INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

University Microfilms International

300 N. 2. EEB ROAD, ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8015862

C h o r o w s k y, J o s h u a

GENERATING A THEORY OF THE CURRICULUM FOR THE JEWISH SCHOOL IN AMERICA

The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1980

University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England GENERATING A THEORY OF THE CURRICULUM

FOR THE JEWISH SCHOOL IN AMERICA

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Joshua Chorowsky, B.R.E., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1980

Reading Committee: Approved by

Professor Philip L„ Smith, Adviser

Professor Elsie J. Alberty

Professor E. Ojo Arewa

Professor Robert E. Jewett Adviser' Faculty of Educational Professor Paul R. Klohr Foundations and Research ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my appreciation and gratitude to the fol­

lowing who have been instrumental and inspirational in completing this

study:

To Professor Philip L. Smith, my adviser, for his expert and

attentive guidance, his accessibility and stimulating critique, and

his invaluable assistance in resolving the problems which confronted me in writing this dissertation.

To Professor Elsie J. Alberty, Professor E. Ojo Arewa and Pro­

fessor Robert E. Jewett for their consideration, interest, friendship

and valued suggestions while serving as members of the Reading Commit­

tee.

To Professor Emeritus Paul R. Klohr, who was also a member of

the Reading Committee and who, before his retirement, served as my

adviser— and is my ideal of a scholar and a "mensch"— for his con­

tinuous encouragement and support throughout the various phases of my

doctoral program, and for his expert counsel in delineating the para­ meters of this study.

To my wife, Esther, and to my sons, Jack and Ilan, who contri­ buted so much, endured so much and forgave so much. Without their

personal sacrifice, understanding and encouragement this study would have never been undertaken, let alone completed.

ii VITA

July 28, 1931 ...... Born - Volpa, Poland

1962 ...... B.R.E., Yeshiva University

1968 ...... M.A., Teachers College, Columbia University

1979 ...... M.A., New York University

iii VITA

July 28, 1931 ...... Born - Volpa, Poland

1962 ...... B.R.E., Yeshiva University

1968 ...... M.A., Teachers College, Columbia University

1979 ...... M.A. , New York University TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii

VITA ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES...... vi

Chapter

1- A STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM OF THE JEWISH CURRICULUM . 1

Jewish Education in America From the Revolution to 1 8 8 1 ...... 1 Jewish Education in America Between 1881 and World War I I ...... 2 Goals and Objectives of Supplementary Jewish Schooling in America ...... 5 Post World War II Developments: The American­ ization of the Jewish School 8 A Summary Outline of the Jewish School Curri­ culum and an Appraisal of its Effectiveness . . 20 A Statement of the Problem of the Jewish Cur­ riculum ...... 24

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 27

Influence of Progressive Educational Thought and Practice ...... 27 American Democracy and Jewish Education .... 35 The Place of Israel in the Jewish Curriculum . . 38 Major Trends in the Literature Reviewed .... 41 A Summary Outline of the New United Synagogue Curriculum...... 48 A Critique of the United Synagogue Curriculum . . 51 S u m m a r y ...... 54

3. THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE: EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE CURRICULUM ...... 56

Epistemological Assumptions in the Rationalist Tradition...... 56

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page

Rationalist Epistemology and the Educative Process...... 59 Epistemological Assumptions in the Empiricist Tradition ...... 65 Empiricist Epistemology and the Educative Process...... 67 Rational Curriculum Theorizing ...... 73 Scientific Curriculum-Making ...... 77 Summary and Review...... 81

4. ANTHROPOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF JEWISH EDUCATION . . . 86

Jewish Culture and Education in Ancient Israel . . 86 Jewish Schooling as an Instrument for Minority- Group S u r v i v a l ...... 88 European Enlightenment and Jewish Education . . . 91 Jewish Education and Accomodation to America . . . 92 The Rise of Ethnic Identity Within Jewish Group Life in A m e r i c a ...... 96 Schooling and Minority-Group Membership ...... 99 The Meaning of Jewish Identity ...... 101 The Concept of Cultural Pluralism ...... 103 The Concept of Normative Culture...... 105 A Framework for Synthesizing Jewish Schooling with the Normative Ideals of American Culture . . 107 Summary...... 109

5. A PROPOSED THEORY OF THE JEWISH CURRICULUM...... 112

The Democratic Ideal as a Value-Base in Curricu­ lum Theorizing ...... 112 A Conception of the A Priori Within the Democratic I d e a l ...... 114 Curriculum Conceptions of the Democratic Ideal . . 118 The Basic Affinity Between the Jewish Cultural Heritage and the Democratic Ideal...... 120 A Summary Outline of the Rationalist and Empiri­ cist Traditions and Their Review in Light of the Democratic Ideal...... 121 A Proposed Theory of the Jewish Curriculum .... 130

6. AN EXAMPLE OF CURRICULUM DESIGN...... 138

The Thematic D e s i g n ...... 138 A Broad Outline of the Three Themes...... 141 Illustrative Conceptual Development of Theme III . . 142

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 149 v LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Objectives of Jewish Education ...... 11

2. Subject Areas in the Jewish School...... 13

3. Course of Studies for the 7th Grade as Outlined in Denominational and Communal Curricula ...... 15

4. Subject Matter Taught in the 7th Grade of the Jewish Day S c h o o l ...... 19

5. Conceptions of the Educational Enterprise .... 122

vi CHAPTER 1

A STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM OF THE JEWISH CURRICULUM

Jewish Education in America from the Revolution to 1881

In both form and content, Jewish education in America before

1881 reflected the realities in the American environment and pre­ vailing practices in the general community. Between the end of the

Revolution and the Civil War, established Jewish communities pro­ vided for their Jewish education in congregational Day Schools where secular and Jewish subjects were taught, or in congregational supple­ mentary schools for Jewish subjects only.^ The Jewish curriculum of these schools consisted of the traditional components: basic Hebrew reading skills, and the translation of selections from the Bible.

With the rise of the American public school in the second half of the 19th century, the Jewish Day School declined and Jewish education shifted to a supplementary form, under both communal and congrega­ tional auspices. Eventually, supplementary Jewish schooling was limited to Sunday morning classes. For most Jewish settlers who were pre-occupied with social and economic adjustment, the one-day Sunday

School met their needs; it provided a minimum of conflict with other activities that demanded the family’s time, and it conformed to

I Oscar Janowsky, The American Jew: A Re-appraisal (Philadelphia Jewish Publication Society of America, 1964), p. 126. 2 to prevailing practice in Protestant denominations. Consequently, during the second half of the 19th century, the Sunday School became the predominant form of supplementary Jewish education. The curricu­ lum of the Sunday School included general and American Jewish history, 2 selections from the Bible (in English), and Customs and Ceremonies.

Jewish Education in America Between 1881 and World War II

Jewish education in America was transformed when vast numbers of

Jewish immigrants reached American shores and were faced with the task of assuring Jewish group life and continuity in the New World.

Between 1881-1905 nearly one million arrived. By the end of World

War I their numbers grew to two million, mostly from eastern Europe 3 (Russia and Poland).

The eastern European immigrants found the prevailing American

Sunday School inadequate for their needs. Living in massed settle­ ments, largely in the urban centers of the east, they were able to mount an organized effort and to establish Jewish schools that were modeled after the traditional standards to which they had been accus­ tomed in Europe. By 1908, the immigrants succeeded in transplanting three main educational it. titutions from their "Old Country": (1) the Talmud Torah, (2) the Talmudical Academy or Yeshiva, and (3) the

Heder.

2Ibid., p. 129. 3 The existing Jewish population in 1870 was about 300,000. Howard M. Sachar, The Cou"se of Modern Jewish History (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1958;, p. 306. 5

Heder degenerated into another form of free enterprise, lacking edu­ cational standards and quality. Increasingly, Jewish parents found the Heder to be incompatible with their Americanized life style. By

1939, the Heder disappeared entirely from the American scene.^ For this reason, further investigation of the Heder as a form of American

Jewish schooling will not be a part of this study.

Goals and Objectives of Supplementary Jewish Schooling in America

As previously indicated, the eastern European immigrants ac­ cepted the Talmud Torah because of its continuity with traditional

Jewish educational practices and its accomodation, as a supplementary form of education, to the requirements of the new American environ­ ment. However, there was growing criticism about the quality and degree of participation in supplementary Jewish schooling. Many of the immigrants were preoccupied with problems of economic security and social adjustment, and were unable to give adequate attention to the Jewish education of their children. Above all, most Jewish 12 children were not enrolled in any form of Jewish schooling. Ac­ cording to Winter, "Jewish education at the turn of the century was in deplorable condition . . . A re-construction of educational .,13 structure and program was necessary.

^Janowsky, The American Jew, p. 136. 1? “Nathan Winter, Jewish Education in a_ Pluralist Society (New York: New York University Press, 1966), p. 11. 6

The turning point in American Jewish education occurred with the appearance of Samson Benderly on the scene in 1909. Advocating a comprehensive plan for community-sponsored Jewish education,

Benderly rejected the suitability of transplanted European institu­ tions to the American environment. Benderly believed that, while being rooted in Jewish values and in the group’s cultural heritage, the Jewish school must be compatible with American life and "prepare

Jewish children for positive Jewish living in the American democratic 14 milieu." He recognized the dominant position of the American public school and the supplementary nature of Jewish education, and rejected the Yeshiva or Day School as "a parochial system of educa­ tion"^ that is incompatible with Jewish life in America. At the same time, the Sunday School was appraised by Benderly as inade- 16 quate. Benderly reiterated that only the supplementary weekday school, under communal sponsorship, can successfully meet the chal­ lenge that Jewish education is facing in the American environment: to develop an educational program that would give all Jewish children a common grounding in Jewish knowledge and ideas related to the needs of youth growing up under the influence of the majority culture.

Benderly held that Jewish schooling should not be limited to in­ struction in religious texts and should include national-cultural elements as well. Accordingly, Benderly's proposed curriculum

^Ibid., p. 48. 15 Ibid.

16Samson Benderly, The Problems of Jewish Education in New York City (New York: Bureau of Jewish Education, 1911), p. 3. included the following: "Hebrew language and literature, Bible, selections from the Talmud, and Jewish history— integrated with world history."^ In addition, Benderly placed the emphasis in Bible in­ struction "on significant concepts which deal with social and reli- 18 gious ideals." Benderly's integrative approach to curriculum construction was based on his conception that the Jewish school should "relate the child to the American environment by interpreting

American values, problems and aspirations in terms of Jewish atti- 19 tudes and outlook."

Under the influence of Benderly, the supplementary weekday school (as distinct from the Sunday School) became the most prevalent 20 form of Jewish education during the 1920's and 1930's. The span of its program was between six and seven years, covering the ages seven to fourteen and meeting five days a week for a total of ten to fif­ teen hours of instruction. Its curriculum became the prototype of

Jewish education in America, with the exception of the Sunday School, and included: Modern Hebrew language and literature, Bible with commentaries, selections from the Talmud, holidays and observances, 21 and Jewish history— ancient and modern. Whether under communal

_ Winter, Jewish Education in a Pluralist Society, pp. 52-53. 18 Lloyd Gartner (ed.), Jewish Education in the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Teachers College Press, 1969), p. 168. 19 Winter, Jewish Education in a Pluralist Society, p. 55. 20 Israel S. Chipkin, "Twenty-five Years of Jewish Education in the United States," in The American Jewish Year Book, vol. 38 (1936), p. 39. (See also Janowsky, The American Jew, p. 141.) 8

or congregational sponsorship (and most were "communal"), the in­

structional program of the supplementary weekday school was influ­

enced "by a Hebraic—religio-national point of view, and its pedagogy 22 by a modern American approach."

Post World War II Developments: The Americanization of the Jewish School

Two significant developments occurred in the decades following

World War II: (1) the predominance of the congregational school, and

(2) the growth of the Day School.

(1) The Predominance of the Congregational School. Rapid Socio­

economic mobility of the Jewish group brought about the disintegra­

tion of the densely populated Jewish neighborhoods in the urban 23 centers and the decline of their large communal afternoon schools.

The shift of the Jewish population to suburbia resulted in a quest

for belonging to one's own religio-cultural group. This need was

fulfilled by the spread of synagogues and temples which, as part of

their service for member families, provided educational facilities

and programs for the children. In addition, memories of the Nazi

Holocaust and the rise of the State of Israel have contributed to an

22Ibid., p. 49. 23 See Abraham J. Karp, "American Jewry 1954-1971," in Rufus Lear- si, The Jews in America: A History (New York: Ktav Publishing, 1972), p. 359: "The sons of laborers and small storekeepers of the 20's and 30’s became successful entrepreneurs, managers and profes­ sionals ." ethnic-religious awakening within the Jewish group. However, the acculturated middle-class Jewish family was not prepared to accept the intensive program of the communal Talmud Torah,.requiring five days of attendance per week, totalling ten to fifteen hours of in­ struction. Consequently, the program of the weekday afternoon con­ gregational school was reduced to two to three days per week (in­ cluding Sunday), offering a total of four to six hours of instruc- 25 tion. The salient point in the rise of the congregational school is that the quantitative change (the reduction in hours of instruc­ tion) did not result in a qualitative re-appraisal of existing educational practices. Instead, the curriculum of the communal school was essentially adopted by the congregational school, and included: "Hebrew, Bible, the prayerbook, history, and customs and ,,26 ceremonies.

The predominance of the congregational school has transformed 27 Jewish education into a denominationally-oriented enterprise.

24 See Janowsky, The American Jew, p. 143. Before World War II, only 25 percent of all eligible Jewish children received some form of Jewish education. By 1958, the number had risen to well over 50 percent. 25 Most of the remaining communal Talmud Torahs, which in 1975 accounted for 7.5 percent of the enrollment, have conformed to the same schedule. 26 Alexander Dushkin and Uriah Engelman, Jewish Education in the United States (New York: American Association for Jewish Educa­ tion, 1959), p. 223. 27 See Zvi Adar, Jewish Education in Israel and in the United States (Tel Aviv: Gomeh Publishing, 1969), p. 188 (translated from the Hebrew). In 1918, only 24 percent of Jewish school enrollment was in congregational schools. By 1958, the number had risen to 88 percent. Most of the enrollment in the weekday afternoon school, 10

Unlike the community-minded Talmud Torah of the 1920’s and 1930's,

the congregational school aimed at the induction of the child into

the life of the synagogue or temple. The need for institutional

loyalty led to the notion that the congregational school can best be

served by its own ideological group. Consequently, national commis­

sions on Jewish education were formed by the three major denomina­

tions: Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. These commissions

formulated educational aims and objectives which were perceived to

be instrumental in attaining a pattern of pupil behavior that was in

accord with ideological orientation of their affiliated schools.

However, a comparative study of stated goals and objectives, as well

as examples of subject matter, indicates a high degree of similarity

in the official statements by the three major denominational commis- 28 sions and by the community-oriented Talmud Torah. which accounted for 45 percent of the total, was under conservative auspices. The Sunday School also comprised 45 percent of the total and remained the predominant form of Jewish schooling for the Reform Movement. The more intensive and non-congregational Day School is largely orthodox in orientation. 28 Winter, Jewish Education in a Pluralist Society, pp. 161-164. TABLE 1

OBJECTIVES OF JEWISH EDUCATION AS FORMULATED IN THE OFFICIAL CURRICULA OF THE THREE MAJOR DENOMINCATIONS AND THE COMMUNAL SCHOOL

Bureau of Jewish Union of American Education, Talmud Union of Orthodox United Synagogue Hebrew Congrega­ Torah Principals Jewish Congrega­ of America (Conser­ tions (Reofrm: Subject Area (Communal: 1912) tions (1942) vative: 1958) 1959)

1. Bible To bring the Bible To teach the appli­ The Bible should be To teach the Bible nearer to the mind cation of Torah projected as the as the central of American child­ ideals to . . . the basic source of re­ source of man's dis­ ren . . . tasks of daily life. ligious and ethical covery of divine aspects of Juda­ presence and purpose. ism . . .

The Jewish . . . To inspire To stress Eretz To inspire an ap­ To teach and inten­ People and the children with Yisrael (the land preciation of sify the unity of Israel a love for their of Israel) as the Judaism's role in the brotherhood of people . . . to land given to advancing the high­ Israel as the covenant bring home to the Israel for the est ideals of man­ people; deep concern children the realization of the kind; an apprecia­ for Jewish life in grandeur of Jew­ ideals of the tion of the signifi­ all Israel and in all ish history. Torah . . . To in­ cance o£ the state other lands. spire an intensive of Israel in Jewish patriotism for the history and in con­ Jewish People. temporary Jewish life. TABLE 1 (Continued)

Bureau of Jewish Union of American Education, Talmud Union of Orthodox United Synagogue Hebrew Congrega­ Torah Principals Jewish Congrega­ of America (Conser­ tions (Reform: Subject Area (Communal: 1912) tions (1942) vative: 1958) 1959)

3. Jewish Preparing the chil­ To teach the Mitz- To develop a desire To build in the Practices dren for Jewish re­ vot (Commandments), and to convey the child a love for the ligious observances. the ideals under­ skills to practice Jewish ceremonies and They ought to be lying them, and the Mitzvot (Com­ observances which are familiarized with the proper way to mandments) and the vital today and pro­ the meaning of the perform . . . traditions of Jew­ vide happy exper­ Jewish festivals and through joyous ish life . . . iences in their ceremonies connected participation in through joyous mean­ future. with them. forms of Jewish ingful observances. life in school

The Jewish Wherever possible, To give children a To explore the To inculcate in Heritage the relationship of Jewish orientation teachings of Judaism children the univer­ and Ameri­ the national Ameri­ with regard to and the ideals of sal ideals of Israel's can Democ­ can holidays (which modern problems American democracy, prophets and sages, racy are purely secular for the reciprocal leading toward dynam­ in character) to influences they ic involvement in similar events in should have on each service for freedom, Jewish history other. brotherhood and should be pointed peace. out.

i—* N) TABLE 2

SUBJECT AREAS IN THE JEWISH SCHOOL

Bureau of Jewish Education: Princi­ pals of Talmud Union Orthodox United Synogogue Union of American Torahs (Communal: Jewish Congrega­ of America— (Con­ Congregations Subject Area 1912) tions (1942) servative: 1958) Reform: 1959)

1. Bible and (a) The Pentateuch (a) Torah (with Selections from Selections from Talmud and selections Rashi (medieval Bible and Rabbi­ The Bible and from the Prophets; commentator) and nic sources (in post-Biblical (b) selections from Prophets (in Hebrew) literature (in the Mishna and Hebrew); English) Talmud. (b) Mishna— be­ ginnings of Talmud.

2. Jewish (a) memorizing (a) Laws and cus­ (a) Holidays and (a) ceremonies; Practices benedictions and toms; Festivals; and worship; short prayers; (b) prayer prac­ (b) prayer and (b) the Prayer (b) acquaintance tice. worship. Book. with Jewish re­ ligious observances and ceremonies.

3. The Jewish Jewish history, (a) Jewish history; (a) Story of the (a) Jewish history; ancient and modern. (b) current events Jewish people. (b) Israel; and Israel; (b) Israel; (c) History and (c) History of (c) The American structure of American Jewry. Jewish community American Jewry. and its history. An examination of a course of studies for the seventh grade

(normally the graduating class of the supplementary afternoon school), further illustrates the salient point that, ideological differences notwithstanding, congregational (Conservative and Ortho­ dox) and communal curricula are very similar in their instructional content. 15

TABLE 3

COURSE OF STUDIES FOR THE 7TH GRADE AS OUTLINED IN DENOMINATIONAL AND COMMUNAL CURRICULA

29 Subject Area Orthodox Conservative^ Communal"^

1. Bible and (a) The Book of (a) Selections (a) Selections Talmud Numbers; from Leviticus, from the Book of (b) Ethics of Numbers and Numbers (in the the Fathers: Deuteronomy (in original Hebrew); introduction to the original (b) Ethics of the the Talmud Hebrew); Fathers (intro­ (texts are (b) Selections duction to the studied in the from Rabbinic Talmud). original He­ Literature re­ brew) . lated to Bible study (most of the texts are in Hebrew).

2. The Jewish (a) Story of the (a) Zionism and (a) The Jewish People and Jewish people— the establish­ Community in Israel from the age of ment of the America; the Rabbis (200 State of Israel; (b) Israel— B.C.E.) to pre­ (b) The Jewish integrated with sent times; Community in other subjects. (b) Current America. events.

3. Jewish (a) Selections (a) Selections (a) Holidays and P ra c tices from the prayer- from the prayer- prayers; book; book, emphasis (b) The Jewish (b) Laws and on prayers re­ calendar. observances of lated to Zion the Sabbath. and Israel; (b) The Jewish calendar.

29 Samson Isseroff (ed.), Course of Study and Teacher's Guide for the Talmud Torah (New York: National Commission on Torah Education, 19 70) , pp. 67-70 . 30 Louis L. Ruffman (ed.), Curriculum Outline for the Congregation­ al School (New York: United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education, 1959) , p. 195 ff. 31 Curriculum Outline for the Elementary Hebrew School, United Hebrew Schools of Metropolitan Detroit, 1970-71, pp. 69-78. (Trans­ lated from the Hebrew) . 16

The preceding charts indicate that, while allowing for differ­ ent interpretations and varying degress of emphasis, all forms of supplementary Jewish schooling share common curricular elements.

These include: Bible, holidays and observances, general and Ameri­ can Jewish history, and Israel. There is general agreement that the acquisition of specified bodies of knowledge, defined as subject matter, is essential to the attainment of that pattern of pupil be­ havior which is in consonance with the ideological orientation of the school. As Dushkin and Engelman have confirmed in their national study of Jewish education, "All three (major denominations') curric­ ula stress the teaching of Jewish knowledge as the sine qua non for 32 achieving other desired results."

(2) Growth of the Day School. Before World War II, the prevailing view of Jewish professional and lay leaders was that the Day School tends to isolate Jewish children from the majority culture and . . .

"is not to be considered as the normal type of the American Jewish 33 school." A series of developments following World War II, mostly within the Jewish community itself, brought about a significant

32 Dushkin and Engelman, Jewish Education in the United States, p. 224. See also Walter I. Ackerman, "The Jewish School System in the United States," in The Future of the Jewish Community in America, edited by David Sidorsky (New York: Putnam Publishers, 1973), pp. 191. ff. 33 Ben Rosen, "Survey of Jewish Education in New York City," Jewish Education 1:2 (September, 1929), p. 85. See also Dushkin and Engelman, Jewish Education in the United States, p. 155: "The major­ ity in the community are opposed to the Day School in principle and in practice." 17 34 change in the status of the Jewish Day School: (a) the post

World War II influx of orthodox Jews and the decline of the inten­ sive (communal) Talmud Torah increased the number of parents who recognized that the smattering of Jewish content provided by the average congregational school is inadequate; (b) the Holocaust and the rise of Israel engendered a heightened sense of Jewish religio- ethnic identity; (c) the emergence of a third generation of Jews who were, economically and politically, integrated into the general 35 society and felt secure in their Americanism; and (d) changing conditions in public education and the rapid growth of sectarian and non-sectarian (private) schools made the Jewish Day School compati- 3 ble with prevailing educational practices in the general community.

