is bound unscripted and exasperated use of that mem- argues that, traditionally, philosophies of to be scattered and incoherent, incapable of orable phrase—“the vision thing”—at once education “first developed their principles … consecutive effort, unable either to grasp the affirmed the importance of vision while also [and then] adumbrate[d] the kind of societ- possibilities of effective action or to avoid the betraying some confusion as to what the cri- ies [and] men … which would exhibit these obstacles in its path. Lacking a directive guide tique was all about. principles.” These “embodiments … then to the future, the system becomes repetitive and served as guides to determine the education- uninspired, prey to past habit, incapable of In my experience with Jewish educators, that al approach.” justifying itself to new generations of our youth confusion about vision is familiar. We are in the world they will inhabit. much better at criticizing the absence of vi- In other words, we must start by determin- sion than we are at articulating exactly what ing our most foundational commitments. The last element in particular, the notion a vision is. Our colleague Danny Lehmann These commitments will then be encom- that our educational systems must be contin- has proposed a set of intriguing, generative passed or embodied in specific forms as ideal ually reinvigorated with new ideas appropri- ideas. Do these ideas amount to ate to a new generation, finds a vision of Jewish education? Do an echo in Lehmann’s article they do the work that a vision is as well: “We must think more supposed to do? Confusion about vision is familiar: boldly in response to the needs we are much better at criticizing and aspirations of this genera- My purpose here is not to engage tion of Jews.” with his specific proposals. In- the absence of vision than we are at stead, I want to work out what we articulating exactly what a vision is. But back to the 1959 paper. mean by vision, how visions work, Fox is not content to offer a and why they’re important. And I critique; he also proposes a will do so by offering a critique of the domi- societies or ideal people. Then, once we have solution that should sound strikingly famil- nant theory of vision in Jewish education as these in mind, the rest of our educational de- iar. He writes about the need to cultivate expressed by my teacher and the teacher of cisions will flow from or will be determined so many of us in this field, Seymour Fox. by them. a number of schemes, differing as different scholars give different weights to different Many readers of HaYidion will recall Sey- Alas, “Jewish education and Jewish educa- sources of Jewish tradition and organize them mour Fox as the head of the Mandel Foun- tors have forgotten the problem of ends or according to their lights. … Each scheme will dation-Israel, and before that a leader at goals.” As a result, he says, Jewish education be a valid theory for education and an authen- the Melton Centre at Hebrew University, has become, quite literally, “aimless.” The ef- tic image of Judaism. the Melton Center at JTS, and Camp Ra- forts of Jewish educators have no articulated mah—and for his role in creating the Vi- aims. “And when education is aimless then We need to call on our best scholars to devel- sions of Jewish Education Project at the the practical, the means of education … be- op “schemes,” informed by their own deeply Mandel Foundation, which produced the comes a matter of taste.” Rather than being informed interpretations of the Jewish tradi- edited volume Visions of Jewish Education in guided by principles, our educational efforts tion. There will be multiple schemes—Fox 2003. That project focused on the voices of are instead characterized by idiosyncrasy. was a pluralist long before anybody used the the scholars whose learning Fox revered and “The problem for a philosophy of Jewish language of pluralism—but each one will be on whom he relied to produce the creative, education is to disclose the principles that “authentic,” and each one will be an “image diverse visions encompassed in the book. In will lead to a coherent structure of ends and of Judaism.” A bit later on in the paper, he other words, the specific visions produced by means.” Instead of idiosyncrasy, he wants co- lays out a comprehensive map of the funda- the project were those of Twersky, Brinker herence, a fully-worked out system in which mental, existential questions that a philos- הידיעון and the others. However, the theory of vision the means lead to ends and the ends are em- ophy of Jewish education should consider. in the project was Fox’s own. bodiments of our principles. And then he says, “When we answer such

questions as these … then I believe we will • HaYidion So what is Fox’s theory of vision? Interestingly, in 1959, Fox uses the language [continued on page 32]