Although not identified with any congregation, most Jewish Day

Schools are orthodox in orientation, with a minority designating themselves as conservative. Generally, an equal amount of time is devoted to Jewish and general studies, averaging about fifteen hours per week for each department. In the established Day Schools, the

3 A- See Judah Pilch, "From the Early Forties to the Mid-sixties," in A History of Jewish Education in the United States, edited by Judah Pilch (New York: American Association for Jewish Education, 1969), p. 141. 35 See Jay Kaufman, "Day Schools: Not Whether, But How?", in The Central Conference of American Rabbis Journal 12:3 (October, 1964), p. 4: Even Reform circles, who traditionally held the view that the Day School will "undermine the public school and ghettoize our chil­ dren," adopted a more positive stance toward the Jewish Day School: "It serves to enhance the intellectual achievement of our country." 3 6 See Schiff, The Jewish Day School in America, p. 127: "The Jewish Day School enjoys the role of a private educational institu­ tion in the pluralistic American setting." program span is for the full eight years of elementary schooling.

As it was demonstrated in the case of supplementary Jewish schooling, there is also a high degree of similarity in the respective ideolog­ ical statements on the aims of Day School education. Joseph Kaminet- sky, Director of the National Society of Day Schools (Orthodox), states that "the Jewish Day School is dedicated to the best ideals 37 in Judaism and American democracy." Schiff also includes the ob- 38 jective of "preparing Jewish children for living in a democracy."

Expressing the conservative view, Simon Greenberg says that the Day

School is the instrument for making . . . "the Jewish religion, rooted in the Bible and in the Rabbinic tradition . . . the center around which to develop the Jewish version of American civiliza- 39 tion." Likewise, common elements are identified in the curricula of most Hebraic Day Schools, and they include: "Hebrew language and literature, Bible, Jewish history, prayers and selections from the

Talmud.The chart below indicates a high degree of similarity in subject matter taught in the seventh grade by both the Orthodox and

Conservative-oriented Day Schools.

37 Joseph Kaminetsky, "The Hebrew Day School Movement," School and Society 82:2 (October 1, 1955), p. 106. 38 Schiff, The Jewish Day School in America, p. 107. 39 Simon Greenberg, "The Philosophy of the Conservative Day School," The Synagogue School 16:1 (September, 1957), p. 12. 40 Pilch, "From the Early Forties to the Mid-Sixties," p. 142. However, Orthodox-oriented Day Schools place a much greater emphasis on the Talmud. 19

TABLE 4

SUBJECT MATTER TAUGHT IN THE SEVENTH GRADE OF THE JEWISH DAY SCHOOL

The Hebraic Day School The Solomon Schechter Subject Area (Orthodox) ^ School (Conservative)^

1. Hebrew Hebrew language and Hebrew language and literature. literature.

2. Bible and (a) The Books of Leviti­ (a) The Book of Deuter­ Talmud cus and Deuteronomy onomy ; (b) Selections from the (b) Mishna (introduction Talmud. to the Talmud).

3. Jewish (a) Jewish history from (a) Modern Jewish history; Social the 11th through the (b) Israel today. Studies 18th century; (b) The study of Israel— integrated with other subject matter and "current events."

4. Jewish Life Code of Jewish Law. Structure of the prayer- and Obser­ book and selected vances prayers.

41 Schiff, The Jewish Day School in America, p. 114.

Curriculum Compendium for Solomon Schechter Day Schools (New York: The Solomon Schechter Day School Association of the United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education, 1978), pp. 104-106. With respect to the instruction of Jewish social studies, the Compendium states: "Jewish history becomes a joint effort between the Judaic studies teacher and the general studies social studies teacher," (p. 105). However, it is not specified what instructional objectives should these joint efforts aim for. 20

A Summary Outline of the Jewish School Curriculum and an Appraisal Of its Effectiveness

Particular ideological orientation notwithstanding, Jewish

schools generally agree that their primary function is the trans­

mission of knowledge and "that somehow Hebrew, History, customs and 43 ceremonies and Bible are parts of that knowledge." Though varying

in intensity with each ideological group and weekly hours of instruc­

tion, it has been demonstrated that all forms of Jewish schooling

share curricular elements. Ackerman says that all three religious

orientations would probably accept the following educational objec­

tives for their schools:

(1) Providing knowledge of the classical Jewish texts, (2) developing a facility in the Hebrew language, (3) nurturing an identification with the Jewish people through a knowledge of its past, and (4) stimulating a recognition of the unique place of Israel in the Jewish experience.^

Given the consensus on a core of educational objectives, as well

as on basic subject matter, the ideological differences may be char­

acterized as essentially quantitative in nature. As one observer

put it: "The Orthodox insist on a more intensive Jewish education

(i.e., the Day School), the Reform offer less Jewish education (pri­ marily through the Sunday School), the Conservatives provide less

than the Orthodox and more than the Reform (i.e., the six-hour-a-week

4 3 Dushkin and Engelman, Jewish Education in the United States, p. 223.

^Ackerman, "The Jewish School System in the United States," p. 191. 21 program of the Congregational School)."^"* This quantitative orien­ tation has given an additive character to Jewish curriculum develop­ ments, with each ideological group adding and devising new bodies of content around the same subject matter. Even within each ideological group, individual schools have asserted their independence and au- 46 tonomy in developing their own courses of study.

As it will be demonstrated below, this fragmented approach has resulted, over the years, in a proliferation of instructional content that has significantly reduced the effectiveness of the Jewish school curriculum. The assessments cited below are typical of the pro­ nouncements found in the literature on the "failure" of the Jewish school:

The first national study of Jewish education concluded that "American Jewish schooling is like a shallow river, a mile long and an inch d e e p . "47

A leading Conservative rabbi asks: "What do our children know except in a diffused, splattered fashion about Jewish history or Hebrew, the core subject?"48

45 Adar, Jewish Education in Israel and in the United States, p. 178. 46 See Ackerman, "The Jewish School System in the United States," o. 180. 47 Dushkin and Engelman, Jewish Education in the United States, p. 222. 48 Edward Sandrow, "Our Educational Dilemma Today," The Synagogue School, Winter, 1973, p. 11. 22

A National Task Force Report asserted that "graduates of most Jewish schools are functionally illiterate in Juda­ ism."^

A more recent observer states flatly: "Jewish education is the great failure of contemporary Jewish life."50

In regard to the effectiveness of the Jewish Day School, studies indicate that, due to its increased hours and intensive exposure,

"pupil achievement in the Jewish Day School is very much higher than in the afternoon school.""*'*' However, a significant question bearing on the structure and qualitative distinctiveness of the Jewish Day

School curriculum remains. Despite the consensus on the need for relating Jewish learning experiences to the American environment, and despite the unique opportunities the Day School affords by pro­ viding Judaic and general instruction under one roof, the curricular structure of the Day School basically follows a two-track approach.

Many Day Schools maintain two separate departments, with Judaic sub­ jects taught in the morning and the secular courses in the afternoon.

Others provide for so-called "integration" by having "a lesson in

Bible followed by a lesson in arithmetic, to be followed by a lesson in Hebrew . . . /andJ the geography of Israel and Jewish history are

49 David Sidorsky, (ed.), The Future of the Jewish Community in America: A Task Force Report (New York: The American Jewish Commit­ tee , 1972), p . 39.

"*^Barry Chazan, The Language of Jewish Education (New York: Hartmore House Publishers, 1978), p. 14.

"^Dushkin and Engelman, Jewish Education in the United States, p. 206. 23 52 taught as parts of the normal social studies course." Some Day

Schools have experimented with integrated instruction on a limited scale, relating specific content in the Jewish curriculum to elements in the social studies program. In one such school, "Geography will include the geography of Israel. Biblical events such as the Exodus from Egypt . . . are associated with the emancipation of other peo­ ples, and especially with the independence won by America, as well 53 as with the doctrines of liberty and democracy." Other efforts 54 have been undertaken in recent years, and the subject of curricular integration has received increasing attention in the literature.

These efforts have, no doubt, made worthwhile contributions to the development of integrated instructional materials for the Jewish Day

School. However, in order to have a cumulative and lasting effect on the total Jewish curriculum, integrated approaches and materials

52 Zevi Scharfstein, History of Jewish Education in Modern Times, vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass Publishers, 1962), p. 133. (Trans­ lated from the Hebrew.) 53 Samuel Goodside, "Religious and Secular Studies in the Day School," Jewish Education 24:2 (Fall, 1953), p. 56.

“*^See, for example, llano Sebo, "A Step at a Time: Developing a Social Studies/Judaic Program," The Pedagogic Reporter 29:2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 13-15. Also, Shimon Frost, "Integrating the Judaic and General Studies Curriculum," The Synagogue School 24:3 (Spring, 1966), pp. 28-33. A pilot project undertaken by several Day Schools is re­ ported by F. Friedenreich and A. J. Gittelson, Interdisciplinary In­ tegration in the Jewish School: The Process of a_ Pilot Project (New York: American Association for Jewish Education, 1979). 55 See, for example, "The Jewish Day School: A Symposium," Tradition 13:1 (Summer, 1972), pp. 85-116. A recent entire issue of the Jewish Education Journal, 46:4 (Winter, 1978), was devoted to "a critical review of the term 'integration' in the literature of the Jewish Day School." 24 need to be placed within the context of a unifying curriculum theory that will combine conceptually the Judaic and secular studies.

The absence of a curricular structure that aims at the integra­ tion of the knowledge embodied in the Jewish cultural heritage into the total experience of the student has had disastrous effects on the Jewish Day School. Hoffman reports his own observation that

Jewish students, including Day School graduates, are not ready for 56 the intellectual challenge of the university experience. Berman asserts that a significant number of Day School graduates have not been adequately prepared to " . . . bring their own unique perspec­ tive to hear, while . . . interacting with the general society with-

57 in which they live." In the absence of an integrated curriculum structure, some view the Jewish Day School as an environment where

"Jewish culture is doomed to exist in splendid isolation from gen­ eral culture.

A Statement of the Problem of the Jewish Curriculum

In terms of content, the contemporary Jewish curriculum main­ tains a continuity with its historical antecedents: Bible and Hebrew

"^Justin Hoffman, "Toward an Understanding of the Jewish College Student," Religious Education 60:6 (November, 1965), p. 443.

"^Saul Berman, "The Jewish Day School: A Symposium," Tradition 13:1 (Summer, 1972), p. 97. 58 Marshall Sklare, America’s Jews (New York: Random House, 1971), p. 168. See also Milton Himmelfarb, "Reflections on the Jewish Day School," in Jewish Education in the United States, edited by Lloyd Gartner, p. 224: "The vice of the Day School is that it ignores West­ ern culture . . . and does not really teach Torah in a way that con­ nects with the rest of culture." continue to be the core of most Jewish curricula. To the extent that change has occurred, it consisted primarily of additions to the core. The rise of the congregational school and the emergence of the ideological dimension in Jewish education may be identified as developments that are unique to the American environment. However, it must be re-emphasized that these changes did not affect the sub­ stance of the Jewish curriculum. It was demonstrated that there exists a broad consensus among all three ideological groups on the objectives of Jewish education and on the parameters of subject matter. Thus, developments in supplementary Jewish schooling have been merely concerned with changing the forms of Jewish education, reducing the hours, and adding courses of study. At the same time, the acculturation of the Jewish group was instrumental in making the more intensive Day School Program acceptable to increasing numbers of

American Jews.

Historically, Jewish schooling has reflected the changing con­ ditions in the physical and cultural environment of the Jewish group. Since the days of Samson Benderly, many Jewish educators have reiterated the notion that Jewish schooling must reflect the reali- 59 ties of Jewish life in the open American society. This has re­ mained a challenge that has not been met. Initially transplanted from eastern Europe, where Jewish life was conducted in isolation from the dominant culture, the contemporary Jewish curriculum is

59 Benderly, "The Problems of Jewish Education in New York City, p. 3. 26

still largely anchored in "text-centered explication and exposi-

tion." 60 This has had disastrous consequences for the Jewish school

in America. When curriculum structure fails to provide for linkage between Judaic Studies and the majority culture, teachers and stu­

dents perceive Jewish schooling, regardless of its form, as isolated

and detached from the mainstream of American life.

I intend to remedy this problem by proposing a unifying curricu­

lum theory that will allow Jewish schooling to relate to the life

experiences of Jewish youth in America and will give purpose, direc­

tion and continuity to educational practices. Such a theory will be

generated by a reconceptualization of epistemological and anthropo­

logical foundations for curriculum development in Jewish education.

The review of the literature in the following chapter is intended to

relate the solution of the problem of the Jewish curriculum to the

generating of such a theory.

60 Ackerman, "The Jewish School System in the United States," p. 192. CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Influence of Progressive Educational Thought and Practice

Benderly and his colleagues believed that, to be effective, the modern Jewish school must reckon with the realities of Jewish life in America. This required "to Americanize Jewish education in technique and philosophy according to the best that is available in general American education."'*' According to Dushkin, one of the

"Benderly boys" 2 who eventually became one of the most influential

3 Jewish educators in America, the growth and development of a normal

Jewish life in America in harmony with American civilization re­ quired a sythesis which he expressed in this way:

The American Jew has accepted both the scientific method and the modern conception of democracy for his educational endeavors in this country . . . He is endeavoring to

Attributed to Samson Benderly by Alexander Dushkin, "The Per­ sonality of Samson Benderly— His Life and Influence," Jewish Educa­ tion 20:3 (Summer, 1949), p. 6. 2 Alexander Dushkin belonged to a group of young men whom Bender­ ly recruited to work with him. Preparing themselves for a career in Jewish education, they studied at Teachers College, where they came under the influence of John Dewey and William Kilpatrick. Dushkin and some of his colleagues completed their doctoral dissertations at Teachers College. Dushkin's work was entitled: A Study of Jewish Education in New York City, (1918). 3 See Yaakov Iram, Theory and Practice in Jewish Education: Alexander M. Pushkin's Thought and Work in the United States and in Israel. Tel-Aviv: Gomeh Scientific Publications, 1977 (Hebrew). 27 28

continue the best in his educational traditions with the best of modern American education.^

Similarly, Benderly perceived a synthesis which "required a new approach, one that is rooted in the past, yet sensitive to the needs and interests of Jewish children living in the American milieu."^

A review of the literature indicates that Benderly's requirement for a rootedness in the past was interpreted to mean the retaining of the traditional components in the Jewish curriculum (i.e., Hebrew,

Bible, History, the Prayerbook and Jewish observances), while the sensitivity for the needs and interests of the American child was manifested in advocating educational practices which were designed to make the child's school experience more attractive and enjoyable.^

According to Dushkin, Progressive education, as manifested in the

"scientific method" and "modern conceptions of democracy," repre­ sented "the best in modern American education." These progressive notions were to guide experimentation in Jewish education and the development of educational practices which were aimed at the

4 Alexander Dushkin, Jewish Education in New York City (New York: Bureau of Jewish Education, 1918), pp. 140-141.

^Quoted in Nathan Winter, Jewish Education in a_ Pluralist Society (New York: New York University Press, 1966), p. 37.

^For the purposes of this review, the magazine Jewish Education will be utilized as a major source. The magazine was funded in 1929 by Alexander Dushkin, who served as its editor for many years. The magazine has served as a central form for modern American Jewish ed­ ucators and is considered fairly representative of that group.

^See Winter, Jewish Education in a_ Pluralist Society, p. 37. A survey conducted during the height of the immigration wave in the early 1900's indicated that most Jewish children were not enrolled in any form of Jewish schooling. 29

Americanization of the Jewish school. In 1933 Dushkin spelled out

the principles which Jewish education must embrace:

(1) The child, not subject matter should be the center of the educative process; the child's interests must be the guide for materials and methods used; (2) Projected activity . . . learning by purposeful doing, rather than by listening and remembering; (3) Knowledge of skills acquired must be such as the child will use in life, for it is through use that personality is enriched . . . Knowledge which is not used is dead.®

Others echoed Dushkin's challenge to apply the principles of progres­

sive education to the Jewish school. Dinin called on the Jewish

school to perceive education as growth, aimed at developing the 9 child's capacities rather than at the mastery of subject matter.

For Zeligs, learning means . . . "experiencing . . . affecting a per­ manent change within the individual rather than the exercise of memory alone.Rappoport echoed the Deweyen conception on the nature of the learning process and the place of subject matter in

the curriculum:

The first aim of Jewish education should be to provide the Jewish child with opportunities for Jewish living and experiences that will make for wholesome integration

g Alexander Dushkin, "How Modern Can the Jewish School Be?," Jewish Education 5:2 (April-June, 1933), p. 65.

9 Samuel Dinin, Judaism in a Changing Civilization (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1933), pp. 199-200.

■^Dorothy Zeligs, "Why An Activity Program?," Jewish Education 15:2 (January, 1944), p. 98. 30

of personality . . . subject matter and language are of functional rather than of primary importance, ^

The Activity Curriculum. In focusing attention on the child and in proposing approaches and methodologies that were designed to facili­ tate child participation in the learning process, progressive educa­ tion struck a responsive chord in the minds of enlightened Jewish educators. One progressive model that appealed to Jewish educators was the "activity curriculum." The activity curriculum provided

Jewish educators with a practical alternative to the traditional verbal orientation in Jewish educational practices. It was per­ ceived as a useful tool for the working out of a synthesis that will retain Jewish roots, while recognizing the needs and interests of

American Jewish children; it offered children opportunities for growth and development of their potential capacities and for the utilization of their knowledge and skills, and it served as an effec­ tive vehicle for developing integrated approaches to learning in which material from several subject areas were utilized.

Comins reports on a fifth grade program on the social life of the early Hebrews which utilized the natural interests of children in

"communication, inquiry, artistic expression and the manipulation of

11 Israel B. Rappoport, "Some Essentials in the Reconstruction of The Jewish School Curriculum," Jewish Education 8:3 (December, 1936), p. 141. Such notions were expressed through the 1950’s. See, for example, David Rudavsky, "A Shift in Emphasis in the Curriculum of the Weekday Afternoon Jewish School," Jewish Education 24:1 (Spring, 1953), p. 16: "Our primary concern is to meet the needs and inter­ ests of the child rather than mere transmission of a given body of subject matter." 31 12 materials," in re-constructing nomadic life. Kurtzband gives an outline of a life-activity curriculum on the synagogue for upper 13 primary grades. In focusing on the Jewish life functions of the

child within the context of the home, the synagogue and the community,

the activity method was particularly useful in the teaching of fes-

ticals, holidays and Jewish observances. Rappoport and Nudelman propose that such activities should include: Festival celebrations

(for primary grades), plays, music and crafts, and participation in 14 community-wide charity drives. Some Jewish educators perceived the need for integration within the various subjects of the Jewish cur­ riculum in order to avoid overlap and duplication. They proposed the activity concept as an integrative vehicle. Wrote Comins, "Inte­ gration . . . demands that we select one central activity in order to 15 correspond with all of the child's learning." Nudelman proposes

the activity concept as a basis for organizing the total Jewish curriculum:

To reconstruct the curriculum, we shall have to experiment with integrated curricula revolving around activities and experiences rather than subjects . . . which should be

12 Harry Comins, "An Experiment With An Activity Curriculum," Jewish Education 3:2 (January-March, 1931), p. 42. 13 T. K. Kurtzband, "Notes On A Life-Activity Curriculum," Jewish Education 3:3 (October-December, 1931), p. 172, ff.

^1. B. Rappoport and E. A. Nudelman, "An American Jewish School— A Proposal," Jewish Education 11:2 (September, 1939), p. 118.

Harry Comins, "An Integrated Curriculum for the Jewish School," Jewish Education 4:2 (April-June, 1932), p. 96. 32

reduced to a few integrated, and as far as possible, organized units.^

Golub reports on an experimental activity curriculum in New York

City which reflects the principles of progressive education: exper­ ience and active participation of the child, problem solving, and the achievement of personal growth through the process of socializa­ tion. He lists the aims of this experimental curriculum which was intended for the Sunday School:

(1) To furnish the child with Jewish experiences, (2) To familiarize the child with the practices and problems of the home, synagogue, local and world-wide Jewish Community, (3) To implant in the child a social conscious­ ness which will lead him to desire to improve Jewish group life as well as the world in general, and (4) To emphasize the integration of Judaism with America.17

It is important to note that the activity curriculum gained adher­ ents primarily in the Sunday School, whose curriculum consisted of subjects that were particularly conducive for experience-oriented learning: Holidays and festivals, and Jewish social studies. How­ ever, educational practices in the Talmud Torah, with its more in­ tensive literary-classical curriculum, were not significantly af­ fected by the activity concept.

Child-Centeredness and Focus on the Present. Progressive notions about the importance of the child and his interests and aspirations in the educative process are also manifested in calls for a

^E. A. Nudelman, "Re-Evaluating Jewish School Curricula," Jewish Education 11:3 (January, 1940), p. 208.

Jacob Golub, "An Activity Curriculum for Sunday Schools," Jewish Education 14:3 (January-March, 1943), p. 146. 33 present-oriented Jewish curriculum. Dushkin argues for the inclusion of the Jewish present, its modern institutions and problems, and for relating the life of the studnets with . . . "Their life as citizens of America." 18 It is not clear whether Dushkin intended that the

"Jewish present" should be reflected in the curriculum by adding new subjects or by offering new interpretations or a new focus to exist­ ing curricula. However, Gamoran states clearly that,

The content and method of instruction, insofar as possible, be the content and method of life . . . /requiring/ the ad­ dition of some other subjects and activities not at present included in the school curriculum . . . the local Jewish community . . . Jewish current events . . . Jews in many lands . . . Present-day Jewish p r o b l e m s . 19

Golub argued for a present-oriented curriculum that will be developed on the following core: "The festivals, the synagogue, our communal life and institutions, the upbuilding of Palestine and the sharing 20 of responsibility for our fellow Jews." Cohen makes this observa­ tion about the relation of the traditional Jewish curriculum to the life of the student:

Our teachers . . . study the Bible and the Talmud with all the equipment of archeology, philosophy and a sense of history. But are incapable, at the conclusion of such study, of applying these texts to the problems of modern Jewish life.21

18 Dushkin, Jewish Education in New York City, p. 392. 19 Emanuel Gamoran, Changing Conceptions of Jewish Education (New York: Teachers' College, 1920), pp. 43, 158-163. 20 Jacob Golub, "Principles of Jewish Education," Jewish Education 9:3 (October, 1937), p. 14.

21 Jack Cohen, "Our School and Our Society," Jewish Education 31:1 (Fall, 1960), p. 14. 34

Pilch criticizes current aims of the Jewish school which "place em­ phasis on the transmission of our cultural heritage, while minimiz­ ing— if not disregarding— the needs, values and problems inherent in 22 current Jewish life." Ackerman conducted an analysis of the cur­ riculum in conservative congregational schools and concluded that,

"the center of activity in the congregational school . . . is found to be in the past . . . much more time is devoted to the ancient and medieval periods than to the modern, and even the latter does not 23 include the present.

Perennialist Dissent. While the predominant view expressed in the literature urged that, with varying degrees of emphasis, present Jew­ ish life should be a significant component in the Jewish curriculum, some insisted on a heritage-centered curriculum. Touroff states his perennialist position quite forcefully:

An education for permanence . . . is based on the course of the spiritual development of our people in the past and on the desired development for the future . . . [ 1 $ makes the demand for an adequate substantial knowledge of our literary h e r i t a g e . 24

Rudavsky articulates a view held by some educators that the present-day Jewish environment is too void of Jewish content to af­ ford students the motivation and inspiration for Jewish living. "We

22 Judah Pilch, "The National Curriculum Research Institute," Jewish Education 37:4 (January, 1968), p. 154. 23 Walter Ackerman, "An Analysis of Selected Courses of Study of Conservative Congregational Schools," Part II, Jewish Education 40:2 (Summer, 1970), p. 45.

Nissan Touroff, "Jewish Education for the Moment or for the Future?," Jewish Education 16:3 (May, 1945), p. 31. 35 may do better to have our youth identify with our past rather than 25 with present-day Jewish life in America."

American Democracy and Jewish Education

During World War II and the years immediately following, Jewish educators articulated the view that the democratic ideal should serve as a focus in Jewish curriculum development. In its affinity with basic Judaic ideas about human worth and equality, American democracy was perceived as compatible with the Judaic heritage and conducive for creative Jewish group life. Dinin perceived the meaning of Amer­ ican democracy to lie in that, "It recognizes national, cultural di­ versity . . ■ /th§7 free unfolding and conservation of cultural 26 democracy." With the foregoing as a starting point, the democratic ideal was perceived as providing a vehicle for relating Jewish ideas to American life.

Edidin claims that the Jewish school has a responsibility to teach the principles of democracy through Jewish sources and exper­ iences. By helping children gain a better understanding of democrat­ ic ideals, "The Jewish school will prepare them more soundly to live

25 David Rudavsky, "The Status of The Jewish Secondary School," Jewish Education 30:2 (Winter, 1960), p. 64. 26 Dinin, Judaism in a Changing Civilization, pp. 63, 73. 36 27 in the American democracy." Honor progresses beyond the stage of

"preparation for participation in democratic life," as it is. He perceives the role of the Jewish school in articulating the normative . ideals of American democracy as follows: "Jewish education so con­ ceived means helping to prepare our youth to become conscious of the imperfection of present-day society and to dedicate themselves to 28 participation in fashioning a better, juster and more humane world."

Dushkin progresses beyond Honor's conception that it is the role of the Jewish school to teach the normative ideals of American democracy:

"We should teach those Hebraic ideas and concepts which are living kernels of democracy . . . £andj their broad implications for the 29 political and economic elements in American democracy." In a later article, Dushkin perceives the democratic ideal not only as worthy of

Jewish teaching and learning, but also as "a coordinating idea, a

27 Ben Edidin, "Teaching Democracy in the Jewish School," Jewish Education 14:3 (March, 1943), p. 155. The Bible, in particular, was identified as a relevant source of the teaching of democracy in the political, social and economic realms. For example, see Eugene Kohn, "The Values for Democratic Living in Jewish Education," Jewish Educa­ tion 11:3 (January, 1940), pp. 159-172. Kohn surveys the democratic motif as it is expressed in the Bible, Jewish literature, and Jewish history. Also, Robert Gordis, "Judaism and Religious Liberty," Jewish Education 34:3 (Spring, 1964), pp. 148-161. 28 Leo Honor, "Jewish Education and American Democracy," Jewish Education 14:2 (December, 1942), p. 69. 29 Alexander Dushkin, "Democracy and Jewish Education," Jewish Education 14:2 (December, 1942), p. 69. 37

focus needed for guiding the reconstruction of Jewish education." 30

However, Dushkin does not elaborate further on how this is to be done.

The democratic, idea was also utilized by Dushkin as a rationale

for the development of a Jewish curriculum on the basis of "common

elements" in Jewish education. Applying the democratic idea to the

realities of Jewish life, which is characterized by ideological di­ versity, Dushkin recognized that there cannot be one type of an Ameri­

can Jewish school program. He proposed a "pluralistic cultural

approach" which is based on the principle of "diversity in unity" and will point to "common unifying elements which reflect the common his- 31 toric tradition and common status of American Jewry." Dushkin em­

phasizes that he is not proposing principles but a common core . . .

"materials from which any Jewish school curriculum must be con- 32 structed." He identifies the following seven elements:

(1) The classic continuous Jewish tradition . . . (2) Concrete ways of personal living . . . (3) Hebrew in Jewish life . . . (4) The Jewish people . . . (5) The unique role of Palestine (Israel) in Jewish history and tradition . . . (6) The American Jewish environment . . . and the relation of the Jewish tradition to American democracy . . .

30 Alexander Dushkin, "Democracy and Jewish Education," Jewish Education 14:2 (December, 1942), p. 97. See also Samuel Dinin, "The Contribution of Jewish Education to the Development of the American Jewish Personality," Jewish Education 22:3 (Summer, 1951), p. 20: "One of the most important functions of American Jewish education is to utilize our literature, our values, our observance to reinforce the values and standards of democracy which we have in common with all Americans." 31 Alexander Dushkin, "Common Elements in American Jewish Teach­ ing," Jewish Education 17:1 (November, 1945), pp. 5-6. 32 Ibid., p. 8. 38

(7) Faith in the divine purpose . . . involving, the human obligation to strive for a better democratic world order . . .33

For the Jewish curriculum worker, DushkinTs "common elements" were 34 of little practical value. In effect, they constituted a set of vague reformulations which grouped existing and familiar subject- areas under a new phraseology. Identifying common areas or sources

from which curriculum is to be constructed does not lend itself auto­ matically to commonality or to unity; that depends on the actual se­ lection and organization of content and on the development of idea­ tional and conceptual relationships within the bodies of knowledge.

The Place of Israel in the Jewish Curriculum

The literature about the place of Israel in Jewish education provides another illustration of an unsuccessful attempt to unify the

Jewish school curriculum. The land of Israel has always occupied a significant role in the historical experience of the Jewish group.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, and particu­ larly after the Six Day War of 1967, Israel involves the vital

33 Ibid., p. 8. Dushkin articulates this theme in other articles. See "The Pattern of Community Thinking in Jewish Education," Jewish Education 35:3 (Spring, 1965), pp. 136-147; and "Fifty Years of Amer­ ican Jewish Education— Retrospect and Prospect," Jewish Education 37:1-2 (Winter, 1967), pp. 44-57. 3 A Other writers have attempted to delineate similar "common" or "basic" elements in Jewish education. See Simon Greenberg, "The Tan­ gibles of Jewish Education," Jewish Education 31:2 (Winter, 1961), pp. 5-11; Samuel Dinsky, "A P> 'gram for Secondary Jewish Education in The United States," Jewish Ed- ation, 32:1 (Fall, 1961), pp. 8-19; and Rudavsky, "A Shift in Emp tsis in the Curriculum of the Weekday Afternoon School," pp. 13-18. 39 concerns and activities of large numbers of the Jewish group. It is also fair to way that Israel occupies an important place in contempo­ rary world events. Reflecting these realities, the literature is re­ plete with pronouncements about "the centrality of the place of Is- 35 rael" in the Jewish educational program.

Reflecting his affinity with progressive notions, Dushkin points out that Israel provides a unique opportunity for "extending the scope of Jewish teaching from its emphasis on the past only, to in­ clude Jewish current events and developments, political and cultur- 36 al." Soref also asserts that Israel provides Jewish youth with

"good models of a vibrant and creative worthwhile Jewish life that 37 exists now." He proposes an approach in which a formal course of study on Israel will serve as "a preparation for the most important component of the educational process— direct experiences, i.e., youth 38 study tours, work study program, living in a kibbutz, etc."

Other writers point to the quantitative problems which they per­ ceive in regard to the place of the Israel component in the Jewish

35 For example: Alvin Schiff, "Israel . . . is a fundamental, crucial and irrevocable part of Jewishness." Jewish Education 38:4 (October, 1968), p. 8; Irwin Soref, "The State of Israel and its way of life should become central to the program of the Jewish School," Jewish Education 39:4 (December, 1969), p. 48; A. P. Gannes calls for "A re-examination of the entire school curriculum as to the place of Israel in the classical curriculum," Jewish Education 42:2-3 (Spring, 1973), p. 6. 36 Dushkin, "Fifty Years of American Jewish Education," p. 54. 37 Irwin Soref, "The Challenge of Israel," Jewish Education 39:4 (December, 1969), p. 48.

OO Ibid., p. 49. 40 curriculum. Dinin is opposed to the idea that "the heart and focus of our educational endeavor, in terms of content and time, should be 39 devoted to Israel." Toubin, on the other hand, asks in frustration:

"Must Israel await the moment when there will be some time, or a school curriculum . . . which will welcome it as an essential ingre­ dient of modern Jewish learning?"^ In another article, Dinin refers to the conceptual confusion about the teaching of Israel: "Does it imply that we would devote more time to the study of Israel than to any other subject in the curriculum? . . . Or does it mean that we must conceive of Israel as an integral part of the whole of Jewish education?"^ Dinin clarifies his own position that Israel should not be taught as a separate subject. To solve the problem of the crowded curriculum, he proposes . . . "to correlate the study of

Israel with the other subjects in the curriculum . . . /this\J re- A 2 quires the preparation of special syllabi." Greenberg, however, asserts a "maximalist" position and asserts that, in addition to being taught as a separate unit, "Israel should be treated as an indispens- 43 able and integral ingredient of every subject taught." In a

39 Samuel Dinin, "The Role of Israel in American Jewish Education, Jewish Education 38:3 (June, 1968), p. 6.

^Isaac Toubin, "The Right Hand's Cunning," Jewish Education 42: 2-3 (Spring, 1973), p. 44.

^Samuel Dinin, "Israel in American Jewish Education," Jewish Edu­ cation 42:2-3 (Spring, 1973), p. 16. 42 Ibid., p. 19. 43 Simon Greenberg, "The Role of Israel in American Jewish Educa­ tion, " Jewish JSducation 42:2-3 (Spring, 1973), p. 31. 41 survey conducted in 1968, Schiff reports that approximately one half of the schools which responded indicated that Israel is taught as a 44 separate subject. One of the main reasons given for not including 45 Israel in formal instruction was "insufficient time." Schiff con­ cludes that, "The preparation of a modern syllabus which highlights 46 the role of Israel would be helpful."

The foregoing discussion on the place of Israel in the Jewish curriculum may be summarized in this way. Those who argued that

Israel should "occupy a central place" failed to articulate their position and to illustrate how Israel is to become the unifying fac­ tor in a reconstructed Jewish curriculum. Those who oppose this view give a quantitative rationale: lack of time in an overcrowded curriculum. The proposals by Dinin, Greenberg and Schiff are also additive in nature; that is, they merely call for more instructional materials.

Major Trends in the Literature Reviewed

"Either-Or" Propositions. Several trends may be discerned in the lit­ erature surveyed. First, there is a tendency to consider curricular issues in "either-or" propositions. Thus, the activity curriculum is perceived as an alternative to the traditional subject matter cur­ riculum; the notion of "child-centeredness" serves as a rationale for

44Alvin Schiff, "Israel in American Jewish Schools: A Study of Curriculum Realities" Jewish Education 38:4 (October, 1968), p. 9.

45Ibid., p. 10. 42 projecting the present and invalidating the past; democracy and

Israel are each successively perceived as the single organizing idea, or focus, in restructuring the Jewish curriculum.

An Ameliorative Orientation. Jewish educators appear to have been motivated by what Kliebard describes as an "overwhelmingly ameliora- 47 tive orientation" which sought immediate solutions to persistent problems of educational practice. The prevalent assumption was that lack of student interest, reflected in low enrollment until the Post

World War II period, was largely due to inferior teaching methods.

Hence, attention was primarily focused on the development and adapta­ tion of instructional methodologies that were designed to make Jewish 48 learning more attractive, enjoyable and, hopefully, more effective.

Focus on Teaching Methods and on Innovation. Initially, the pre­ occupation with method fucused on borrowing principles and techniques from progressive education. In recent years, this tendency has re­ sulted in a general drift toward methodological change and innovation, largely borrowed from general education. As Schiff observes, almost every new idea in general education is found in some Jewish

^Herbert Kliebard, "Persistent Curriculum Issues in Historical Perspective," in Curriculum Theorizing, edited by William Pinar (Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Co., 1975), p. 41. 48 One educator describes the results of these efforts in this way: "If today there are large numbers of children who enjoy going to school and derive great happiness there, it is in no small meas­ ure due to Dewey, who called attention to the creative capacities of the child and thereby opened new vistas in the practice of education." Samuel Blumenfield, "John Dewey and Jewish Education," in Judaism and Jewish School, edited by J. Pilch and M. Ben-Horin (New York: Ameri­ can Association for Jewish Education, 1966), p. 150. 43

educational setting: "Individualized learning, open-classroom, con­

tract learning, programmed instruction, learning modules, mini­

courses, simulation games, value-clarification,. confluent learning" 49 . . . The singular focus on method, perceived in isolation from

content, is based on a dichotomous conception of the two. This is

explicitly stated by Hartstein:

The traditionalist . . . believes in abiding principles and eternal verities . . . He can go along with pro­ gressive education, the activity program, Kilpatrich and the . . . philosophy of Dewey . . . with restrictions, that is, only insofar as these apply to methodology.

Dewey’s position on the relationship between content and method'is

clearly stated: "Never is method something outside of the material

. . . Method is not antithetical to subject matter; it is the effec­

tive direction of subject matter to desired results.However, the

foregoing review indicates that even those Jewish educators who came under Dewey's influence held to a dichotomous conception of content

49 Alvin Schiff, "Jewish Education in America: Achievement and Challenge," Jewish Education 45:2 (Spring, 1977), p. 19. An annual published in recent years by The American Association for Jewish Education, entitled Roundups of School Programs, is replete with descriptions of numerous projects, innovations and experiments under­ taken by Jewish schools of all types all across the United States. Abraham Segal, former Director of Education of The Union of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform), observes that in educational confer­ ences and workshops, "Teachers' big demand is for gimmicks. If you try to talk about philosophy and content . . . they turn you off . . They want things for the classroom that holds the kids' attention." Quoted in The Detroit Jewish News, August 16, 1974, p. 36.

“*^Jacob Hartstein, "Symposium on Common Elements in Jewish Educa­ tion: Traditionalist View," Jewish Education 17:2 (February, 1946), p. 40.

John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: The Free Press, 1966), p . 165. 44 and method. In their actual school practices, these educators ap­ peared to have accepted the view clearly stated by Hartstein, that a dichotomous conception of content and method will facilitate the working out of a synthesis between the transplanted Jewish curricu- 52 lum and the realities of Jewish life in America.

Neglect of Basic Issues of Philosophy and Structure. The fourth, and perhaps the most significant, tendency that emerges from the litera­ ture surveyed is the neglect of basic issues of philosophy and struc­ ture. The aforementioned "ameliorative orientation" in Jewish educa­ tion, as well as the separation of method from content and means from ends, explain in large measure the absence of systematic theorizing in Jewish curriculum. Says Ben-Horin: "There are no philosophies of the Jewish School . . . there are conflicting and competing interpre­ tations of Judaism iandj prescriptions of the corresponding content of 53 Jewish education." In addition, traditional notions on Jewish

Some writers have pointed to the folly of this position. See Walter Ackerman, "The Americanization of Jewish Education," Judaism 24:4 (Fall, 1975), pp. 416-435; and Seymore Fox, "Toward A General Theory of Jewish Education," in The Future of the Jewish Community in America, edited by David Sidorsky (New York: Putnam Publishers, 1973), p. 261: "Since the means of education are not neutral, it is quite possible that some of the means employed for Jewish education cancel out whatever is in Jewish education that is related to authentic Judaism." 53 Meir Ben-Horin, "The Role of Educational Philosophy in the Jew­ ish School Is— Sovereign, Equal, and Subordinate," Religious Educa­ tion 58:2 (September-October, 1963), p. 470. See also Barry Chazan, "The Nature of Contemporary Philosophy of Jewish Education," in Pro­ ceedings of the Philosophy of Education Society (Edwardsville, Illi­ nois, 1972), pp. 175-188; and Barry Chazan, The Language of Jewish Education (New York: Hartmore House, 1978), Chapter II. 45 education asserted that the very subject matter of the curriculum con­ stitutes its philosophy, aims and objectives. There is a widespread belief that inferior teaching methods should be eliminated. But the content of the curriculum has the sanctity of tradition and is not to be tampered with. Aside from vague formulations of desired outcomes, the literature surveyed does not address itself to basic questions of 54 structure and to the selection and organization of content.

An Additive Approach. My earlier discussion on the place of Israel in the Jewish curriculum illustrates precisely the absence of a qual­ itative dimension for the consideration of curriculum issues. Typi­ cally, the problem is analyzed in quantitative terms. Likewise, the proposals to create new materials are additive in nature, and do not address themselves to the basic problem of an overburdened cur­ riculum;"^ nor do they address themselves to the structural question of how to relate Israel to the total Jewish curriculum. A study con­ ducted in 1974 tends to confirm this assessment. Chazan found that a

John Dewey clearly expressed his position on the role of sub­ ject matter in the total scheme of education: "Thinking is a directed movement of subject matter to a completing issue." Democracy and Ed­ ucation (New York: The Free Press, 1966), p. 165; and, "Finding the material for learning within experience is only the first step. The next step is the progressive development . . . toward expansion and organization of subject matter through growth and experience." Ex­ perience and Education (New York: Collier Books, 1976), pp. 73-74. 55 The additive orientation of recent Jewish curriculum develop­ ments persists. At the 1978 General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations, the following "overview of innovations" was reported: new subjects are being added to the curriculum in such areas as Holo­ caust, Soviet Jewry, contemporary issues (women, energy, abortion, death), Middle East concerns, Jewish art, drama, dance." General As­ sembly Papers (New York: Council of Jewish Federations, 1978), p. 2. 46 majority of Jewish schools teach Israel as a separate subject matter.

He also notes that increased quantities of educational materials on

Israel have become available. However, Chazan reports "An ambiva­ lence among Jewish educators as to how to handle Israel conceptually and structurally within the total Jewish curriculum.""*^

Alternatives to the Additive Approach. Significantly, two holistic notions about curriculum development offer an alternative to the add­ itive approach that has characterized Jewish educational practices.

One, proposed by Taba, rejects, "The practice of revising the curricu­ lum, by espousing every new development . . . and introducing it as a topic in the curriculum, instead of considering the used content of the curriculum in light of new ideas and new developments.""*^ Another concept, articulated by Hyman, deals with curriculum focus. According to Hyman, the content of the curriculum is not to be confused with its focus for teaching purposes. Since "it is possible to teach the same content for two different foci . . . the importance and meaning 58 of the selected content changes depending on the curriculum focus."

These notions will be further articulated in their application to the

Jewish curriculum, in Chapters 5 and 6.

~***Barry Chazan, "Israel in American Jewish Schools— Revisited," Jewish Education 47:2 (Summer, 1979), p. 14.

"^Hilda Taba, Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1962), p. 62. 5 8 Ronald Hyman, Approaches in Curriculum (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973), p. 4. 47

Recent pronouncements in the literature, as well as a major ef­

fort at curriculum construction, reflect a reaction against the drift

towards change and innovation, and a re-assertion of the traditional

notion that schooling is concerned primarily with the transmission of

a fixed body of knowledge from the cultural heritage.

In his article, "Back to Basics," Pollack calls on Jewish schools

to follow the "swing of the pendulum" in general education "toward a more conservative approach . . . which will stress knowledge and 59 skills." Similarly, Grad calls for "a moratorium on curriculum

development and innovation,and for focusing on " . . . achieve- 61 ment based on the imperatives of the Jewish heritage." Building on

a dichotomous conception of content and method, Grad, in effect, pro­ poses empiracal-behavioristic means for the attainment of perrenial- 6 2 ist-based ends. He reflects the traditional Jewish notion that the very subject matter of the Jewish heritage constitutes the main source

of curricular objectives and he asserts:

Tests should not follow curriculum; quite to the con­ trary, we must define standards of achievement based on the imperatives of the Jewish heritage, prepare clear criteria for the evaluation of such achievement . . . analogous to the achievement tests administered by the

59 George Pollack, "Back to Basics," Jewish Education 45:5 (Win­ ter, 1977), p. 9.

^Eli Grad, "Issues of Quality in Jewish Education," Jewish Edu­ cation 46:3 (Autumn, 1978), p. 13.

61Ibid., p. 14. 62 According to George Kneller, the perennialist holds that the aim of education is, "Preparation for life by imparting to students eter­ nal truths." Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971), p. 233. 48

College Entrance Board . . . and proceed to develop the curriculum best designed to meet our objectives.63

A Summary Outline of the New United Synagogue Curriculum

A lack of a unifying theory, and its resultant dichotomy between ends and means, is evident in a recently-completed curriculum for the supplementary Jewish school. Morton Siegel, Director of the Commis­ sion on Education of the United Synagogue of America (Conservative), states that the preparation of the curriculum was guided by the con­ viction that,

Current goals of Jewish education must be critically ex­ amined and reformulated in dynamic and behavioral terms, including short-range and long-range goals . . . goals which can be measured.64

In its pre-publication statement, the United Synagogue Commission ex­ pands on Siegel's behavioristic orientation and implies that its

"restructured" curriculum will focus on the present rather than on 65 mere transmission of the cultural heritage.

In addition to a curriculum focus on the present, depth of under­ standing and successful achievement are cited by the editors of the new curriculum outline as major objectives of their undertaking. They accept the major premise in the national study conducted by Dushkin and Engelman that "American Jewish schooling is like a shallow river,

— Grad, "Issues of Quality in Jewish Education," p. 14.

^Morton Siegel, "The Experimental Curriculum for the Congrega­ tional School," in Curriculum Newsletter, Winter, 1978 (New York: American Association for Jewish Education), p. 1. 65 A Statement on the Curriculum Design for the Congregational School (New York: United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education, 1977), p. 3. 49 66 a mile long and an inch deep;" and that the lack of depth results from the fact that supplementary Jewish schools have attempted to do too much within th limited time of instruction available to them (a maximum of six hours per week). Having defined the problem of the

Jewish curriculum in quantitative terms, the editors propose a quan­ titative solution: "Given more limited, clearly defined achievable goals, the Jewish school can be a very effective educational de­ vice. The proposed design is aimed at helping each school to a- chieve its own "clearly-defined goals":

In the first two years (3rd and 4th grades) students will have a common core which will focus on the following: (1) Hebrew language skills, (2) Bible stories and Jewish values, (3) Knowledge and skills in Jewish observance, and participation in the s a m e . 68

At the end of the second year, each school will be required to de­ cide . . . "What kind of synagogue-citizen it prefers . . . what kind 69 of a child it wants to produce." Accordingly, the schools will choose one of the following four "branches," or subject areas, for which it and the teachers "will be held accountable":

(1) Hebrew language skills. (2) Judaism/sources (Bible and Rabbinic Literature).