[31] [32] A Bold New Vision: Responses הידיעון • HaYidion help us to think ways. in new con—are generative concepts that may well ativity, hybridity, andthe rest lexi- ofhis - proposals—cre specific his And indeed, ies answers ofimportant to all questions. sion ofthe educated Jew ideal that embod totrying a putcomprehensive forward vi- of [concepts] andterms.” That’s it. He’s not hewantsAll to doisto “suggest anumber ish community.” abroader spectrumand engage ofthe Jew that may help Jewish connect day schools to number ofconceptual categories andterms he explains that taskis“to his a suggest to comprehensiveness. In introduction, his however, is that Lehmann not aspire does difference, visionabout The well. his as Turning to Lehmann, we can say the same sive system ofJewish educational purposes. But not encounter she does a comprehen insight andsome genuinely ideas. powerful essay, or Twersky’s, shefinds moments of tion of whenAnd the indeed, reader it seems to me,isunjustified. comprehensively. notion, This systematically work that and that visions, images, do will lematic, however, isto expect you’re What seeking. isprob the educated Jew ideal that the Jewish tradition yieldtheof will images purposes. It’s not a problem that to expect not aproblem for greater to call attention to But there’s aproblem with It’s this proposal. over 30yearslater. for the Visions that project helaunched tions. isnothing This less than a roadmap answers to fundamental, existential ques- encompass will images asetof or embody the Jewish tradition. ofthese Each robust cated Jew, that images are excavated out of developing robust ofthe edu images ideal way to pursue those questions, namely, by strikingespecially about proposal the ishis oflife’sall important questions. But what is systematic, encompassing the answers to And itmust comprehensive be goals. and ought to pursue the question ofpurposes or Thus, aphilosophy of education Jewish Jew.” discover theof or educated image ideal Visions ofJewish Educa- encounters Greenberg’s - because this is how they’ve alwaysthis ishow because satisfied with doing thingssimply satisfied withdoing been done. Weto ask wantthem We wantto be donot educators - - - - why andkeep askingwhy. things simplythings because this ishow al they’ve want educators satisfied to be with doing that are important. bigideas We donot andlackofcoherence.crasy We dobelieve aimless practice. We about idiosyn worry fundamental. We share Fox’s about worry in somethinged bigger, something more sense that our practices ground oughtto be Fox’s hierarchy captures, is our I think, There issomething about Whatright this. tional Vision. with ofits nestedanswers, all isaneduca this comprehensive andcoherent image, ofthe educated Jew. in images ideal ied And answers or embod to whichare embedded essay, these are the kinds ofquestions the (“philosophy”). To back to link the 1959 broadest existential questions andreligious are in turn and nestedwithin the biggest about “philosophy ofeducation,” which practice questions are nestedwithin bigger “theoriescalls) ofpractice,” andtheories of about practice are nestedwithin (what he to practice, according to whichquestions conception ofthe relationship oftheory the 1990s,Fox ahierarchical develops Deliberation isnotsimply thinking. By sustained deliberation. avoid adopting serious we need and slogans, are doing nothing ofthe kind. In order to with a compelling Vision when inwe fact that we believe slogans, we are operating in conflict with eachother. When we offer “slogans,” phrasesmeaningless or phrases the He absence ofideas. often denounced and incoherentperficial as he of was ideas pursuit ofpurposes, Fox scared ofsu was as The answer is that, when itcomes to the guide practice? to ideas offeringgood afew comprehensive?be What’s wrong with just wonder,might Fox does aVision to expect Jew, “Vision-with-a-capital-V.” Why, we comprehensive ofthe educated image ideal thatory on focuses the development of a Fox’s usLet call ofvision, the the theory ------Fox was correct then andremains correct tion would benefitgreater from coherence, Now, instruc insofarHebrew as - language compromises.” result is a series of inappropriate and dated inclusion in the curriculum the isunclear; whose purposea major subject for school have here,” hewrites, “a striking example of the purpose ofHebrew instruction. “We lem seems to arise from aconfusion about true today.largely Fox that argues the prob remains what yearsago was truedeed, forty among parents, rabbis,andeducators.” In of Hebrew isusually asource oftension “disappointing, andconsequently the study results ofHebrew instruction have been tion” 264).He in notes 1973(p. that the of wards EducaJewish a General Theory uses anexample as in apaper titled “To instruction,language whichFox himself Consider, for example, the ofHebrew case that vision practice? works actually to guide commitments, about our beliefs most basic ly from our most fundamental existential we flow will hope, seamlessly andelegant ofthese All reasons, ideas. philosophical more ideas, abstracttified and by bigger we make, reasons that are, themselves, jus- with the reasons for the rest ofthe decisions stand-alone reasons but reasons that cohere justifiedbe by reasons. And not just with how to govern our institutions—should whom to hire andhow to train them, and and whomsuch as to andserve, admit