66A Curriculum for the Afternoon Jewish School: Experimental Edition (New York: United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education, 1978), p. 7.

68 A Statement on the Curriculum, p. 10. 69 Siegel, "The Experimental Curriculum for the Congregational School," p. 2. 50

(.3) History/Community. ^ (4) Tefilah/Mitzvah (Prayer and observance).

Each branch is further divided into "blocks" which, in effect, are study topics or units of work. Each block is equal to one fourth of the school year or about 50 hours of instruction, with the average student covering about 20 blocks in the five-year program of the sup­ plementary school.^ For example, the following blocks are assigned 72 for the third year Judaism/Sources Branch:

Block 7: The Age of the Patriarchs. Block 8: Jacob, Joseph and the descent into Egypt- Block 9: The Book of Exodus; slavery, the Exodus, Passover, the Decalogue. Block 10: Introduction to Jewish Law and Rabbinic commentary.

Instructional objectives are formulated for each block and are re­

ferred to as "desired outcomes." Following are the desired outcomes for Block 10 in the Judaism/Sources Branch:

(1) Familiarity with specified passages from Exodus, Levidi- cus and Deuteronomy. (2) Ability to recite by memory certain verses. (3) Ability to discuss specified issues with proper textual support.73

The editors do not formulate vertical obejctives, that is cumulative 74 outcomes resulting from the completion of several blocks. They

^ A Curriculum for the Afternoon Jewish School, p . 8.

^Ibid. , p. 7. 72 Blocks 1-6 are studied during the first two years. 73 A Curriculum for the Afternoon Jewish School, pp. 233-234. 74 Vertical objectives refer to learning outcomes in the same sub­ ject area over a given period of time. Horizontal objectives build on relationships between different subjects. 51 require that before proceeding to any given block, the teacher is to administer a written test to ascertain whether students mastered prior presumed knowledge. The learning outcomes for each branch are defined in performance terms; that is, a demonstration that students have successfully mastered a text or a body of information. In this regard, the curriculum reflects a consistent concern for "clearly de­ fined, measurable goals."

A Critique of the United Synagogue Curriculum

Relations of Ends to Means. The organization of the curriculum into

"branches" and "blocks" (or units of study) is clearly designed to facilitate the measurement of specified scholastic achievement. How­ ever, since no vertical objectives are articulated, we really don't know what the cumulative outcomes will be as a result of three years of exposure to a particular branch. The only measurable outcomes we can point to are the accumulation of bits of information and skills from each block or unit of study. Assuming this to be true, how can we tell what kind of a child will be "produced" as a result of ex­ posure to one "branch," as opposed to another? Certainly, instruments designed to test the acquisition of information do not give us any inkling as to the make-up of a "History-oriented" Jew or a "Bible- oriented" Jew.

Focus on the Past. In its pre-publication statement, the United Syn­ agogue Commission states that a focus on the present is a fundamental 52 75 element in its orientation. However, fifteen out of the eighteen

blocks in the History/Community branch deal with the remote past.

Emphasis in the Judiasm/Sources branch (Bible) is on text explica­

tion and factual memorization, and within each branch, generally, few

opportunities are provided to guide students in applying the ideas

and concepts from the text to their lives.

Anthropological Assumptions. Cultural anthropology gives us a per­

spective in which human life is perceived in holistic terms of pat- 76 terns and configurations. I argue that, as instruments of cultural

transmission, bodies of content within the curriculum should be con­

ceived holistically; that is, the full cultural significance of any

subject emerges only when specific content is viewed as part of a

larger whole, and in terms of its relationship to other bodies of or­

ganized knowledge.^ Consequently, by exposing a child to one aspect

of the cultural heritage (i.e., Bible, history, observances), the

Jewish curriculum becomes an ineffective agent of cultural transmis­

sion.

Statement on the Curriculum, p. 10.

^Theodore Brameld, "Imperatives for a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education," School and Society, Vol. 81, No. 2145 (January 17, 1959), p. 19.

^Eor an articulation of the concept of culture as a source of curriculum content, see Arno Bellack, "Selection and Organization of Curriculum Content," in What Shall the High School Teach?, 1956 Year­ book (Washington, D.C.), American Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1956, pp. 95-106. 53

Epistemological Assumptions. The epistemological assumption of the

rationale underlying the curriculum design raises still another ques­

tion; namely, that "depth" of knowledge (presumably expressed by a measure of retention, conceptualization and internalization) may be

attained primarily by the quantitative accumulation of facts and

understandings from one branch of knowledge. However, I claim that

isolated facts do not facilitate learning in depth, whether they are

taken from one discipline or from several branches of knowledge; depth

of learning is achieved by grasping of structure, principles, gener­

alizations and relationships between bits of knowledge, and by the opportunities provided for the application of concepts and generali- 78 zations to new situations. Thus, two unconnected blocks of content within the same branch may be as "shallow" as two unconnected blocks

from two different branches. The editors' lack of concern for the

integration of knowledge is also evident in their position on "hori­

zontal connections,11 the linking of content from two separate branches; for example, teaching Israeli geography in connection with

the Patriarchs' wonderings (in the Bible branch). The editors state

that "if in the process, the students learn something of Israel that

is a plus, but one which we do not write in as a curriculum require- 79 ment. We prefer depth to breadth." The editors imply that a famil­

iarity with the physical setting in which the Patriarchs lived will

78 This assertion is based on Rationalist and Progressivist no­ tions. Rationalism holds that knowledge is attained by achieving unity of experience. In Progressive thought knowing is the creating of relationships in situations. 79 Curriculum for the Afternoon Jewish School, p. 17. 54 not significantly deepen and enrich the child’s learning experience.

Such a proposition, as I intend to show, is untenable.

Lack of Unifying Theory. The foregoing analysis suggests that the

United Synagogue Program does not constitute a "restructured" curri­ culum. In essence, it is the same text-centered curriculum, with a quantitatively reduced range of subject matter. Above all, this cur­ riculum reflects conflicting conceptions about the nature of the educational enterprise, resulting in a dichotomy between ends and means. For example, Perennialist notions provide the rationale for the selection of curriculum content from the Judaic heritage, as re­ vealed in textual knowledge. On the other hand, the controlling aim of Jewish schooling is defined empirically, as the production of a 80 particular "kind of synagogue citizen." Similarly, the structuring of the curriculum around "branches" and the orgbnization of content into "blocks" have been prompted by behavioristic considerations, i.e., the requirement for measuring specified learning outcomes.

Summary

The review of the literature indicates a prevailing conception of the Jewish curriculum as being text-centered. Methodological change is characterized by an ameliorative orientation, unrelated to basic questions of structure and content. The basic problem of the

Jewish curriculum is perceived to be quantitative in nature, while

__ Siegel, "The Experimental Curriculum for the Congregational School," p. 2. attempts to restructure the curriculum and give it new direction lack a unifying theoretical foundation. CHAPTER III

THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE:

EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE CURRICULUM

In considering foundational sources, the epistemologic 1 question is of most concern to the curriculum worker. There is a consensus that the development and imparting of knowledge are primary tasks of schooling: "Knowledge is the stock-in-trade of the school."'*' The significance of epistemological assertions is to be found in their relevance to notions about educational practices and methodology, and to the central question of "What shall the schools teach?". Sources for epistemological foundations will be drawn from the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions, each of which holds to conceptions of truth and knowledge that have implications for curriculum and instruction.

Epistemological Assumptions in the Rationalist Tradition

According to the Rationalist tradition, man can know because he is a rational animal, and his ability to reason is an inherent and in­ tegral element of his human nature. While sensory experience may be the starting point for gaining knowledge, man reaches his highest potential for knowing when he uses his rational rather than his

■*Arno Bellac.k, "Knowledge Structure and the Curriculum," in Philosophic Problems and Education, edited by Y. Pai and J. T. Myers (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1967), p. 274. 56 57 sensory abilities. Man arrives at the highest level of knowledge, that of ideas and general principles, through the act of reason. In the Rationalist tradition, knowing is mentally grasping,

. . . an existing structure of the universe, . . . a unique set of concepts and propositions employing these concepts that adequately express the nature of the world, and that these propositions form a system that could be recognized as a set of necessary truths.^

Such knowledge, claims the Rationalist, is to be discovered in the mental realm, not in sense experience. True, in order to have some­ thing to think about, the mind refers to the raw data it receives from the senses. But the mind does not depend for its very existence upon sense data or on experience. The mind is pre-existent of all exper­ iencing: "The mind goes beyond experience in many instances, i.e., when it examines the conditions of experience itself. Experience does

3 not determine what the mind knows." Thus, the certitude of princi­ ples which the Rationalist seeks is not a direct result of experience, but of the unique power of the mind to acquire knowledge by immediate insight or awareness.

The questions that arise at this point are : (1) is knowledge that is directly grasped by the mind possible?, (2) how do we come to know such knowledge?, and (3) how do we know that we have come to its

2 Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967 ed., s.v. "Rationalism," by Bernard Williams. 3 Herman Horne, quoted in Donald J. Butler, Idealism in Education (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1966), p. 62. 58 possession? The response of the Rationalist tradition lies in its 4 conception of the nature of reality and truth.

The reality we encounter in our experience is the product of an

Ultimate Reason or an Absolute Mind, and the world in its essential

character is rational, orderly and intelligible. There is an objec­

tive body of truth that has its original existence in the Absolute

Mind. All of the qualities of the Absolute are present in the indi­ vidual self, although in a more limited form. This suggests that the human mind is capable of communicating with and sharing in the Abso­

lute Mind. Consequently, knowledge of reality has the potential of being certain inasmuch as it approximates and comes closer to the

ultimate apprehension of truth.

As the ultimate explainer of the world, the task of the mind is

to receive data from different sources, to assimilate them, to ar­

range them in some systematic order, to associate them with sense

data received under other circumstances, and, finally, to establish

coherence among them. When this point is reached, the mind

is said to have attained truth. In other words, the mind does the

"knowing" and the arriving at a defensible conception of truth by

applying the standard of coherence; that is, we know an

idea is true when it is consistent with the already existing and

accepted body of truth (i.e., "logical" truth such as mathematical

_ The discussion that follows is based, in part, on V. C. Morris and Y. Pai. Philosophy and the American School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1976), pp. 122-24; and Max Wingo, Philosophies of Educa­ tion: An Introduction (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Co., 1974), pp. 101, ff. 59 knowledge, or the wisdom of the past). Of particular significance for the educative process is the Rationalist conception that knowing is a creative, rather than passive, process in which the mind com­ bines, interprets and forms sense data into intelligible ideas. This will be further developed in the section that follows.

Rationalist Epistemology and the Educative Process

The heart of Rationalist epistemology lies in its conception of the centrality of the self in gaining and organizing knowledge. But­ ler explains it in this way:

Events and happenings do not yield knowledge unless they strike fire somehow with consciousness of some kind . . . Whatever we derive from the objective world which we call knowledge, has to be derived by the person and organized by him.^

Learning, therefore, does not consist of merely gaining knowledge about the world, but in responding to it as well. The mind be­ gins with an understanding of self (through introspection and intui­ tion) , and, through its capacity to relate parts into quantitative wholes of meaning, it moves forward to the grasping of laws and pro­ cesses of the objective world which take the form of ideas. The con­ centric progression of the self occurs as one grows, matures, and becomes conscious of other selves. As this occurs, one claims larger

"territory" in knowing, understanding and feelings. The identifica­ tion with a "self" larger than one’s own, i.e., the group, the com­ munity or the nation, becomes the means for "enlarging" the self and

^Butler, Idealism in Education, pp. 122-123. 60

for coming closer to the Ultimate. In this context, . . Growth

can come only through self-activity, self-direction, . . . the mind's £ ability to frame and follow self-appointed goals."

In relating the foregoing to the educative process, some assump­

tions may be made at this point: (1) that schooling is a vehicle for

the enlargement or growth of the self; this includes its active in­ volvement with other selves, by getting to know people, responding

to them and being responded to, (2) that the act of learning is per­

sonal, not merely mechanistic or objective, and (3) that growth and enlargement of self involves two aspects: (a) the incorporation of

the knowledge and achievements of the past as a springboard for one's

initiative and originality and as a basis for evaluating one's own

ideas (i.e., applying the principle of coherence), and (b)

the "ought" orientation of the educational enterprise, as the learner

continuously endeavors to grasp his relationship to the cosmic order,

and to gradually close the gap between his ideas of reality and the

Ultimate truth.

7 Curricular Aims, Content and Instructional Method

Aims. Reason is man's unique characteristic that differentiates him

from animals. Therefore, it is the primary aim of the school to

Herman Horne, quoted in Butler, Idealism in Education, p. 110.

^As defined by Broudy, method in this context has two aspects: "one is the adaptation of the material of instruction; the other is the procedure used to bring about the apprehension of the material." Harry Broudy, Building a Philosophy of Education (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954), p. 225. 61 develop the pupil's intellectual powers, so that he may come as close as possible to the Absolute truth. The development of such powers is linked to self-realization and is achieved through the progressive identification of the individual with higher and more inclusive levels of unity. For example, a child's immediate identification is with his family; the school and the community are more inclusive of reality, and beyond them lie the greater unities of one's religio- cultural group, one's nation, and humanity— with the Absolute Mind embracing all unity.^

Butler makes the significant observation that this Rationalist 9 conception does away with the dualism of the individual and society.

For there is no conflict between the realization of the individual and of societal goals. In fact, self-realization has an individual as well as a social frame of reference. The end toward which self- realization moves is the identification of the individual with the totality of all existence, and in this process the self comes to a full understanding of its own essential nature. Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, the idea of self-realization points to an "ought" orientation for schooling. Horne formulates the Rationalist's "ought" orientation in this way:

The school should really be centered in certain ideal con­ ceptions of what man and his society should be in view of the kind of world in which he really lives . . . Our schools are, should be, and cannot escape being, idea-centered or

— The foregoing is based, in part, on Wingo, Philosophies of Edu­ cation: An Introduction, p. 197, ff. 9 Butler, Idealism in Education, p. 91. 62

ideal-centered ...the objective of living and learning is to de­ velop the natural man into the ideal m a n . ^

Content. Based on the foregoing, curricular content will be limited primarily to those subjects and skills that are best suited to serve the purpose of intellectual development: the accumulated and organ­ ized knowledge of generations. Within the academic disciplines, the

Rationalist will emphasize the study of the humanities and history in particular; for through the study of the lives of great men of the past we find appropriate truths around which to model and approximate our own behavior. In consonance with the Rationalist conception of the "enlargement" or "expansion" of self, curricular content and or­ ganization will gradually move the learner into larger expressions of mental awareness, i.e., to an expansion of his mental capacity. For example, content for early schooling will deal with a child's imme­ diate family and will progress to the school, the community, the group, the nation, and humanity at large. While such learning may begin with a mastery of factual content, the ultimate goal is the attainment of broad and general understandings of the world in which children live.

As to the broad scope of the curriculum, Horne does not limit it to the humanities and history:

■^Herman H. Horne, "An Idealistic Philosophy of Education," in Philosophies of Education, National Society for the Study of Educa­ tion, Forty-first Yearbook, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), pp. 160, 194. 63

In accordance with the nature of man as a being who thinks, feels, and wills, the curriculum may be grouped into three parts: (1) the sciences (knowing), the fine arts (feeling), and the practical arts (doing or willing) . . . The natural and social sciences give the student the knowledge he needs to understand the kind of world in which he really lives as well as . . . disclosing the intellectual nature of man.^

As to the place of experience in the curriculum, Horne recog­ nizes that direct experiences impress us more than experience gained indirectly. However,

Education cannot be all of life . . . The function of the school is necessarily limited to exemplify­ ing certain phases of life of the best possible; not everything has to be learned by acquaintance, however desirable this might be. Most things have to be learned by description.12

The Rationalist further argues that to learn by experience means that knowledge is not introduced until the learner discovers a need for each item of knowledge in his experience. But his is unwise, for the learner is deprived of the benefit of past experience of mankind.

Broudy also alludes to the limitations of the "problem-solving" cur­ riculum, since it provides too narrow a focus that is more akin to

"raiding" a subject than to its systematic study:

Many problems which are immediate and real to students are not those which necessarily involve systematic study of some area of knowledge; and the more systematic study needed, the greater the demand for something more than relevant infor­ mation. 13

n ibid., p. 161. 12 Quoted in Butler, Idealism in Education, p. 116. 13 Broudy, Building a Philosophy of Education, p. 152. 64

Method. Rationalist method is a logical outgrowth of its two basic epistemological propositions: the primacy of ideas, and the central role of the self in the act of learning.

Ideas are the real existents behind the sensory screen, and they find expression through symbols, which are the vehicles of the mind in coming into union with ultimate reality. Therefore, "symbols are the medium of the pedagogical environment; learning is a continuous activity in symbols.Such activity will include reading, listen­ ing to lectures, and utilizing the Socratic Method in class discus­ sion. However, the Rationalist conception of the self as an active, responding organism does not settle for the conventional, simplistic

"discussion" in which the main purpose is either to find out what the pupil knows, or to lead him to pre-determined answers.^ Instead, classroom dialectics should offer students alternatives of thought, encourage questioning, response and judgment. In brief, the student should be confronted by decision and choice as much as possible. Con­ sequently, every teaching situation requires that the learner do something to it, and it also calls on the teacher to "arrange matters" so as to fulfill the learning task efficiently and successfully. It has been re-iterated that in Rationalist epistemology "it is the self­ activity of the pupil in which genuine education and development takes

14 Morris and Pai, Philosophy and the American School, p. 171.

^”*See Butler, Idealism in Education, p. 119: While acknowledging the usefulness of accurate presentation of objective information by the teacher, Butler cautions against "a phonographic recitation of facts or ideas." 65 place.This calls for arranging the subject matter of the curric­ ulum in such a way that it is geared to the student's readiness and designed to elicit insight, response and judgment. This implies a concentric development of the material, as indicated above, and the utilization of inductive reasoning. In this way, both the material and the procedures used will draw on the learner's immediate environ­ ment as a starting point in instruction.

In summary, the Rationalist tradition does not limit itself to any one method. Holding to the dualism of content and method, it

"will select such methods that best serve our purposes at the time, including the activity and project method."^ According to the

Rationalist, if a method will actively engage the mental powers of the student, it is useful; if it fails, it defeats the primary pur­ pose of schooling.

Epistemological Assumptions in the Empiricist Tradition

Empiricism holds that all we know is dependent on experience, either through our senses or by reflecting on them. We can have no ideas or concepts which are not derived from experience. "All con­ cepts are a posteriori; knowledge of any sort must be dependent on 18 sense experience in some way." Knowledge of general principles is simply a strong association of separate experiences. Ultimately,

16Ibid., p. 117.

17t.Ibid. 18 Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967 ed., s.v. "Empiricism," by D . W . Hamlyn. 66 concrete facts are the only basis of truth: "Every concept is o f 19 something; every judgment about something." While we may know some propositions without having to resort immediately to ex­ perience for validation (i.e., 2+2=4), "Their truth may depend solely on the logical relations between the ideas involved: yet 20 these ideas may themselves be derived from experience." Put in yet another way, every form of knowledge is ultimately reduced to experience.

Unlike the Rationalist whose concern is with knowing ultimate reality and achieving absolute certainty, the Empiricist is primarily looking at the physical world and describing what it is and how it works. To the Empiricist, reality is a physical world in motion, controlled by built-in laws and regularities which can be discovered by man.

Empiricist epistemology may be summarized in three basic princi­ ples or propositions: (1) the principle of independence (which it shares with Rationalism), that there is an independently existing reality, whose character is not affected by it being known; (2) the principle of direct apprehension, that knowledge of this world is presented directly to our senses, with no intervening mental process or mediating agent to account for our knowledge; and (3) the

— John Wild, "Education and Human Society: A Realistic View," in Modern Philosophies of Education, National Society for the Study of Education, 54th Yearbook, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 17. 67 principle of correspondence, that the criterion of truth is regarded as the conformity or consistency of an assertion with objective facts.21

The last two principles, which are held only by the Empiricist, are really tied together and, in a sense, support each other. The principle of direct apprehension posits that when the knower per­ ceives an object it is the same identical object in the physical world which is in the awareness of the knower. This leads to the principle of correspondence, that our assertions about the world we live in must in fact correspond to the way things really are. The truth of ideas is judged by tracing them back to their sources to see if they came from immediate sense data or from inferences based on them.

Empiricist Epistemology and the Eudcative Process

As previously noted, the primary concern of the Empiricist is not with knowing "ultimate reality" but with understanding the world a s i t i s , so as to order his life in harmony with it; and, based on the laws of causality, to predict the future. Accordingly, the epis­ temological enterprise is aimed at discovering nature’s patterns of structure and regularities, so that they may be refined into laws and principles to be utilized in guiding our behavior and in controlling the environment. Expressed in another way, the objective of empirical knowledge is "adjusting to and cooperating with an antecedent nature

21Wingo, Philosophies of Ecucation: An Introduction, p. 114, ff. 68 whose ways must be known and followed in order to turn them into 22 human account." It is through the inductive method that the Empir­ icist arrives at the highest level of knowledge— theoretical know­ ledge, in which understanding of countless physical facts, observa­ tions and stimuli of the real world are organized and systematized into generalized laws and principles that represent the way nature ultimately behaves.

Curricular Aims, Content and Instructional Method

Aims. For the Rationalist, the primary aim of schooling consists of a striving for an ideal, a unity with the Absolute Mind, which may never be fully realized. For the Empiricist, schooling— reflecting the main thrust of the epistemological enterprise itself— is primar­ ily concerned with bringing the learner into harmony with the existing physical and social world a s i t is. Schooling aims at helping the learner adjust to his physical and social environment, so that he may live a good life, one that is in tune with the overarching order of natural law. The learner must gain basic knowledge, under­ standings and skills in order to deal effectively and successfully with the world a s i t is. This calls for a corresponding aim in the accumulation and preservation of knowledge. Wild summarizes the Empiricist educational aims in this way:

. . . to discern the truth about things as they really are and to extend and integrate such truth as is known; to gain such practical knowledge of life in general and of professional functions in particular, as can be

22 Morris and Pai, Philosophy and the American School, p. 133. 69 23 theoretically grounded and justified.

Content. Since the primary purpose of schooling is to help the pupil to get to know the world as it really exists, such knowledge cannot be assimilated haphazardly; it must be presented to the pupil in an orderly fashion, through the study of organized subject matter. The empiricist, we recall, holds to the principle of correspondence as the standard of truth. Therefore, the subject matter of the curricu­ lum is the subject matter of the real world, taught in such a way as to show the orderliness underlying the universe. In this way, it could be argued that the clusters of related concepts and generaliza­ tions of each subject or discipline correspond with (or explain) the patterns of structure and regularities in the real world, 24 which these concepts and generalizations represent. Similarly, in the same sense that a number of related concepts in a given disci­ pline share a common structure, so, too, "the objects that comprise reality can be classified on the basis of their structured similari- .,25 txes.

For the Empiricist, the starting point in curriculum content is the study of nature and the gathering of precise facts, and gradually expanding to the classification and organization of facts,

23 Wild, "Education in Human Society: A Realistic View," p. 31. 24 This would suggest that the natural sciences are the primary material of the curriculum in which the correspondence principle comes to bear. 25 Gerald Lee Gutek, Philosophical Alternatives in Education (Co­ lumbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1974), p. 36. 70 observations and understandings. The highest mode of such knowledge will be expressed in symbolic systems (such as mathematics), since they are useful instruments in describing the encompassing reality of the universe. However, the Empiricist emphasizes that symbols have no existence on their own— only as human instruments to get a physi­ cal reality. Therefore, inasmuch as possible, the curriculum should be organized around "sensate" or enactive learning; students should 26 have direct experience with what the symbols stand for.

In the organization of content, the Empiricist shares the Ration­ alist pedagogic concern that the ordering of subject matter should reflect the readiness of the learner to absorb and assimilate a given body of facts, relationships and generalizations. However, some im­ portant distinctions between the Rationalist and Empiricist may be identified in the selection of content for the social sciences. For example, in the Empiricist tradition historical content will be pre­ sented in a manner similar to the natural sciences; that is, the chronological presentation of events illustrating cause-and-effect relationships and the underlying regularities of human nature. To the Rationalist, human history is seen as "the arena for the realiza- 27 tion of ideas with a cosmic plan emanating from the Absolute Mind."

— In the natural sciences, the obvious reference is made to "lab experience." But there are ample opportunities for direct contact with other individuals and institutions within the community with re­ ference to the humanities and social sciences. 27 Gutek, Philosophical Alternatives in Education, p. 18. 71

Method. Empiricist method will attempt to maximize direct sensory contact of students with the real world. These will include class demonstrations and "object lessons," field trips, and the utilization of audio-visual aids as means of simulating reality. In the acquisi­ tion of psycho-motor skills, the Empiricist will unhesitatingly em­ brace habituation, drill, and practice in his methodology. In the cognitive area, the teacher will utilize the inductive method and will progress from the absorption and assimilation of sense data to the formulation of general laws.

As to the use of problem solving. Breed proposes a synthesis in which,

These interests (of children), furnish only the point of departure in which the teacher functions as an intelligent guide who directs the process of learning in light of both the present status of the learner and the important ends to be achieved.28

Breed brushes off objections by the instrumentalists to problem solv­ ing situations that are created by the teacher, and in which the out­ come or solution is fixed in advance: "Man proposes, but nature 29 disposes. The child projects, but the teacher directs."

Finally, in perceiving the act of knowing as a direct response of the individual organism to external objects, and in denying any role to intervening mental processes, the Empiricist has projected the significance of the principle of causation for the educative

__ Frederick S. Breed, "Education and the Realist Outlook," in Philosophies of Education, National Society for the Study of Educa­ tion, 41st Yearbook, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), p. 125. 29 Ibid., p. 126. 72 process. Behaviorism has developed as an outgrowth of the principle of causation, which is a central element in a Stimulus-Response-

Reinforcement pedagogy, and in which knowledge is perceived as a body of specific responses to external stimuli. Behaviorism posits that, as part of nature, which is perceived as a mechanistic entity governed primarily by cause-and-effeet relationships, man's every thought or action has a cause; every human response has a causal stimulus in the external environment. Succinctly stated, behavioristic methodology 30 may be epxressed by the following three propositions:

(1) Human character and conduct are totally the product of experience.

(2) By controlling and specifying the experiential environ­ ment of the child, i.e., providing him with proper reinforcement, we may predict and specify his learning outcomes.

(3) Educational methodology is concerned with so arrang­ ing the pupil's environment that it will produce desirable responses in the learner (i.e., learning outcomes).

It will now be in order to examine Rationalist and Empiricist models for curriculum construction. As examplars of these two tra­ ditions, I have chosen, respectively, Arthur King and John A. Brow- 31 32 nell, and Franklin Bobbitt.

3 0 B. F. Skinner, About Behaviorism (New York: Vintage Books, 19 74) ,

3 1 Arthur King and John A. Brownell, The Curriculum and the Disci­ plines of Knowledge (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966).

3 2 Franklin Bobbitt, How to Make a Curriculum (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1924). 73

Rational Curriculum Theorizing

King and Brownell state that the primary purpose of schooling, as distinct from education, is the intellectual development of man.

The notion that the school ought to educate the "whole" child is re­ jected since schooling is not the "whole" of education. Four "per­ ennial claims" that have been made on the curriculum, and which have their origin in different perspectives on man, are examined by the authors and are subsequently rejected: (1) the claim for Occupation­ al Man, (2) the claim for Political Man, (3) the claim for Social 33 Man, and (4) the claim for Religious Man. The claim for Intellec­ tual Man receives the authors' priority because it gives the most reasonable assurance of fulfilling man's essential nature:

Man is a symbolizing animal . . . who reasons, who re­ flects, remembers, imagines, creates, and seeks to con­ trol his acts with ethical considerations.34

Whereas each of the four "perennial claims" focuses on a parti­ cular perspective on man, the development of the intellect, the authors argue, augments man's potential in the occupational, politi­ cal, social and religious realms. Above all, and here King and

Brownell's position differs significantly from that held by Bobbitt, the ultimate end of schooling is not to be discovered in the actual pursuits of man or of society. The claim for the priority of the intellect in the curriculum holds to a,

3 3 King and Brownell, The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Know­ ledge, pp. 1-25.

34Ibid., pp. 20, 26. 74

. . . view of man which looks beyond what man i s , and sees him as he might be. Society is not the ultimate end of man. Human institutions ought to serve ends beyond themselves.35

Rather than aiming for the attainment of particularized objec­ tives that terminate in identifiable activities, schooling is con­ cerned with the development of symbolic capacities and the "self-correcting critical role of intelligence with respect 36 to all other aspects of life." The vehicle for fulfilling the claim for intellectual man is the curriculum of a "general liberal education," which has two important qualities: (1) it has the widest applicability, and (2) it provides a basis for the growth and expan­ sion of knowledge.3^

But what shall be the sources of the curriculum for a general liberal education? The authors reject the conventional reference to subject matter as signifying "atomistic, unrelated factual material 38 which has been presented . . . or accumulated as a potpouri." In­ stead, the authors insist, the disciplines of knowledge can serve as the only foundation for a curriculum which emphasizes intellectual values. In making this claim, King and Brownell represent a tradition in curriculum theorizing of which Jerome S. Bruner is an important member. As articulated by Bruner, the idea of "the structure of the disciplines" emphasizes inquiry and discovery, or "learning how to

35Ibid., p. 27.

36Ibid., p. 119.

3^Ibid., p. 48.

38Ibid., p. 94. 75

learn," within each discipline; and it asserts that understanding

structures and fundamental principles of a discipline will lead to 39 transfer— the application of knowledge to new situations. King and

Brownell augment their claim with the following two definitions:

(1) Intellect is defined as "the schooled capacity for knowing accomplished through the mastery of symbolic systems."

(2) The disciplines of knowledge are defined as "the processes and products of man's symbolic efforts to make his experience with the world intelligible."^

Put in other words, the disciplines of knowledge are both the means and ends of man's intellectual activity. This prepares the ground­ work for linking the authors' proposed theory of the curriculum with

their theory of the nature of the world of knowledge.

First, the authors offer their provacative theory model of the disciplines of knowledge. A discipline is not comprised of a fixed

area of study but, metaphorically, of "a community of scholars who

share a domain of intellectual inquiry, or confine their inquiry to 41 the boundaries of established disciplines.

In their next step, the authors' theory of the disciplines of knowledge as "communities of discourse" becomes the model for a

theory of the curriculum which gives primacy to the claim of the in­

tellect. That is, the school curriculum is not comprised of "sub­ jects" or "content areas." Instead, "the school is a microcosm of

39 Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (New York: Vintage Books, 1960), pp. 5, ff.

40Ibid., p. 37.

41Ibid., pp. 94-95. 76 the world of knowledge . . . and the communities of discourse per se are i n the school . . . consisting of the teacher, who is a veter­ an of encounters within the communities of discourse . . . and the student, who is immature but capable of virtually unlimited develop- ment.*. ..42

Accordingly, the curriculum of a general liberal education con­ sists of a planned series of encounters which "bring the student per­ sonally into association with a variety of areas of important thought and discourse . . . and e n g a g e the student in judgment 43 and analys is ." The curriculum is broken down into courses which are planned encounters with a particular discipline and will embody a plan for knowing . . . according to some strategy of know­ ing which characterize the experienced practitioners (i.e., the mode 44 of inquiry used by discipline scholars). However, and this point is most significant for instruction, the authors emphasize that such a course is "expressly incomplete without the teacher and student, without their active involvement in the dialog of discovery which 45 characterizes all of the practitioners of the discipline."

In addition to the dynamic nature of the disciplines as living communities engaged in disciplined inquiry or discourse, their

42 Ibid., p. 121. The authors add that each community of discourse will include other representatives of the discipline, in addition to the teacher, as well as mechanical aids.

43_,Ibid. . j 44 Ibid., p. 122.

45Ibid., p. 123. 77 diversity and plurality is equally emphasized. King and Brownell reject the notion of "the unity of knowledge," since it fails to account for the distinctive aspects of each of the disciplines and their respective modes of inquiry. They insist on the autonomy and diversity of the disciplines and deny the need for synthesizing knowledge and for developing interdisciplinary approaches in cur­ riculum construction. Instead, King and Brownell advocate a "separ­ ate discipline" approach in which the subjects of the curriculum are 46 directly related to the categories of knowledge. As it will be shown in Chapter 5, this assertion has significant implications for curriculum construction.

Scientific Curriculum-Making

Bobbitt was one of the early educators who attempted to apply empirical methods to curriculum-making. He acknowledges that the first step in curriculum construction is the formulation of a concep­ tion of the educational enterprise: a point of view regarding the unique function of the school. The nature of such a conception sub­ sequently determines the degree to which curricular practices are, in fact, derived from stated aims. Bobbitt's own point of view is stated unequivocally:

Education is primarily for adult life, not for child life. Its functional purpose is to prepare for the fifty years of adulthood, not for the twenty years of childhood and youth. ^

46Ibid., pp. 60-63. 47 Bobbitt, How Jx> Make ja Curriculum, p. 8. 78

According to Bobbitt's conception, schooling prepares children to assume their roles as productive adult citizens. Such a concep­ tion focuses on tasks and activities to be performed rather than on the mastery of sub.ject matter. Bobbitt believes that the application of scientific procedures and tools is useful in identifying the sig­ nificant areas of life activities for which the schools are responsi­ ble, and in deriving from them objectives to guide educational practice.

Bobbitt's preference for the Empirical method is stated at the outset. He rejects the traditional tendency of leaving "difficult professional problems . . . in the form of a question . . . The edu­ cational practitioner cannot act on the basis of questions . . . A tentative solution on the basis of the best evidence available is 48 better than a question" . . . Nor, contends Bobbitt, can we be content with large undefined purposes; the scientific approach re­ quires exactness and particularity. In order to arrive at a high degree of specificity in the formulation of desirable learning out­ comes, Bobbitt applies the production model from the world of busi­ ness and industry. Just like any other industrial product, argues

Bobbitt, educational outcomes must meet definite standards and speci­ fications with measurement scales making it possible to evaluate results in quantitative terms. In such a model, educational objec­ tives will consist of lists of minute specifications in performance terms, and the curriculum will comprise the material by which the

48 Ibid., p. 8, ff. 79 educational product (objective) can be most effectively manufactured.

The method employed to discover educational objectives is des- 49 cribed by Bobbitt as "activity-analysis." Its purpose is to iden­ tify the activities that make up the lives of successful or skilled individuals, along with the personal qualities necessary for their performance. The difference between what these competent adults do, and what children are able to do, constitutes the "gap" to be reduced through curriculum experiences.

The first step in activity-analysis is to separate and classify the broad range of human experience into major fields. To accomplish I this task, Bobbitt surveyed 2,700 "cultivated and well-trained adults.From their responses, Bobbitt identified ten major fields of experiences, the first nine of which were within the domain of the school:^ (1) language activities, (2) health activities, (3) citizenship activities, (4) general social activities, (5) keeping oneself mentally fit, (6) spare-time activities, (7) religious activi­ ties, (8) parental activities, (9) unspecialized or non-vocational activities, and (10) the labor of one's calling.

The second step calls for analyzing the experiences in the major fields and reducing them into smaller and smaller units until the

49 Ibid., p. 8, ff.

50Ibid., p. 10.

~^Ibid., p. 8-9. 80 52 specific activities to be performed are identified. The third step is to derive the objectives which are, in effect, statements of the abilities required to perform these activities. Bobbitt himself breaks down the nine major fields into hundreds of activities, but suggests that they are merely illustrative, and may be broken down even further into small and more numerous units by local curriculum workers and groups.33

Bobbitt maintains the distinction between "general education," i.e., the abilities enumerated in the nine fields, and "specialized education." The former is defined as "the abilities that are of gen- 54 eral need, whatever be one's occupation or station in life;" the latter refers to specialized abilities that are the objectives of occupational education, "which are drawn up strictly with a view to 55 the vocations, and in no degree for general training purposes."

Having thus discovered the educational objectives, empirical method guides the selection and organization of content, as well as instructional method. The starting point is "the world a s i t i s." Only content that corresponds with the real world— that is, it

"matches" with the abilities of analyzed life activities— is included.

Likewise, direct observation of and participation in the various _ For example, the "ability to use language in all ways required for proper participation in community life" (p. 11) is broken down to twelve more specific components (p. 30).

53Ibid., p. 38.

3^Ibid., p . 66.

55Ibid., p. 42. 81 facets of community and institutional life, mostly outside of the school plant, constitute important elements in Bobbitt's instruction­ al method: "It is folly to develop an understanding of the world without abundant and direct observation of the world as is and where xt• «. xs. • if56

The Empiricist strain that pervades Bobbitt's curriculum-making is also manifested in that scientific procedures and tools, such as surveying, observation, analysis, classification, and quantification, are utilized in discovering "the world as it is."

Summary and Review

At this point it will be useful to summarize the main epistemo- logical assumptions of the Empiricist and Rationalist traditions, rel­ ative to their respective contributions in guiding educational prac­ tice. The comparative treatment will include reference to the theory models proposed by Bobbitt and by King and Brownell, and will be for illustrative purposes.

While Rationalist epistemology focuses on the nature of ultimate reality and the discovery of pre-existing absolute truth, Empiricism is concerned with the real world as it is experienced by man. The

Empiricist constructs probable knowledge from his sensations, or their associations, and from direct observations of the objects in the en­ vironment; the Rationalist's certainty of knowledge is derived from primary axioms by reason and deductive logic. However, both the

~^I b i d ., p. 47. 82

Empiricist and Rationalist agree there is an objective body of real­ ity and truth that exists independent of the knower.

For King and Brownell, the ultimate goal of schooling is the perfection of man's intellect and his symbolizing powers. Getting to know ultimate reality and truth consists of an approximation of, or a progression toward, the Absolute Mind. But it may never be fully attained. Similarly, schooling is essentially a process of self- realization, through the development of man's "symbolic capaci­ ties ," gradually closing the gap between the learner's ideas of reality and ultimate truth. Consequently, the educational enterprise is about what man might be, or ought to be. For the Em­ piricist, knowing reality consists of consummate acts of discovering the objects, facts and regularities of the real world. In Bobbitt's view, there is an "o u g h t" orientation as well, i.e., schooling as "preparation for adult life." However, Bobbitt's conception of the "ought" is arrived at by observing the "is," i.e., the analyzed life activities of "cultivated and successful" adults.

In Bobbitt's scientific curriculum-making, content consists of atomistic entities having a high degree of correspondence with the real world: they are drawn directly from observed activities and the abilities necessary to perform them. But in King and Brow­ nell's model, the curriculum consists of substantive structures and modes of inquiry drawn from the disciplines of knowledge. The test of disciplined knowledge is coherence: (1) that is, its body of interrelated ideas and concepts share a common structure and 83 is free of internal contradictions, and (2) its mode of inquiry gen­ erates new knowledge that is consistent with the established disci­ pline .

As to method, the Empiricist's main concern is with giving the learner maximum exposure to the world "as it is," suggesting a passive conception of learning. In applying the "factory model" to education, Bobbitt has introduced the principle of causation to the educational enterprise, whereby a specified "output" (i.e., learning outcomes) is predicated from prescribed input (i.e., the content and method of instruction). Thus, the behaviorist version in the Empir­ icist tradition, in formulating its Stimulus-Response-Reinforcement pedagogy, has further reduced the educational enterprise to a mechan­ ical process of habit-formation. However, in Rationalist tradition the self is central to the act of knowing; whatever is derived from the objective world has to be derived by the individual and organized by him. In their model, King and Brownell develop further the con­ cept of the self in the act of disciplined inquiry. They define a

"discipline" as "a community of discourse" which is i n the school, and the curriculum as a "series of encounters" in which students, as well as teachers, participate with their judgments, interpretations and expansion of meaning. It should be added that the Rationalist would welcome any method that promotes active involvement on the part of the learner, including sensative experiences and inductive logic, as points of departure. 84

Following is a brief summary of the main strengths and weak­ nesses that I identify in the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions.

These will serve.as tentative points of departure for the proposed development of a synthesis in Chapter 5.

In its "ought" conception of the unique function of schooling, the Rationalist satisfactorily addresses the moral dimension of the educational enterprise, which is about what man might be, or even should be. On the other hand, in focusing its epistemology on the discovery of ultimate reality and truth, and on the gradual approxi­ mation of the "Absolute Mind," Rationalism fails to provide the cur­ riculum worker with an adequate grasp or "hold" on the world of knowledge. The Empiricist focus on the facts, objects and regulari­ ties in the real world provides the curriculum worker with useful and effective points of departure. But its conception of the "world as it is," governed by mechanical laws, fails to respond to the moral imperative of what ought to be in the affairs of man. This, of course, is even more so in the S-R pedagogy of the bahaviorist. And as Bode justifiably points out, Bobbitt's "activity-analysis" is an effective method in describing what man has already chosen to do; it does not provide guidance or direction as to what man ought to be doing.a • 57

Finally, King and Brownell's "separate discipline" approach raises the question whether it meets the authors' own requirement

_ Boyd H. Bode, Modern Educational Theories (New York: The Mac­ Millan Co., 1930), p. 108. 85 that "widest applicability" is an essential quality of a general- 58 liberal education. Could we say with a degree of plausibility that knowledge derived from each of the separate disciplines, and its own mode of inquiry, has the "widest applicability" to the immature learner? The authors claim that application of knowledge is a natur­ al outgrowth of discovery and generalizing. But this is not entirely convincing.

The epistemological assertions of the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions, as well as their implications for curriculum and instruc­ tion, have been articulated in this chapter. The second foundational source, cultural anthropology, will be examined in Chapter 4.

__ King and Brownell, The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Know­ ledge, p. 26. CHAPTER IV

ANTHROPOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

OF JEWISH EDUCATION

Jewish Culture and Education in Ancient Israel

As an instrument of cultural transmission, Jewish schooling is

to be viewed in the context of the broader socio-cultural settings of which it has been a part. Indeed, the form and content of Jewish

schooling reflect a process of adjustment to changing conditions in

the physical and socio-cultural environment of the Jewish group.

In ancient Israel, "The communal egalitarianism of the Bible re­

quired a level of religious and civic participation possible only with a literate citizenry."^ Initially, the family provided a natural

setting where the ideals of Mosaic Law were put into practice and where the young participated intelligently in festivals and rituals.

During the first century, a system of formal elementary education was

established, and the responsibility for educating the young shifted

^Solon T. Kimball, Culture and the Educative Process (New York: Teachers College Press, 1974), p. 13.

86 87 2 from the family to the community. Still, Jewish schooling remained

life-oriented, uniting learning with practice. Compared with early

Athenian education, which aimed primarily at the development of man's

mental and reflective faculties, Jewish schooling was integrated with

3 life activities. "Knowledge of the Law and observance of it were 4 held to be of equal importance." Eby quotes the Jewish historian,

Josephos, who, during the first century, described the characteristic

essence of Jewish education:

The Athenians . . . made laws . . ., but had no regard to exercising them in practice. But our legislator (Moses) very carefully joined these two methods of instruction together: for he neither left these practical exercises to go without verbal instruction, nor did he permit the learning of the law to proceed without the exercise for practice. -*

The content of the curriculum is indicative of how Jewish schooling was closely related to life. The Bible remained the main focus of

2 Fletcher H. Swift, Education in Ancient Israel (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co., 1919), p. 92. See also Nathan Drazin, History of Jewish Education from 515 B-C.-E.* J^o 220 _C.IS. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1940), p. 146; and Nathan Morris, The Jewish School (New York: The Jewish Education Committee Press, 1964), pp. 19-23. 3 E. H. Wilds and K. V. Lottich, The Foundations of Modern Educa­ tion (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970), p. 93.

^Julius Mailer, "The Role of Education in Jewish History," in The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, Vol. II, edited by Louis Finkelstein (New York: Harper Publishers, 1960), p. 1236.

^F. Eby and C. R. Arrowood, The History and Philosophy of Educa­ tion: Ancient and Medieval (New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1946), p. 152. instruction, following mastery of basic reading skills. Selections chosen for class instruction followed the weekly cycle of the public reading in the synagogue. Having learned to read the weekly scrip­ ture selection with comprehension, the children were enabled to par- 7 ticipate intelligently in synagogue services with their families.

In this way, Jewish schooling was oriented towards a child's active participation in a significant aspect of the group's culture. Read- g ing and arithmetic were also taught in calculating the tithe.

Jewish Schooling as an Instrument for Minority-Group Survival

A change occurred in the Jewish conception of schooling after

9 the Roman conquest of Judea in the year 66 C.E., and, particularly, after the disastrous collapse of the Jewish revolt against Rome in the year 135 C.E. The resentment toward the Hellenistic world sur­ rounding the Jewish group resulted in a ban against the study of

"Greek Wisdom." In coming years,

The study of Torah . . . was to take the place of state and temple, to provide the only outlet for the people's religious, social and cultural life . . . Education as a whole grew more and more exclusive in character until it became identified with the study of Torah alone.10

^Eliezer Ebner, Elementary Education in Ancient Israel (New York Bloch Publishing Co., 1956), p. 20.