other well as as important considerations (curriculum) andhow to teach (pedagogy), practice—decisions about what to teach notion that eachofour decisions about there’sSo something attractive about the swers, getting to the bottom ofthings. notacceptingand probing, superficial an a bunch pushing ofunruly two-year-olds, And we want them to keep asking why, like ways done. We been want them why. to ask ments—misrepresents the way damental existential commit by governed to our be most fun decisions about practice ought ception—the notion that our thatcase this hierarchical con Or isitperhapsBut the dothey? our Vision. how to live andwhat to value, ------today. There may be a dearth of trained we need to think about a variety of different play, in any practice, because practice is in- teachers, appropriate curricula, and well kinds of ideas about a variety of different as- evitably complex. There are always multiple developed methodologies, but underneath pects of practice. reasons for what we say and do, even when all that is a confusion about the purposes of we are at our most reflective. But notice that teaching Hebrew. If we could get clear about My preferred term for these elements of the arrows go both ways, because ideas are what we want students to know and be able vision-with-a-lower-case-v is “animating also embodied in practice and are sometimes to do, we would be well on our way to im- ideas.” The modifier “animating” indicates worked out in practice. We actually refine proving the situation. that these ideas provide the motivation and our ideas through practice. We get smart- guidance for practice. And the plural “ideas” er, not just smarter about implementing or So when it comes to Hebrew, we may well indicates that there are several of these oper- translating ideas, but actually smarter about agree with Fox’s diagnosis. But notice: ating at the same time, not in a hierarchical the ideas themselves. So practice—inten- there’s nothing here about ultimate ques- nested fashion, where the “low-level” ideas tional practice, thoughtful practice—affects tions of human existence. You do not need are governed or determined by the more ab- the sphere of ideas as well. to have a grand conception of human flour- stract and more philosophical “higher-level” ishing to fix the problem with Hebrew. You ideas, but in a non-hierarchical fashion. When we are trying to promote vision in don’t need a Vision. You just need to get education—when we are trying to solve clear about your goals in this subject area. After all, when I am trying to figure out the problem of either overly habitual or what to do in my classroom, I am not only overly idiosyncratic teaching—we want to I do not mean to suggest that the question of asking about what kind of person I am try- promote greater curiosity about and atten- the goals of Hebrew language instruction are ing to produce, but also asking about what tion to all of these. What we want is max- entirely disconnected with bigger questions. kind of community I am trying to build in imum intentionality. So we do not want to One person might understand Hebrew as a this space, and what I believe about how get stuck on the biggest ideas about human vital link between generations. Another per- students learn, and (as in the example of He- flourishing, as powerful as those ideas might son might articulate a conception of human brew instruction) what the purposes of this be. As I’ve tried to emphasize, the biggest flourishing in which the connection to one’s particular subject area are, and more. All of ideas can be both powerful in one sense and, contemporary ethnic and religious communi- these questions about practice are on the when it comes to practice, surprisingly inert. ty plays a central role, and would argue for table. Ideally, each of these animating ideas immersion in modern spoken Hebrew for contributes to my practice. The virtues of this new theory, then, are that that purpose. A third person might focus it maintains a focus on ideas and purposes on the spiritual resources that are present These reflections lead me to an alternative without narrowing that focus to only the to the individual when she becomes fluent way of displaying the relationship of theory biggest ideas; that it appreciates the range of in Hebrew. If we are probing each of these and practice, or equally, an alternative theo- ideas that do and should animate practice; conceptions, we might well find ourselves ry of vision. that it captures the way in which Jewish ideas asking “why,” pushing on each conception to uncover a more fundamental sets of commit- ments. The presence of these questions are what makes Fox’s hierarchical conception of vision initially attractive and even plausible.

But as a solution to the problem of Hebrew language instruction, we do not need to op- erate at the level of philosophy. We do not need to put our planning on hold while we come up with a comprehensive Vision. We just need to get clear about our subject-spe- cific goals. That’s what will make a difference in our practice. That’s what will alleviate the problem of aimlessness.