7Ibid., p. 77. g Eby and Arrowood, The History and Philosophy of Education, p. 146. 9 These abbreviations stand for Common Era. 10 Morris, The Jewish School, p. 76. 89

Following the loss of its independent political institutions,

the Jewish group became widely dispersed throughout the western world and, at the same time, more isolated from the surrounding en­ vironment. With few exceptions, similar conditions that prevailed

for centuries of self-containment, isolation and non-involvement in

outside trends resulted in similar educational practices. Education became an instrument for preserving the Jewish group as a separate

cultural entity in an unfriendly world. In response to exclusion and persecution, the Jewish school concentrated on literary knowledge,

as revealed in the classical Hebraic texts: Bible, and Talmud.

Through the study of these texts, the Jewish group discovered the joy of identification with its own heritage and history. Wirth char­ acterizes the medieval Jewish curriculum as one that was designed

"to educate men for an order which was the product of a romantic leap

into an imaginary past and a utopian future."^ The end-product of

this educational system was a scholar "who prided himself on his im- 12 practicality," and for whom the realities of social life fed on

traditional Jewish notions which viewed the process of study as a lifelong activity that does not necessarily aim at any immediate

■^Louis Wirth, "Education for Survival: The Jews," American Jour­ nal of Sociology 48:6 (May, 1943), p. 684.

^Ibid., p. 688. 90 13 utilitarian end. A commitment to the study of the Jewish literary heritage was the ultimate goal of schooling, rather than a mastery 14 of a given body of knowledge.

Jewish educational proactices in Italy and Arab Spain, between the 10th and 11th centuries, reflected a more open socio-cultural en- virnoment. Jewish participation in the life of general society was expressed in a broad-based curriculum which included: Bible, Hebrew poetry, Talmud, philosophy, mathematics and natural sciences.^

However, Jewish schooling in general remained unchanged until the culmination of the Enlightenment. In eastern Europe, in particular, emancipation has been delayed. Jews lived in self-contained communi­ ties which had little contact with outside interests. Government schools were either closed to Jews or were boycotted by them. To meet the need of an inward-looking community, the Jewish curriculum consisted primarily of basic reading skills, and the translation and explication of selections from the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible). The Yeshiva or the upper school, emphasized a

13 Mark Zborowsky, "The Place of Book Learning in Traditional Jew­ ish Culture," in Childhood in Contemporary Culture, edited by Margaret Mead, et. al. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 131. Zborowsky quotes numerous Jewish sources attesting to the value of learning. For example: "Study is the duty, privilege, and joy of the Jew, young and old, rich and poor . . . A Jew without learning is incomplete. The learned man is the pride of his family and of his community." Zborowsky concludes: "Learning was the primary basis for social stratification, at least in principle." (pp. 118-120). 14 Wirth, "Education for Survival: The Jews," p. 688. 15 Israel Abrahams, Jewish Life in The Middle Ages (New York: Meridian Books, Inc., 1958), p. 365. 91 knowledge of the Talmud and its commentaries.

European Enlightenment and Jewish Education

The first major challenge to the long-held view that Torah and

Talmud study have an exclusive claim on the Jewish curriculum came from the Jewish Enlightenment Movement. Known in its Hebrew term as

Haskalah, the movement began within Jewish society in Germany during the latter part of the 18th century. Spreading to Russia and other parts of eastern Europe during the 19th century, the Movement advo­ cated that secular studies should be recognized as a legitimate part 17 of Jewish schooling. The movement affected Jewish educational thought and practices in several respects: (1) the cultivation of a sense of "a national Jewish culture" was perceived as a desirable outcome for Jewish schooling; (2) the revival of the Hebrew language resulted in its becoming a major component in the school curriculum; and (3) the place of the Bible in the curriculum was justified not only as a religious code regulating everyday life, but primarily as a source for discovering one's cultural heritage and the group's 18 collective history. During the second half of the 19th century, followers of the Haskalah Movement established schools "with a core

■^Simon Greenberg, "Jewish Educational Institutions," in The Jews: Their History, Culture, and Religion, Vol. II, edited by Louis Fin- kelstein (New York: Harper Publishers, 1960), pp. 1263-1264. 17 Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1972), Vol. 7, p. 1433.

Greenberg, "Jewish Educational Institutions," p. 1265. 92 of Jewish instruction— Hebrew classical and modern, Bible, and Jew- 19 ish history." In varying degrees of emphasis, this "core" was destined to become the model for the Jewish school curriculum in

America in the 20th century.

Jewish Education and Accomodation to America

As it was shown in Chapter 1, contemporary Jewish schooling in

America is largely the result of the transplantation and adaptation of educational practices which prevailed in eastern Europe during the last decades of the 19th century. Accordingly, it is appropriate at this point to consider Jewish educational development in America within the context of American culture.

Upon their arrival in America, the masses of Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe were faced with a challenge unlike that faced by the Jewish group in the past. Instead of the self-contained and cohesive communities of eastern Europe, Jewish association in the secular and open American society was voluntary. In contrast to their isolation from the mainstream of eastern European life, the

Jewish immigrants felt that the American civilization was the chief force in their daily existence. The child of the Jewish immigrant came from a background of discrimination and bigotry to a public school which, relatively speaking, offered acceptance and equality.

19 Isaac Berkson, "Jewish Education— Achievements and Needs, in The American Jew: A Composite Portrait, edited by Oscar Janowsky (Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1954), p. 63. 93

Above all, the Jewish immigrants took full advantage of the oppor- 20 tunities for upward mobility that America offered.

With their successful economic integration and attainment of middle class status, the Jewish immigrants were pulled by two oppos­ ing forces: a socio-economically motivated drift toward assimilation, on the one hand, and a desire for the preservation of group distinc­ tiveness and behavior, on the other. Although Jewishness occupied, again, relatively speaking, an insignificant life-space for the major­ ity of first generation immigrants, they nevertheless wished to do something that would preserve their children's Jewishness. The im­ migrants achieved their accomodation to America by their wholehearted acceptance of the public school, while relegating the Jewish educa- 21 tion of their children to a supplementary status. Within this accomodation, the supplementary school was conceived as "both Ameri­ can— in that it conformed to the limitation of the environment (i.e., meeting after public school hours), and simultaneously Jewish— in 22 that it would have continuity with the past." Thus, the supplemen­ tary form of Jewish schooling constituted a radical break with the

20 An 1890 survey of three predominantly Jewish districts in New York's eastside indicated that most of the immigrants were semi­ skilled workers, shopkeepers, and peddlers. One generation later, most of them moved into middle class ranks. Salo Baron, Steeled by Adversity (Phila." The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1971), p. 306. 21 The vast majority of immigrants believed that sending their children to a Jewish Day School would constitute disloyalty to Ameri­ ca. Marshall Sklare, America's Jews (New York: Randon House, 1971), p . 21.

22Ibid,, p. 159. 94 past, while the transplanted text-centered curriculum was based on the traditional conception of the Jewish school as an instrument for the transmission of knowledge. A nationwide survey completed in 1959 indicated a prevailing conception held both by educators and parents that the primary function of the Jewish school is the transmission of 23 knowledge.

While the traditional goal of Jewish schooling was retained, the process of accomodation resulted in a significant change in Jewish life. First, in an open-society marked by secularism, practicality and rapid socio-economic mobility, study of the literary heritage for 2 A its own sake lost its significance. In America, "intellectual ac- 25 tivity is used to earn money in a honorific way." In effect, the immigrants' orientation to Jewish and secular learning was inverted:

"Secular education assumed the place that traditional Jewish learning had occupied . . . (and) Jewish learning was shifted to the position 26 formerly assigned to secular education." Second, the Jewish child

23 Alexander Dushkin and Uriah Engelman, Jewish Education in the United States (New York: American Association for Jewish Education, 1959), p. 26. 24 Norman Lamm expresses the contemporary Orthodox position on the ideal of Jewish learning: "The goal of all Jewish education must be the . . . study of Torah . . . for its own sake. Our ultimate aim must be to develop students who will study of their own accord and out of selfless motivation." "An Orthodox Perspective of Jewish Edu­ cation and Jewish Identity," in Determining the Goals of Jewish Educa­ tion (New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1977), p. 25. 25 Zborowsky, "The Place of Book Learning in Traditional Jewish Culture," p. 140. 26 Sklare, America's Jews, p. 158. 95 was no longer functioning in a distinctly Jewish milieu, as was the case in Europe. Instead, the Jewish child's primary learning exper- 27 lence and life-space was in the American culture. Third, and per­ haps most significantly, rapid socio-economic mobility resulted in the secularization of the Jewish home and the weakening of the influ­ ence of the family as a primary educating agent for cultural conti­ nuity. The cumulative effect of these changes resulted in a growing discontinuity between the content of Jewish schooling and the life experiences of Jewish youth in America. According to sociologist

Sklare:

The secularim and modernism of this culture serve to alienate . . . (the child) from the Biblical and Talmud- ical world. Consequently, the texts do not 'speak to him.'^8

The discontinuous relationship between the Jewish curriculum and the cnild's surrounding environment has contributed to the serious gap between the perceived goal of the Jewish school as transmitter of knowledge, and its actual level of achievement. As Dushkin and

Engelman conclude in their 1959 survey: "American Jewish schooling 29 is like a shallow river, a mile long and an inch deep."

27 See Baron, Steeled By Adversity, p. 524: "The average American Jewish youth will very likely know more about Lincoln and Shakespeare than about Rabbi Akiba (a famous Talmudical Scholar) or Maimonides (a medieval philosopher) . . . Two or three generations ago the opposite was true." 28 Sklare, America's Jews, p. 160. 29 Dushkin and Engelman, Jewish Education in the United States, p. 222. 96

The Rise of Ethnic Identity Within Jewish Group Life in America

The first generation of Jewish immigrants made their accomoda­ tion to America by relegating Jewish education, and with it Jewish culture, to a secondary position. Through the process of accultura­ tion, the children of these immigrants successfully integrated into the political, economic and social mainstream of American life. They had no desire to maintain a continuity with their cultural heritage.

However, a significant change occurred when the children of the third-generation American Jews reached school age. Confirming "Han- 30 sen's Law," which stipulated that the third generation immigrant identifies strongly with the ethnic culture that the second genera­ tion attempted to reject, parents of these children became conscious of a cultural void in their Jewish life. Being more sure of them­ selves as Americans, the third-generation Jews came to feel that their fathers misunderstood America; that while they acquired such cultural traits as are necessary for success in the broader society, they share a sense of identification with the Jewish group that is rooted in a common past and ancestry, and in a sense of belonging to the contem­ porary Jewish community.

According to sociologist Nathan Glazer, two developments occurred during the 1960's which raised ethnic consciousness among American

30 Quoted in William Newman, American Pluralism (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1973), p. 71. 97 31 Jews. First, the Six Day War of 1967 heightened feelings of

Jewish identification and contributed to the development of a sense of interdependence and common destiny shared by the entire Jewish group. In addition, the strong feelings that American Jews have for

Israel tend to obscure the distinction between the political and re­ ligious aspects of Jewish life, and between anti-semitism and anti- zionism. Second, the Black Revolution, which in the 1960's asserted separate ethnic claims for American blacks, aroused similar feelings among other minorities and made ethnic claims more respectable than 32 they were during the two decades following World War II.

While recognizing the need for the development of a sense of group-belongingness among their children, third-generation American

Jews looked around them and were shocked to discover a paucity of

Jewish culture in their own lives and in the life of the Jewish com­ munity. They questioned the meaning of their own identity, and they turned to the Jewish school to fill the vacuum. Consequently, the need to foster "identity" among Jewish youth became a rallying cry for both parents and Jewish educators. Charles Silberman observes: 33 "My children, their generation . . . ask: Why should I be Jewish?"

_ Nathan Glazer, "The Social Background of American Jewish Educa­ tion," in The Social Context of Jewish Identity (New York: The Amer­ ican Jewish Committee, 1976), pp. 3-7. 32 Glazer points out that during these two decades membership in the Jewish group was associated primarily with religious (denomina­ tional) affiliation. 33 Charles Silberman, "Goals and Practice in Jewish Education: A Personal Perspective," in Determining the Goals of Jewish Education (New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1977), p. 19. 98

Sociologist Marshall Sklare states, "Parents want something new from 3 A Jewish education, such as identity ..." Arian reflects a view held by many Jewish educators in their perception of parental expec­ tations :

The vast majority of our parents are really saying that they don't care a hoot about Jewish knowledge, that what they want is for their child to feel pride in being a Jew . . . to have a clear feeling of Jewish i d e n t i t y . 35

In his address before the General Assembly of the Council of Jewish 36 Federations in 1973, Gerson Cohen echoes the new challenge facing

Jewish education. He asks:

Who are we? What are we? How shall we communicate the answers to our youth? Why has Jewish education failed to infuse so many of our youth with the motivating sense of Jewish identity?37

Sklare, America's Jews, p. 161. 35 Shrage Arian, "Structuring a New Bureau of Jewish Education for the 70's," Jewish Education 42:1 (Winter, 1972-3), p. 35. 3 6 Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 37 Gerson Cohen, Jewish Identity and Jewish Collective Will in America (New York: Council of Jewish Federations, 1973), p. 4. An­ other manifestation of the Jewish community's concern with the issue of identity may be seen in the series of conferences held between 1972 and 1976, which were sponsored by the American Jewish Committee. These conferences were based on especially commissioned papers that were prepared by leading scholars and academicians, and dealt with the relationship between Jewish education and Jewish identity. These papers were later published under the following titles: The Social Context of Jewish Education (1976); The Social Context of Jewish Identity (1976); Does Jewish Schooling Matter? (1977); Issues in Jew­ ish Identity and Jewish Education (1977); and Determing the Goals of Jewish Education (1977). It will now be in order to examine the relationship between Jewish schooling and Jewish identity, or in a broader context: the relation­ ship between schooling and minority-group membership.

Schooling and Minority-Group Membership

Fishman cites a comparative study of parochial and public high 38 school students that was conducted during the 1950's in the midwest.

The study revealed the preponderant influence of the home and neigh­ borhood over church and school in establishing interest and attitudes.

The reading interest of these students, for example, concentrated exclusively on sports, adventure and mystery stories. When asked to choose their favorite movie and T.V. stars, or when asked to name the greatest person in history, few differences were found between stu­ dents attending parochial schools and those attending public schools.

Fishman postulates:

It seems that the child arrives at the Catholic school with already established attitudes and needs in rela­ tion to the total American environment, and that the school itself is not strong enough to change these attitudes even when it regards them as desirable.^9

In their national study of Catholic schools based on survey research,

Greely and Rossi found that the most important factor in Catholic school attendance and adult religiousness was the religiousness of the

Joshua Fishman, "Childhood Indoctrination for Minority-Group Mem­ bership," DAEDALUS: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 90:2 (Spring, 1961), pp. 335-337.

39Ibid., p. 337. 100 40 family from which the respondents came. Greely and Rossi offer an alternative hypothesis: "That a strong religious atmosphere in the home environment . . . will predispose the child for the influence of the school.In two successive reviews of research bearing on the relationship between Jewish education and Jewish identification,

Sanua concludes that, "Religious education does not appear to con- 42 tribute significantly to the development of a Jewish ethos; and, ^ 3 "Jewish education has little influence over Jewish identity."

Weinburger reached a similar conclusion in his review of research on the effectiveness of Jewish schooling: "Findings indicate a high degree of congruence between the religious practices of parents and children. Children of religious Jews were found to be as observant 44 as their parents." A more recent study of American Jews, aged 25 and over, sought to analyze the role of Jewish schooling in terms of the overall process of Jewish identification in American society.

Bock found that "Jewish schooling is an important factor in this

40 Andrew Greely and Peter Rossi, The Education of Catholic Ameri­ cans (Chicago: Aldine Publishers, 1966), p. 43.

^Ibid., p. 47.

^Victor Sanua, "The Relationship Between Jewish Education and Jewish Identification: Review of Research," Jewish Education 35:1 (Fall, 1964), p. 48. 43 Victor Sanua, "The Jewish Adolescent: A Review of Empirical Research," Jewish Education 38:3 (June, 1968), p. 45.

^Paul Weinburger, "The Effects of Jewish Education," in The Amer­ ican Jewish Year Book Vol. 72 (1971), p. 237. 101

process, but it is never the most important factor.

The aforementioned findings suggest that, in and by itself, Jew­

ish schooling does not lead to the fostering of Jewish identity. It

is more likely that Jewish schooling is a valid instrument for the

preservation and deepening of group identity among those who already

possess a sense of belonging or loyalty to the Jewish group.

The Meaning of Jewish Identity

A brief examination of the meaning of ethnic identity tends to

support the assertion that it encompasses cognitive and affective do­ mains, and is related to maintaining historical continuity of the

group. According to Gordon:

The sense of ethnicity survived as though there were some essential elements in man's nature that demanded it— something that compelled him to merge his lonely individual identity in some ancestral group . . . The sense of ethnic belonging has not perished, and 20th century urban man is closer to his stone-age ancestors than he knows.^6

Berkson adds a dimension of social interaction: "Man is not only a

social creature, he is a communal creature. This implies belonging 47 as well as associating.11 The sociologist, Sklare, offers the

view that ethnic identity results from man's need to protect himself

45 Geoffrey Bock, The Social Context of Jewish Education: A Liter­ ature Review (New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1976), p. 4. 46 Milton Gordon, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origins (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 25. 47 Isaac B. Berkson, The Ideal and The Community: A Philosophy of Education (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958), p. 192. 102 48 from the impersonality and alienation of contemporary life. The

Israeli sociologist, Simon Herman, defines the content of Jewish iden­

tity as embracing membership in the Jewish group and an adoption of 49 its norms. Based on the foregoing definitions, it is posited that

ethnic identity is manifested by a sense of belonging to a historical

group, as well as by a sense of security and self-fulfillment derived

from participation in community life. The first quality involves an

intellectual understanding of the group's historical experience, while

the second includes personal involvement and social interaction with one's membership group. The challenge to the Jewish school to adopt

"group identity" as its goal, as an alternative to the transmission of knowledge, is therefore misleading. Identity is an indirect out­ come of cognitive and affective experiences, and of participation in the celebrations and obligations of one's community.

Another serious flaw in the argument to make "group identity" the goal of Jewish schooling is that it fails to address itself to the need for relating Jewish education to the general American cul­

ture. The holistic conception like that urged in anthropology posits that each cultural group exists as part of an interrelated whole. As

Simon Herman states: "A Jewish identity exists nowhere in isolation as a sole ethnic identity of an individual . . . The Jewish identity

_ Sklare, America s Jews, p. 32. 49 Simon Herman, Jewish Identity: A Social Psychological Perspec­ tive (New York: Herzl Press, 1977), p. 39. 103 of an American Jew can only be understood in the context of his

Americanism.

Therefore, in and by itself, merely accepting "group identity" as the goal of Jewish schooling does not solve the basic problem of the need for integrating the Jewish curriculum with American life.

To develop an integrated conception of Jewish identity within the context of the American civilization, it is necessary to re-define the meaning of ethnicity in its American setting. The concept of cultural pluralism provides an underpinning for such a re-definition.

The Concept of Cultural Pluralism

Essentially, the concept of cultural pluralism rejects the "Amer­ icanization" and "melting pot" theories which sought the obliteration of all ethnic distinction. In his study, Gordon elucidates the "melt­ ing pot" concept as an "Anglo-conforming" theory, in that it demanded:

The complete renunciation of the immigrants' ancestral culture in favor of the behavior and values of the Anglo-Saxon core group; the "melting pot" idea envisaged a biological merger of the Anglo-Saxon peoples with other immigrant groups and a blending of their respective cul­ tures into a new indigenous American type."^

According to Newman, the doctrine of assimilation was the majority's way of perceiving the social changes which were caused by the vast immigration waves as . . ." temporary, lasting only until the recent

■^Herman, Jewish Identity: .A Social-Psychological Perspective, p. 56. 51 Gordon, Assimilation in American Life, p. 85. 104 52 immigrants had time to assimilate." On the other hand, the con­ cept of cultural pluralism asserts the value of the ethnic group as a permanent asset in American life. It claims that a culturally pluralistic society should facilitate the preservation of significant portions of a minority culture within the context of economic and political integration into the American mainstream.

Horace Kallen re-defines Americanism within the context of cul­ tural pluralism. The idea of the equality of man, as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, says Kallen, carries the implicit assumption that there are ostensible differences between human beings that are deeply imbedded in their nature and are 53 viewed as "equal." Perceiving government and the state as instru­ ments rather than as ends, the American ideal of democracy seeks to provide the conditions under which, "each of the ethnic and cultural groups might attain the cultural perfection that is proper to its kind.Furthermore, ethnic distinctiveness has been an integral part of the development of the American civilization. America is what it is, not primarily by reason of what the earlier immigrants 55 found here but by what they brought with them. Thus, each succeed­ ing wave of immigrants has enriched American culture. In Kallen's

52 Newman, American Pluralism, p. 65. 53 Horace M. Kallen, Culture and Democracy in The United States (New York: Boni and Liverright Publishers, 1924), pp. 49-52.

54Ibid., p. 121.

55Ibid., p. 140. 105

scheme, Americanism does not constitute the total blending of the

various ethnic groups into a new type, but a way in which the differ­

ent ethnic groups share aspects of their respective cultures. Wher­

ever there has been a breakdown of this process, it resulted from a 56 breakdown of tolerance and culture generally.

The Concept of Normative Culture

According to Bidney, the concept of integration suggests that

elements of a culture are functionally interdependent and have signi­

ficance only in relation to some dominant end or objective.'*'7 The

dominant end of American culture is identified by Bidney as being moralistic in nature. This moralistic orientation in American cul­

ture has its antecedents in the western tradition, and particularly

in Aristotle's teleological approach to the study of nature and cul­

ture, which places philosophical emphasis on ends or final causes.

"Moralistic culture is a culture organized and lived according to 58 some idea of the good for a given society." The American "idea of

the good" is enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and in the

Constitution: it is a society in which government and political power are not ends in themselves but are considered as instruments serving the common interests of citizens. Man is thought to have been created

56t,Ibid. . j

"^David Bidney, Theoretical Anthropology (New York: Schocken Books, 1970). The. following discussion of normative anthropology is based on Chapter 14. Page references are given for direct quotes.

CO Ibid., p. 407. 106 equal, with certain unalienable rights; and the function of govern­ ment is to safeguard those rights. In such a society, "emphasis is placed on the functional significance of traits and institutions for 59 the life of the individual and society." Although discrepencies exist between these ideals and actual social and political practices, the fact remains that "the ideal culture of the United States has been primarily a moral one, guided by fixed principles of right and ,.60 wrong.

Bidney*s normative anthropology is concerned with the cultural process that regulates life and directs behavior in the light of ideal norms. Bidney defines normative anthropology in this way:

. . . a normative anthropology would concern itself not only with what is the case actually and historically, but also with what may be and ought to be. With possible alternative ideals suggested by the facts of cultural ex­ perience and natural science, but not given actually in any cultural system. The objective of such a normative anthropology is not to discover laws of cultural develop­ ment, but rather to discover new cultural possibilities and potentialities which may be of practical significance in cultural invention and innovation.61

Normative anthropology focuses on the disparity between the ideal and the actual in order to discover what might or what should be. In this way, ideal norms are instruments of cultural permanence and change. This is manifested in the American Revolution and in the

~^Ibid., p. 408.

^Ibid., p. 411. A similar concept is expressed by A. F. Kerber and W. R. Smith in A Cultural Approach to Education (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1972), p. 359: "Culture may be viewed as a design for living, as that which is persistently sought by people, but never fully attained."

61Ibid., p. 417. 107 creation of the Federal system that followed. The idea that ultimate political power resides with the people was obviously not derived from actual conditions of Colonial life, but from the discrepancy be­ tween the ideals held by leaders of the Revolution and the practices of the British Crown. The Federal System was based on these ideals and constituted a radical change from pre-Revolution conditions.

However, certain elements from the British tradition which were in consonance with these ideals, such as the jury system, were retained.

Political and social reform is generated, at least in part, by per­ ceived discrepancies between ideals and reality.

A Framework for Synthesizing Jewish Schooling With The Normative Ideals of American Culture

The foregoing articulation of Bidney's concept of normative cul­ ture provides the framework for synthesizing the historical experience of the Jewish group with the American civilization. The Judaic tradition shares the basic ideals that are fundamental to normative

American culture; namely, the intrinsic value of man as an end in it­ self, and the conception of political power as an instrument in the fulfillment of human needs. However, the affinity between the Judaic tradition and basic American ideals does not imply total conformity to every aspect in American culture. On the contrary, Kallen's con­ cept of cultural pluralism allows for a constructive-critical attitude on the part of ethnic groups toward existing conditions. This allows the examining of socLi actualities in light of American ideals, as well as drawing on one's ethnic heritage, for new interpretations or 108 meanings that may be ascribed to these ideals. In this way, ethnic identity becomes a salient factor in the consciousness of members of the group, in that it makes significant claims on their lives as

American citizens.

Can we articulate anthropological foundations for the reconcep­ tualization of the body of knowledge within the Jewish curriculum, and identify specific points of convergence between the Jewish curriculum and the normative ideals of American culture? De Vos' definition of the content of ethnicity offers a basis for identifying major elements of contemporary Jewish culture:

An ethnic group is a self-perceived group of people who hold in common a set of traditions . . . (which) typically include religious beliefs and practices, language, a sense of historical continuity and a common ancestry or place of origin.^2

Applied to the context of the Jewish group, De Vos' definition sug­ gests the following elements in Jewish culture: (1) the Hebrew lan­ guage; (2) the tradition of Jewish beliefs and practices (ideas and action), which constitute a set of postulates and habits guiding in­ dividual and group behavior; (3) the common historical experience, providing temporal continuity and serving as a foundation for inter­ preting the present and projecting future potentialities; and (4) modern Israel, which provides a setting for temporal and spatial

- George De Vos and Lola Romanucci-Ross, Ethnic Identity: Cultur­ al Communities and Change (Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1975), p. 9. 109 63 continuity of Jewish culture. These elements of Jewish culture will serve as sources for the selection of content for the Jewish curricu­ lum. Points of convergence between the Jewish curriculum and the

American civilization will emerge through the integrative conceptual development of this curriculum with the major ideals of normative

American culture. This linkage will be delineated in further detail in Chapters 5 and 6.

Summary

In ancient Israel, where the Jewish group enjoyed political in­ dependence and Mosaic Law permeated all aspects of life, schooling was integrated with life activities and was aimed at putting ideals into practice. Following the loss of its political institutions and the subsequent physical dispersion of the Jewish group throughout the Western World, Jewish life became increasingly isolated from the surrounding environment. In an inward-looking Jewish community, teaching and learning became instruments for group survival by foster­ ing an identification with a glorious past and by feeding hopes for a utopian future. The broader socio-cultural setting in which Jewish schooling operated was highly diverse, but curriculum practices were essentially the same. With few exceptions, Jewish life was conducted in isolation from the dominant culture and curricular emphasis was placed on Hebraic-literary knowledge. Similar to the educational

Since language constitutes a distinct psycho-motor domain, this study does not deal with this particular aspect of Jewish culture as a component in the school curriculum. 110

system of the Amish In the United States, the Jewish community in

Europe was able, through community discipline and community support

of its members, to maintain cultural continuity and to remain a separ- 64 ate and distinct minority.

However, a text-centered curriculum that was appropriate for the

socio-cultural setting of eastern Europe does not meet the needs of

Jewish group life that is based on full participation in the open

American society. Nor does the transplanted Jewish curriculum, in which the return to Palestine was projected into a Utopian future,

adequately deal with the reality of Israel as a focal point in contem­

porary Jewish life.

Brameld points out that the concept of cultural integration is 65 to be considered as spatial order and temporal order. In the con­

text of spatial order, Jewish group life must find its meaning within

the American socio-cultural setting. The concept of temporal order

suggests that Jewish life in America lacks cultural significance when viewed in isolation from the collective past experience of the Jewish group and from life in modern Israel. To provide for cultural conti­ nuity, the Jewish school curriculum must translate the body of know­

ledge within the Jewish tradition so that the curriculum will yield

64 See John Hostetler and Gertrude Huntington, Children in Amish Society; Socialization and Community Education (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1971), p. 116 ff.

Theodore Brameld, "The Meeting of Educational and Anthropologi­ cal Theory," in Education and Culture, edited by George D. Spindler (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), p. 105. Ill ideas, concepts and generalizations that relate to significant issues in American society and to the cultural ties between the Jewish com­ munity in America and Jewish life in modern Israel.

KallenTs concept of cultural pluralism provides a rationale for ethnic continuity that is not merely survival-oriented, but is, in­ stead, a legitimate and dynamic source for the interpretation of

Americanism and American ideals.^ In this process, the ethnic heri­ tage is re-interpreted so that it yields meanings that apply to pre­ sent life situations.

To function effectively as a cultural instrument for spatial and temporal continuity, the Jewish curriculum needs to be grounded in an integrated theory of knowledge that will build on epistemological and anthropological foundations which were previously developed. Gener­ ating such a theory will be my task in Chapter 5.

—— For a discussion of ethnicity as a new social form, see Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963), p. 16. CHAPTER V

A PROPOSED THEORY OF THE JEWISH CURRICULUM

The Democratic Ideal as a Value-Base in Curriculum Theorizing

The anthropological concept of integration suggests that educa­ tion is an expression of a definite culture and of a pattern of values embodied in a social order. In Dewey's conception of education as a social process, "a criterion for educational criticism and construc­ tion implies a particular social ideal. A s articulated by Bidney, the dominant ideal of American culture is the belief in the intrinsic value of the individual as an end in itself, and the instrumental role assigned to socio-political institutions as serving the common inter- 2 ests of citizens. According to Childs, democracy is a form of govern­ ment as well as an idea guiding social organization, including the activities of the educational enterprise: "Democracy is . . . a defi­ nite system of social and political life . . . It therefore should

3 have its own educational program." However, if the democratic ideal

^John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: The Free Press, 1963), p. 99. 2 David Bidney, Theoretical Anthropology (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), p. 408. 3 John L. Childs, Education and Morals (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1950), p. 13.

112 113 is to have practical consequences in formulating educational purposes and in providing a rationale for curriculum construction, its essen­ tial elements must first be delineated. Also, in order to synthesize the historical experience of the Jewish group with the normative ideals of American culture, it is necessary to identify the points of convergence between the Jewish curriculum and the democratic ideal.

Essential Elements of the Democratic Ideal. For the purposes of this study, the following major ideas are identified as the essential ele­ ments of the democratic ideal. They are deduced from two basic and related assertions: (a) that human beings "constitute the realm of ends," and (b) that socio-political institutions "pertain to the realm of means."4

(1) The Essential Unity of the Individual and the Group.

The personal worth of the individual finds expression

through the social experience; the development of in­

dividual potentialities is achieved through partici­

pation in social life and through interaction with

other human beings.

(2) Human Freedom and Responsibility. The idea of freedom

aims to liberate man from arbitrary power and coercion;

a corrolary assumption is that the individual is re­

sponsible for the consequences of his action.

(.3) Human Equality. Providing maximum opportunities for

the pursuit of individual ends, providing it does not

4Ibid., p. 178. 114

interfere with similar opportunities for others; it

also implies that all individuals are judged by the

same moral standards.

(4) Human Interdependence. The pursuit of individual

goals is linked to some kind of social pattern. A

corrolary assumption is that we are our "brothers'

keepers."

(5) The Rule of Law. Rulers are subject to the rule of

law which limits political power and precludes its

arbitrary use.

(6) The Common Good. Political power and social organ­

ization are to be used to promote the welfare and

happiness of all citizens.

A Conception of the A Priori Within the Democratic Ideal

The aforementioned ideas and values have their origin in humanis­

tic notions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. But their validity as

social norms does not rest on a priori conceptions of the absolute.

They are objectives in that they have emerged from the actual exper­

iences of human groups and from cultural continuities which are ex­

pressed in abstract form as ideal goals. Childs refers to these ideal

goals as ethical principles which are derived "from the things that

^The foregoing is based, in part, on Paul R. Hanna, "Generaliza­ tions and Universal Values: Their Implications for the Social—Studies Program," in Social Studies in the Elementary School. 56th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), pp. 40-41. men suffer and enjoy in a diversity of cultural environments."8 How­ ever, the democratic ideal incorporates a priori conceptions of the kind to which C. I. Lewis has referred to as "pragmatic."7 These a priori conceptions are "about our interpretive attitude . . . /and^ g impose no limitation upon the future possibilities of experience;" they are not statements about actual existents but propositions about our attitude toward the given. Lewis posits that at the bottom of all knowledge are categories and definitive concepts without which we cannot even ask the questions which discovered law would answer:

Such definitive laws are a priori; only so can we enter upon the investigation by which further laws are sought. Yet . . . these a priori laws are subject to abandonment if the structure which is built upon them does not succeed in simplifying our interpretation of phenomena . . . such definitions and criteria . . . represent . . . deep-lying attitudes, which the human mind has taken in light of its total experience up to date . . . These attitudes . . . by themselves dictate nothing as to the content of ex­ perience. ^

In a similar vein, the democratic ideal makes certain assumptions about our "interpretive attitude" toward physical and social phenomena it derives a particular kind of relationship between observed entities and ideas; and it frames a particular type of questions at selected phenomena. The following assumptions have particular relevance to

Childs, Education and Morals, p. 52.

7C. I. Lewis, Mind and the World-Order (New York: Charles Scrib­ ners' Sons, 1929), Chapter 7.

8Ibid., p. 231. 9 Ibid., pp. 257, 266. See also pp. 252-255, where Lewis cites an example from the study of physics: for a mind which finds independent space and time absolutely necessary conceptions, no experiment would prove the principle of relativity. 116

the educational enterprise.

(1) Democracy as a Living, Growing Ideal. Underlying the democratic

interpretive attitude is the notion that the democratic ideal develops

and grows as changing conditions and experiences indicate its fuller

implications and expanded meanings. According to Bode, "Democracy is

never a finished thing, but a process of continuous readjustment in

the direction of more extensive mutual recognition of interests."^

In Dewey's conception, the growth of the democratic ideal is directed

to social ends and to the improvement of every facet of social life

through the use of human intelligence in cooperative undertakings.^

(2) A Critical Attitude and Open-Mindedness. Democracy is not a

"closed system." It fosters habits of critical thinking, intellectual

tolerance and the capacity for judgment. In some cultures, children

are not encouraged to ask "why" questions. But in a democratic

society, "Questioning is a form of epistemic behaviorthat is behav- 12 ior directed toward, and reinforced by, the acquisition of knowledge."

(3) Cultural Continuity and Change. As a living, growing norm, the democratic ideal assumes the need for the preservation of ethical principles that have been "confirmed by the actual experiences of human 13 groups." At the same time, it recognizes the need for progressive

■^Boyd H. Bode, Modern Educational Theories (New York: The Mac­ Millan Co., 1928), p. 12.

^Dewey, Democracy and Education, p. 344. 12 Mary Ellen Goodman, The Culture of Childhood (New York: Teachers College Press, 1970), pp. 116, 126. 13 Childs, Education and Morals, p. 52. 117

change as the social and physical environments in which human beings

live change.

(4) The Re-interpretation of Ideas. As American history demon­

strates, democratic ideas are subject to re-interpretation in light

of changing life situations. Suffice it to mention the constantly widening application of the idea of equality, which in the last gen­

eration was interpreted to include economic and educational opportun­

ities and was extended to all individuals regardless of race, color

or sex.

(5) Categorizing Physical and Social Phenomena. The democratic ideal

assumes a particular kind of relationship and element of ordering to

human experience and to human perception of physical phenomena. For

example, natural resources are ordinarily perceived as objects for

material gain or use. Democratic culture imposes a relationship that

connects the utilization of natural resources with the "common good"

and with social ends. Prevalent notions and practices of social wel­

fare provide an example of a priori conceptions in the categorizing

of social phenomena. Many societies have developed systems of social

welfare which rest on the moral assertion that the group has an obli­

gation to provide basic needs for the poor. In these societies, the

existence of destitude individuals who cannot provide for themselves

constitutes a social-moral problem. However, in cultures which do

not recognize such social-moral responsibilities, the presence of

helpless poor in the midst of an affluent society constitutes an aes­

thetic problem. 118

Curriculum Conceptions of the Democratic Ideal

Assuming that the educational enterprise should reflect the dem­ ocratic ends and processes which have been articulated above, the following curriculum conceptions may be derived from the democratic ideal:

(1) The Purposive Acquisition of Knowledge. Transmission of know­ ledge has a dual purpose: the preservation of the values of the past, and the ongoing re-interpretation of the cultural heritage in light of the present. In this way, the accumulated experiences of a culture become tools for improving upon the present and for planning for a 14 better future. Therefore, the curriculum should provide a linkage between the present and the past and guide students in applying accum­ ulated knowledge to new situations. In this sense, knowledge is an instrument for clarifying the meaning of the democratic ideal, as well as for creating new meanings that relate to existing social con­ ditions. This conception of the curriculum builds on the progressive notion which views education as the reconstruction of experience.

Dewey relates this notion to democracy:

Since democracy stands in principle for free interchange, for social continuity, it must develop a theory of knowledge which sees in knowledge the method by which one experience is made available in giving direction and meaning to another experience . . . Their educational equivalent is the connection of the acquisition of know­ ledge in the schools with activities . . . carried on in a medium of associated life.15

14 Dewey, Democracy and Education, pp. 191-192.

15Ibid., pp. 344-345. 119

(2) Criteria for the Selection of Content. Learning experiences are to provide social direction for personal growth, and social worth is the criterion for the selection of subject matter. To the extent con­ tent is related to problem solving situations, the problems should have social significance. As Horne says, "The educational essentials in realizing democratic ideals are the problems of living together." 16

Curriculum content is to be moral rather than factual in nature; facts are to be utilized in examining and interpreting ideas, and in evalu­ ating and reconstructing various possibilities of social action. This conception of content rests on the progressive notion that an educa­ tive experience is one which relates to existing social life and has value for future experiences. As stated by Dewey, "The educator . . . is obliged to see his present work in terms of what it accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, for a future whose objects are linked with those of the present.^

(3) The Organization of Curriculum Content. In democratic culture, schooling is an instrument for both continuity and change. Therefore, content must be organized in such a way that it will encourage in students habits of critical thinking, involving deductive and induc­ tive reasoning, comparing and contrasting, analyzing and evaluating, and the ability to perceive relationships. These thought processes are to be employed by students in the study of their cultural heritage

“^Herman H. Horne, The Democratic Philosophy of Education (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1933), p. 248.

^John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Collier Books, 1963), p. 76. 120 and present social realities. Such critical study will encourage students to reflect on their social conditions and to derive new meanings and interpretations of their cultural heritage as it applies to life situations.

The Basic Affinity Between the Jewish Cultural Heritage and the Democratic Ideal

In the foregoing sections I outlined the essential elements of the democratic ideal and their implications for curriculum construc­ tion. I maintain that there is a basic affinity between the democrat­ ic ideal and the Jewish cultural heritage, and that curriculum con­ ceptions which were derived from the democratic ideal may be applied to the task of curriculum theorizing in Jewish education. The Jewish cultural heritage shares the basic assertion of the democratic ideal of the dignity of the human personality, namely; (1) that human beings are not to be used as means to an end but are ends in themselves, and

(2) that socio-political institutions are viewed as means for the ful­ fillment of human ends. The Biblical concern with achieving the

"good life" through the instrument of the "good society" points to an affinity with the democratic notion of the unity between the individual 18 and the group. As it was shown in Chapter 4, traditional Jewish education was life-oriented, uniting learning with practice. Thus,

Judaic notions of schooling share the democratic conception, as arti­

culated by Bode, that education must eventuate in a particular kind of conduct: "To be significant, an ideal must translate itself into

18 See, for example, Lev. 19, 25; Deut. 15, 16; and Amos. 121 19 specific acts." In a similar vein, Hertz translates a traditional

Hebrew prayer in this way: "The life task of a Jew is to understand and to discern, to learn and to teach, to do and to fulfill the words of the Torah."

A Summary Outline of the Rationalist and Empiricist Traditions and Their Review in Light of the Democratic Ideal

The following chart is intended as a summary of the basic epis- temological assertions of the Rationalist and Empiricist traditions and their corresponding curriculum conceptions. These assertions and conceptions will be reviewed in terms of their adequacy as foundations for curriculum construction in which the democratic ideal is the uni­ fying principle. I intend to show that, in and by themselves, the

Rationalist and Empiricist traditions are not adequate for the task.

The Progressive tradition is included in the chart since I intend to adopt and refine conceptions from the Progressive tradition in order to formulate working principles to guide curriculum practices in

Jewish education.

19 Bode, Modern Educational Theories, p. 110. 20 Joseph Hertz, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1948), p. 116. TABLE 5

CONCEPTIONS OF THE EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISE

Rationalism Empiricism Progressivis'm

1. View or As ideal-centered, based on As helping learners discover As a growth process a- Schooling what man and society ought the constant structure of chieved by the interaction to be. the real, factual world as of an organism with its it is. environment.

Controlling Self-relization through The acquisition of particu­ The continuous reconstruc­ Aim the perfection of the in­ larized knowledge. tion of experience, by tellect. using past and present ex­ perience in dealing with new situations.

3. Theory of (a) Knowing is the dis- (a) Knowing is the disclo­ (a) Knowing is creating re­ Knowledge closure of reality, which sure of reality, which is lationships in specific is a product of the Ulti­ presented to us by the real situations. mate Reason— and exists world and exists independent independent of the human of human experience. mind.

(b) Knowledge is gained (b) Sense perception is the (b) Experience is the core through a priori proces­ root of all knowledge. of knowledge; a priori pro­ ses; symbolizing is cen­ cesses are rejected. tral to the knowing pro- TABLE 5 (Continued)

Rationalism Empiricism Progressivism

4. Epistemo- Coherence and Unity. Extension and Reductionism. Transaction and Hypothesis. logical Principles (a) Rather than being addi­ (a) Knowledge is gained in (a) Knowledge is a process tive in nature, knowledge small increments, piece by of a transaction between is the achievement of co­ pieve; learning is adding an organism and its envi­ herence of a given world or to store of knowledge. ronment . a system of ideas.

(b) Knowledge is attained (b) Human experience is re­ (b) Rather than the item­ by achieving unity of ex­ duced to the smallest possi­ ized "brute facts," it is perience. ble entity in order to the pattern of successful facilitate its mastery. organization that consti­ tutes the core of know­ ledge; that pattern is a hypothesis which works successfully.

5. Role of (a) Learner is perceived (a) Passive role perceived (a) Learner is actively in­ Self in the as active agent. for the learner. teracting with the world. Educative Process (b) Locus of the learning (b) Learner is perceived as (b) The knower and the per­ act is within the self; a nervous system, respond­ ceived environment are the person is the self- ing to external stimuli. part of the learning act. conscious center of ex­ perience.

(c) Growth comes through (c) Mind is viewed as a (c) Learner's inner devel­ initiative self-activity system of nerves and ener­ opment is contingent on

and self-direction. gies subject to laws of experience and action. 123 nature. TABLE 5 (Continued)

Rationalism Empiricism Progressivism

6. Conceptions (a) A body of intellectual (a) A body of subject matter (a) Ideas and facts func­ of the Cur­ subject matter which is con­ which describes the orderli­ tioning in problematic riculum ceptual and ideational in ness underlying physical situations; subject matter nature, and is a part of a reality. is re-constructed in light unifying idea. of new situations.

(b) Mode of curriculum is (b) Mode of curriculum is (b) Mode of curriculum is prescriptive, pointing to descriptive, pointing to relational, placing accum­ potentialities and possi­ patterns of structure and ulated ideas and knowledge bilities as suggested by regularities in the real to the test of present a priori goals. world. experience.

(c) Emphasis is on the hu­ (c) Emphasis is on the (c) Emphasis is on social manizing and personalizing natural sciences. life. elements in the human ex­ perience, both present and past.

7. Curriculum King and Brownell's dis­ In Bobbitt's "activity- In the Laboratory School, Model ciplines of knowledge serve analysis," the curriculum "active occupations" serve as vehicles for the devel­ consists of a series of as points of departure for opment of symbolic capaci­ learning experiences de­ the progressive conceptual­ ties . signed to acquire the abil­ ization of organized sub­ ities necessary for the ject matter and for its performance of particular­ re-construction in light ized tasks. of new experiences and sit­ uations .

i-* •c-N 3 125

Rationalist Conceptions and the Democratic Ideal. Rationalism shares the assumption of the democratic ideal that schooling is a normative enterprise, concerned with what man and society ought to be. Ration­ alism derives the "ought" from a priori conceptions. The "ought" of the democratic ideal is rooted in the actual experiences of human groups, and alternative cultural possibilities and potentialities 21 which are suggested by prevailing conditions. Rationalism asserts that knowing is the disclosure of reality which has an objective existence independent of the knower. Similarly, democratic ideas are assumed to have an objective existence. However, to the extent that the democratic ideal seeks to relate and re-interpret the cultural heritage in the context of existing conditions, the learner is en­ couraged to create new meanings and relationships. In this sense, knowing is "creating." In defining knowing as the gradual approxima­ tion of the "Absolute Mind," and in emphasizing the role of the inner- self in the educative process, Rationalism fails to recognize the significance of the social environment for the growth and development of the learner's symbolic capacities. Thus, the highly abstract and remote conceptions of the "Absolute Mind" and "Ultimate Reason" tend to separate schooling from life and fail to provide working principles to guide curriculum practices.

A Rationalist Curriculum Model and the Democratic Ideal. Unlike the traditional subject matter curriculum which stresses the mastery of

21 Bidney, Theoretical Anthropology, p. 417. 126 factual and descriptive content, King and Brownell's disciplinary 22 model emphasizes the structures of the domains of knowledge.