So I am suggesting that we do not need Vision-with-a-capital-V. But we do need “vision-with-a-lower-case-v.” We do need In this picture, vision-guided practice sits comfortably coexist alongside other ideas in to ask questions about our practice and its within a robust intellectual context, what I vision-guided practice; and most important- הידיעון purposes, relentlessly questioning why we have called the “sphere of animating ideas.” ly, that it may help practitioners understand do what we do and whether there are other These are ideas about multiple different top- the way in which animating ideas are inevita- ways of doing things. If we want to solve the ics, arranged in a circle rather than a hier- bly abstract (because they are ideas) but also • HaYidion problem of aimless or uninspired practice, archy. There are always multiple theories in [continued on page 68]

[33] [68] Thinking About Missions הידיעון • HaYidion Who will teach the complex subjects? It teachWho will the complex- subjects? be asking questions, andexamining dilemmas. phasizing critical learning thinking, through emphasis on experiential some em learning, some values, focusing others on social putting During the discussion diverse voices emerged, the teaching andlearningguide in this group? ish laws What andcustoms? principles will To what extent the will on focus Jew school dowe want to our expose legacy children?al those components? Tobetween what cultur components. If so, what is the ratio we expect thatty ofJewish, isamix Israeli anduniversal lar) discussedthe definition identi ofsecular - Forages. example, the meeting group (secu late the vision into a practical for program all the parents. now Thechallenge to was trans- bysion staff was led members together with The implementation of vi- School the Keshet for continuous improvement. andstrives pedagogy which provides quality the assumption that is one school a successful ic achievement students, among all on based includes acommitment to promote academ and communal involvement. In addition, it affiliation as as encouragement well social of [continued from page 48] Israel Establishing Integrated an Community School and in like would itlook ifwe this took “What idea And then further, we ask should idea about?” isthis “What ask, we again should ling idea, Conversely, when we encounter acompel andmoreideas intentional in our practice. that help will more us clearabout become the Judaism? Theseare the kinds of questions About About community? about learning? Is are this these anidea about?” ideas “What animating ourselves, we ask ideas, should we’re And as practice?” thinking about those are the thattice, ideas “What animate this We about any prac particular ask, - should with our most fundamental commitments. ofourtionality practice, we notstart should whenSo we are concerned about the inten remain groundedin andrelevant for practice. [continued from page 33] A New of Theory Vision ------ment by a sin led it be of the Should school. remaining topics isthe issue ofthe- manage dilemmasnot all Among solved. can be the As mentioned, this isanongoing process and children. the parents much itwas as relevant as to the listen andshow tolerance relevant became to en traditional to Jewish Theneed aspects. and thoseist aspects, who wanted to strength who preferred strengthening the Israeli-Zion tendency to emphasize the universality, those traditionalists, those who were with secular a Wesolved. were into divided those who were at withinbasis, least the identity- group, dis attempt to establish acommon ideological itselfpeated within eachidentity group. The when aninner group conflictre- emerged The patterned. of splitting into subgroups the discussionsAgain, were andheat charged contradicts the worldview ofanother. toright express or his her opinion, even ifit their child’s own, andwho protect will every attitudesings, andbehaviors different from who are equals, groups ableto as accept feel is pluralistic, who consider the identity two withmiliar the material, whose worldview to find teachers camewho arefa necessary that might—if we find them sufficiently com offer, on the other isasetof rich ideas hand, not concernshould us. What Lehmann does criterion for aneducational Vision. But that tioned Lehmann above, to live up fails to Fox’s what,So then, ofLehmann’s vision? Asmen supposed. initially abstraction, important as isnotactually we as idea under consideration, in whileelegant its swering that question, it may that well be the seriously If in practice?” we have trouble an [email protected] this article are developed more fully currently paper inalonger underreview. andMortonseph Mandel Center for Studies inJewish Education. The ideasin Educational Thought at Brandeis University, where he also directs the Jack, Jo- Jo n A.Levisohn holds the Jack, Joseph andMorton Mandel Chair inJewish ------tity intity this country. aboutdeeply Jewish-Israeli andiden society who, despitepeople their differences, careall and anintroduction to many interesting identities, andinterests lifestyles ofothers, growth, expansion ofawareness about the one thatand self-challenge, enables personal that this isanongoing process of discontent system has way given to the understanding manifest andharmonious itself in abalanced M amongship subgroups within the whole. personal andthe collective, andthe relation group identity, the the boundaries between negotiation—of personalquestioning, and leads to a frequent engagement—assertion, t development,al one cannot the ignore fact After yearsofcommunity-education eight sider themselves “traditional” and“mixed”? identities—for example, couples who con current definitions donotmeet their own that ofthoseabout the who believe needs the interests What ofthe identity two groups? include, how can the respect the best school Othertities? questions that remained open two figures figure or havinggle different iden in practice. likeit would look to take these seriously ideas through what these are ideas about, and what educated Jew.ideal Instead, we think should synthesized can into be ideas ofthe one image to focus onwe how need each of Lehmann’s operate abstractions. philosophical as Nor do not merely how “creativity” or “hybridity” Ideas.” means This that to consider we need how fit they within the “Sphere of Animating thatthese Isuggest proposals, we think about ourpelling—animate practice. Aswe evaluate h at the encounter the groups two between y starting wish that the integration would

¿ ¿ - - - - -