Structure is defined as "a framework of related conceptual meanings and generalizations which explain physical, natural, social and human 23 realities." In Bruner's conception, "To learn structures— the overarching concepts and generalizations of a discipline . . . is to 2 learn how things are related." Although students have limited ex­ posure to the materials they learn, understanding the fundamental strcuture of what they learn will result in transfer— the application 25 of knowledge to situations and events outside the classroom. King and Brownell claim that the structure of each discipline and its mode of inquiry have the "widest applicability," and that the application of knowledge is a natural outgrowth of discovery within each disci- pline. 26 However, the disciplinary model fails to meet the criteria of purposive knowledge and social significance which are derived from the democratic ideal. As articulated by Bruner, the underlying assumption of the "structure of the discipline" approach is that "the

22 Arthur King and John A. Brownell, The Curriculum and the Disci­ plines of Knowledge (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966). 23 Gerald Lee Gutek, Philosophical Alternatives in Education (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1974), p. 36. 24 Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (New York: Vintage Books, 1960), p. 7.

25Ibid., pp. 11-12. 26 King and Brownell, The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Know­ ledge, pp. 61-63, 121. 127 27 school boy learning physics is a physicist." However, the physi­ cist has no purpose beyond the discovery and descriptive explanation of specific facts and principles in a particular domain of knowledge.

But democratic culture calls for students to participate in "the 28 reconstruction and refinement of common values shared by all."

A descriptive mode of study that is suggested by the disciplinary model does not give students opportunities for developing normative judgment as responsible human beings living in democratic society.

The dominant concerns of society rarely fit into the compartmentalized disciplines; and the ability to relate what is learned to real life will not be attained as an inevitable by-product of disciplined in­ quiry within a domain of knowledge. For example, a physicist may explain the different methods for producing energy and offer a theory that will serve as a basis for predicting the probable consequences of adopting any given method in terms of cost, environmental impact, etc. But the decision as to what type of energy source to develop is a matter of public policy which is prescriptive and not descriptive in nature, and is based on what is desirable rather than on what jis or what can be. Thus, values and organized knowledge from several disciplines, such as geography, economics, sociology and political science enter in the exercise of judgment in social issues. Similarly, an interpretive approach to the cultural heritage which is likely to

— Bruner, The Process of Education, p. 14. 28 Harold B. Alberty and Elsie J. Alberty, Reorganizing the High School Curriculum (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1962), p. 208. 128 result in the creation of new meanings and relationships requires an integrative treatment of knowledge.

Empiricist Theory and the Democratic Ideal. Empiricist theory is a descriptive theory. Its assertions determine what the facts are, explaining the relationship among the facts, and predicting what will happen if given conditions pi'evail. Empiricist theory does not ad­ dress the question as to whether existing conditions ought to be changed or perpetuated. Consequently, the Empiricist tradition views schooling as an instrument for helping the learner adjust to the real, factual world. Empiricism does not provide a criterion that would answer the question "what knowledge is most worth?". Nor does Empir­ icism provide a basis for formulating the purposes for which knowledge is to he attained. In contrast, the democratic ideal views schooling as a normative enterprise, calling for a prescriptive curriculum theory which relates facts to social issues and policies and empha­ sizes the interpretation of facts in relation to democratic ideas and values.

Scientific Curriculum-Making and the Democratic Ideal. Bobbitt's

"activity-analysis" curriculum rests on the Empiricist epistemological principle of "reductionism;" that is, it assumes that phenomena is to be isolated and reduced to its smalledst entity in order to facilitate its mastery. Based on this principle, Bobbitt's curriculum making con­ sists of classifying and analyzing human activities into their smallest units and expressing them in performance terms. The school curriculum 129 is designed to help students acquire the abilities necessary for the performance of these tasks. In dealing with physical phenomena, re­ ductionism is an epistemological principle which allows the observer to work with the simplest units and to arrive at a description of the whole by adding all of the parts. Everything higher is explained in terms of the lower, and the whole is said to be equal to all of its parts. However, the principle of reductionism is inappropriate when applied to the educational enterprise as conceived by the democratic ideal. Based on the notion of the essential unity between the indi­ vidual and the group, the democratic ideal lends itself to the propo­ sition that learning is essentially a social process in which the individual interacts with others. In this process, the socio-cultural environment plays a role in determining what the individual responds to, and the meaning he gives to what he perceives. These notions about the learning process are supported by the gestalt-field theory which claims that an organism functions as a whole and that, "Learn­ ing is a process of selecting and organizing [and] . . . of perceiving 29 events and giving meaning to them."

Another difficulty in scientific curriculum making lies in that it makes no provision for deliberate moral commitments and for critical thought processes in evaluating such commitments. For example, the concept of equality cannot be adequately developed in a descriptive treatment since, "The principle of equality is not a description of

Hilda Taba, Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1962), p. 81. 130

fact about man's physical or intellectual natures. It is a prescrip- 30 tion or policy of treating men." Finally, we cannot derive pre­

scriptive principles for the selection and organization of content

from descriptive premises without some conception of the things to

look for.

A Proposed Theory of the Jewish Curriculum

In King and Brownell's model, the theory of knowledge as "a

community of discourse" becomes the model for a theory of the curricu- 31 lum. The position taken here is that, in and by itself, a theory

of knowledge is insufficient for generating a theory of the curriculum.

A theory of knowledge is concerned with such questions as: what is

the object of knowledge?; how do we come to know it?; and how do we

know that we have come to its possession? A theory of the curriculum must also concern itself with the purposes for which knowledge is

attained. Thus, whether ideas exist independently of their concrete

referents is not a significant question for eudcation; rather, it is

the potential of ideas for guiding desirable action that is of signi­

ficance for curriculum construction. However, since epistemological

principles bear on issues of curriculum organization and instructional method, a theory of Jewish curriculum will include references to

learning principles. Following are the elements in the proposed

^ 30 Sidney Hook, "The Justifications of Democracy," in The American Pragmatists, edited by Milton Konvintz and Gail Kennedy (New York: Meridian Books, 1960), p. 382. 31 King and Brownell, The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Know­ ledge, p. 121. 131 theory that will be developed below: (1) learning principles, (2) definition of content and criteria for its selection, (3) organization of content, and (4) mode of the curriculum. Curriculum conceptions of the democratic ideal which were previously delineated will be adopted and applied to Jewish education.

Learning Principles. In consonance with the gestalt-field theory, it is assumed that intelligent human action is caused by the understand­ ing of relationships which inhere in organized wholes. Relationships are perceived and created by the individual's response to the environ- i 32 ment which is shaped by "his purposes, cognition and anticipation"; and it is through the grasp of relationships that the individual con­ fers organized meanings on the whole. The elements of "purpose" and

"anticipation" which enter into the act of cognition introduce the concept of continuity in learning; that is, each response to the environment is affected by the individual's prior experience and, in turn, affects future experience. Consequently, an individual may respond differently to the same object or event because his cognitive structure has been re-organized by each prior experience. Thus, 33 "Learning consists of re-constructing integrated wholes." The con­ cept of continuity suggests that the school curriculum should provide opportunities for cumlative learning. This may be facilitated by organizing content around overarching ideas which are re-introduced

32 Taba, Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice, p. 80. 33 Robert S. Zais, Curriculum Principles and Foundations (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1976), p. 254. 132 and re-interpreted in different contexts and situations and on differ­ ent levels of difficulty and comprehension. A curriculum so organized will focus on conceptual learning and will provide practice in gener­ alizing. A generalization is a descriptive statement indicating a relationship between two or more concepts. However, understanding a generalization, or a conceptual relationship, does not consist of merely stating it in a verbalized form. Instead, it involves "an application of the generalization to a variety of concrete or visual­ ized situations," and the ability to discern where it applies and 34 where it does not. In this way, sense experience fulfills a dual function in the act of learning: it aids in the formulation of con­ cepts and generalizations by relating two or more experiences, and it provides concrete referents for ideas, concepts and generalizations.

A Definition of Content and Criteria for its Selection. In a broad 35 sense, "Culture is the source of content." As articulated in Chapter

4, the essentials of Jewish culture consist of (1) the tradition of be­ liefs and practices, (2) the common historical experience and (3) 36 modern Israel. The concepts of cultural continuity and change and

3 A Lee J. Cronbach, (ed.), Text Materials in Modern Education (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1950), p. 80. 35 Arno Bellack, "Selection and Organization of Curriculum Content: An Analysis," in What Shall the High School Teach? 1956 Yearbook: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Washington, D. C.: 1956), p. 100.

As previously indicated (p. 109), the Hebrew language is the fourth element but is not included in this study. 133 of the re-interpretaion of ideas are derived from a priori conceptions of the democratic ideal. These concepts suggest that a cultural heri­ tage is not transmitted passively from one generation to another but is to be interpreted and applied in the context of one's life exper­ ience. Therefore, as content designated for cultural transmission, the Jewish curriculum does not consist of a fixed body of literary texts. Instead, curriculum content is derived from overarching basic ideas and concepts which explain the essentials of Jewish culture and give meaning and guidance to social and personal life. Factual, des­ criptive content is selected as concrete referents of these ideas and concepts. These referents provide opportunities for the application of ideas, and they consist of events and experiences which may help students to create new meanings and to grasp new relationships between the ideas.

Another source for the selection of content lies in the normative ideals of American culture. The basic affinity between the Judaic heritage and the democratic ideal was cited above. As participating members in American society, Jewish students come to study their heri­ tage with a store of ideas, concepts and facts which they have acquired in the secular culture. This accumulation of knowledge should be utilized as a departure point for the progressive conceptualization of

Judaic content. Therefore, content of the Jewish curriculum will con­ sist of bodies of knowledge within the Jewish tradition (i.e., Bible, history and observances), and of relevant ideas, concepts and general­ izations from the social studies— since both of these domains deal with man's way of living with his fellow man. The six major ideas which 134 were identified above (pp. 113-114) as the essentials of the demo­ cratic ideal will serve as criteria for the selection of content from the social studies. In addition, they constitute specific points of convergence between the Jewish curriculum and normative American cul­ ture. Such integrated content meets the criterion of social signifi­ cance in that it facilitates the cultural continuity of the Jewish group, and it generates meanings and interpretations that relate to significant issues in American society.

Organization of Content. The idea that continuity of learning is essential to maturity is derived from the gestalt-field theory which assumes that, "Learning has occurred when the organism has experienced 37 a restructuring of perception of the total situation." Progressive notions about growth and experience provide further articulation of this idea. According to Dewey, education is defined as growth, and growth is expressed in terms of an increasing ability to reconstruct present experience in light of prior experience and to direct the 38 course of subsequent experience. Thus, an experience is educative to the extent that it leads to further growth and in the degree that 39 it yields new meanings for past and future experience. Applied to the organization of content, the notion of growth as the reconstruction of experience supports the view that . . . "new facts and new ideas

37 Zais, Curriculum Principles and Foundations, p. 259. 38 Dewey, Democracy and Education, pp. 41-33, 76. 39 Dewey, Experience and Education, p. 77. 135 become the ground for further experiences in which new problems are presented. The process Is a continuous spiral. T h e notion of "a continuous spiral" suggests that students are to relate new exper- einces, facts and events to ideas and concepts which are re-introduced at different levels of difficulty and sophistication, so that the students' conceptual frame of reference is continuously expanded and reconstructed. For example, the idea of "human freedom and responsi­ bility" may convey many meanings at different levels of depth and com­ prehension, and may be presented in a variety of contexts and life situations.

The principle of continuity and the notion of "a continuous spiral" further suggest that learning experiences are to be built around a few organizing centers, since it is difficult for students to perceive relationships when the organizing structure is composed of many items. These organizing centers will be stated in abstract form as themes or basic ideas, expressing categorized experiences from

Jewish culture. Generalizations and concept statements will be gener­ ated from these themes or basic ideas, and they will constitute the underlying threads of vertical and horizontal continuity. The useful­ ness of the themes, and the generalizations and concepts that are generated from them, lies in their wide applicability and in their high potential for transfer; that is, they lead students to apply

ideas and concepts to a wide variety of facts and experiences and to perceive relationships and new meanings by comparing and contrasting

— Ibid., p. 79. 136

facts and events which would otherwise be unrelated. But the themes

are not in themselves fixed structures. They may be altered, improved

and expanded in meaning with time and future experience. An illustra­

tion of the proposed Thematic design is given in Chapter 6.

Mode of the Curriculum. In the Tyler rationale, objectives are iden­

tified prior to instruction and are used as a basis for curriculum 41 construction. Traditional practice in Jewish education views the

textbook as the antecedent source for content which is to be digested

and mastered by the student. In both of these modes the curriculum

is viewed as a closed, finished product. I argue for an open curricu­

lum which constitutes a broad plan for instruction. In such a plan,

the Thematic design serves as an heuristic instrument which provides

initial direction for the teaching/learning act. More specific objec-

tives emerge in the flow of instruction, as teachers and students

engage in analysis, interpretation and judgment. In King and Brow­

nell's model, the curriculum constitutes a planned series of encounters

with the established domains of knowledge, in which teachers and 42 students become actively involved in a dialogue of discovery. I

adopt King and Brownell's metaphorical definition of the curriculum as

"a planned series of encounters," and I accept their insistence on the

active involvement of students. But in my proposed Thematic design, _ Ralph Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1950), pp. 1-3. 42 King and Brownell, The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Know­ ledge, pp. 121-123. 137 the "encounters" will be with fundamentals and basic ideas which ex- press in abstract form significant experiences of Jewish culture.

The proposed Thematic design insists on disciplinary rigor, but it opens up a broad range of possibilities in regard to specific learning outcomes. These outcomes will depend on the nature of the particular content that is selected for the application or illustra- 43 tion of ideas and concepts, on the instructional focus that is 44 chosen for a given idea, and on the dynamics of the encounter that takes place between the individual teacher and a given group of stu­ dents. Finally, the open mode of the curriculum has the potential for motivating students to chink and to express themselves, and to develop habits of inquiry. Specifically, it offers opportunities for (1) for­ mulating interpretations, explanations and hypotheses, (2) applying ideas and generalizations to different situations, and (3) encounter­ ing with social-cultural problems and contradictions resulting from value conflicts.

4 3 For example, a variety of factual content or events may be se­ lected to illustrate or to apply the idea of freedom. 44 For example, the establishment of the State of Israel may be presented as a political-military achievement, as the realization of a religious-Zionist idea, or as an expression of the sense of common destiny shared by the Jewish group— since Jews from all over the world participated in this effort. CHAPTER VI

AN EXAMPLE OF CURRICULUM DESIGN

The Thematic Design

In proposing a Thematic design, I am adopting the "fusion model" of the "Type-3 Core."'*' In this model, two or more subjects from the same field (i.e., history and anthropology in social science) or from two different fields (i.e., American history and literature) are fused

"in terms of certain established unifying concepts in order to make 2 them functional in the life of students." In one such program, a central theme on each grade level in the junior high school provides the framework from which teachers plan learning experiences in social studies and language arts. In other "Type-3 Core" programs, content is organized around contemporary problems. In the design which is outlined below, the three "themes" serve as the foundations of all instruction that is to take place in the Jewish school. Based on the definitions of ethnicity as articulated in Chapter 4 (pp. 108-109), the following three themes have been selected as expressing the essen­ tials of Jewish culture and as having the widest applicability: (1) the unity of the Jewish people, (2) the centrality of the land of

"''Harold B. Alberty and Elsie J. Alberty, Reorganizing the High School Curriculum (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1962), pp. 209-216.

2Ibid., p. 216. 138 139

Israel in the Jewish experience, and (3) beliefs and practices (ideas and their practical consequences). As sociologist Herman states:

"Jews have maintained throughout the centuries that there is an in­ disoluble connection between the Jewish people, the land of Israel,

3 and the Torah" (the repository of Jewish beliefs and practices) .

The broad focus of the Thematic design establishes subject matter boundaries for the building of generalizations and interrelationships.

Within these boundaries, individual schools have flexibility in selec­ ting specific content and in further delineating their objectives in accordance with their respective relgio-ideological orientation. Such a design also allows an active role for the teacher, not only in de­ vising teaching methods but also in the selection of content and in its interpretation. As Tanner and Tanner point out,

. . . effective teaching . . . is dependent on individual variation and the professional teacher's lattitude in interpreting the subject matter and in effecting his own teaching style— since the teaching-learning process is not simply an established-convergent situation but is to a great extent an emergent situation.^

The design that follows consists of two sections. The first is a chart showing the broad horizontal and vertical outline of the three

Themes. In the second section, I illustrate the conceptual development of Theme three, with suggested content and learning activities aimed at developing in students habits of inquiry and critical thinking. The

3 Simon N. Herman, Jewish Identity: A Social Psychological Perspec­ tive (New York: Herzl Press, 1977), p. 36. 4 Daniel Tanner and Laurel N. Tanner, Curriculum Development: Theory Into Practice (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1975), p. 446. second section is intended as an example for the expansion and further delineation of each Theme. A BROAD OUTLINE OF THE THREE THEMES

I. The Unity of the Jewish II. The Centrality of the III. Beliefs and Practices People Land of Israel in the Jewish Experience

Generaliza- The Jewish People share a The idea of the promised The Covenant is a major idea tions sense of belonging and mu­ land is an integral part of guiding individual and group tual responsibility, rooted the Jewish heritage. practice. in common experiences, mem­ ories and aspirations.

Concept 1. Jewish families have many 1. Family ties with Israel; 1. The individual in the fam­ Statements things in common: (a) the the Bibilical family in the ily group: celebrations, Jewish family in America; (b) geographic setting in Canaan. holidays and observances. the Jewish family in Israel; (c) the Biblical family in Canaan.

2. Members of the Jewish com­ 2. The "land motif" in the 2. The individual in the com­ munity participate in group celebrations, holidays and munity: individual freedom life, and share common goals. observances. and social responsibility.

3. The interdependence of 3. The land of Israel was a 3. The individual in the Jewish communities. unifying element in the early social system: (a) the role formation of group identity of socio-political institu­ and in its survival through­ tions, and (b) functions and out Jewish history. limitations of government.

Integrating Concept: HUMAN Integrating Concept: SPA­ Integrating Concept: MAN'S INTERDEPENDENCE TIAL CONTINUITY IN CULTURE PEACEFUL INTEGRATION DEPENDS ON A BALANCE BETWEEN INDIVID­ UAL LIBERTY AND SOCIAL CONTROL 142

ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THEME III:

Beliefs and Practices

(Ideas and their Practical Consequences)

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR AN INTEGRATED UNIT ON FOUNDATIONS OF GOVERNMENT

Integrating Idea: The Essential Unity of the Individual and the Group

In the Biblical Tradition In the American Republic

The "Covenant." The "Social Contract."

(1) Concept (a) The purpose of the Exodus (a) Governments are cre­ Statements and the subsequent settle­ ated for the purposes of and General ment in the promised land was securing the pre-existing Understand­ to lay the foundations for a rights of man and for pro­ ings just society and a good life. viding a good life for their citizens.

(b) When a ruler ceases to (b) A government may be abide by the terms of the altered or abolished if it Covenant, he forfeits his ceases to protect the legitimate base to govern. natural rights of citizens and it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established.

(c) Under the terms of the (c) In a "government of Covenant, the king is subject laws," and not of men, the to the rule of law, like any highest authority is placed other citizen. in the law rather than in the rulers.

(d) The judge, king, priest (d) The powers of govern­ and prophet, each assumed ment are limited: a sys­ distinct roles and responsi­ tem of "checks and bal­ bilities, safeguarding ances" is established so against the usurpation of that no branch of govern­ power and providing a unique ment may become powerful system of checks and bal­ enough to endanger the ances . rights of citizens.

(e) Securing religious free­ (e) Freedom of religion is dom (the Exodus) was the a basic human right and a formative event in the Is­ requisite for an enduring raelite experience. free society. 143

(2) Topics for Student Inquiry— Comparing and Contrasting

(a) A basic principle of the United States Constitution is one

of limited powers of government; that is, governmental powers are

divided among separate branches: Congress constitutes the legis­

lative, or law-making, branch; the Executive, or law-enforcing

branch, is headed by the President; and the Judicial branch is

made up of a court system which interprets the law. Based on

your readings and class discussions, compare the "separation of

powers" and the system of "checks and balances" in the United

States Constitution with those provided in Biblical constitutional

monarchy. In which way are they similar? How do they differ?

Were the Biblical safeguards as effective as the American consti­

tutional guarantees?

(b) Jefferson and other leaders of the Revolution feared that if

the American government will become too strong, it may abuse and

suppress civil rights in the same manner as the British did. Con­

sequently, the respective state constitutions and, eventually, the

Bill of Rights (which was adopted in 1791) limited state powers

and stressed what government can not do. The prophet Samuel played

an important role in the selection of Saul as the first King of

Israel. However, he expressed serious misgivings and suspicions

about the monarchical form of government (I Sam. 8). What are

Samuel's fears about the arbitrary exercise of power by a ruler?

What safeguards does Samuel institute in limiting the powers of

the King (I Sam. 10:25, 12:13ff)? In the context of current

public debate and concern about the excesses of government, are 144

Samuel's and Jefferson's suspicions well founded? Explain why

or why not.

(c) What are the purposes of government according to:

- the Preamble to the United States Constitution?

- Biblical notions (Deut. 17: 14-20; Judg. 21:25; I Sam.

8:20; I Kings 3:9)?

(3) Topics for Student Inquiry— Hypothesizing on Public Issues

(a) The Declaration of Independence asserts the "rights of the

people to alter or to abolish" any form of government if it be­

comes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. In

Israelite society, prophets did not hesitate to become political­

ly involved when a ruler failed to live up to the Covenant. Some

even encouraged rebellion against established monarchies. Should

citizens ever use violence to change government policies? If

your answer is in the affirmative, under what conditions? When,

if ever, is violence justified? When, if ever, does "the end

justify the means"?

(b) Jefferson believed in "little government and much freedom."

He said that the role of government is limited to restraining men

from "injuring one another." But Madison sought a more active

role for government. In our own time, political parties and

leaders seriously differ on whether we need "more government,"

"less government" or "better government." Organize a panel to

debate this issue and to consider: Biblical notions on the purposes of government as indicated in 3 (c) above. the purposes ,of government as stated in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. 146

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR AN INTEGRATED UNIT ON PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND JUSTICE

Integrating Concept: Man's Peaceful Interaction Depends On A Proper Balance Between Personal Freedom and Social Control

In the Biblical Tradition In the American System

The Supremacy of Mosaic Law The Rule of Law

(1) Concept (a) The Israelites' securing (a) The American Revolu­ Statements of freedom (the Exodus) was tion was followed by the and General followed by their pledge of establishment of a govern­ Understand­ loyalty to Covenant Law. ment of laws: freedom and ings liberty endure only within the rule of law.

(b) Man was created in the (b) All persons are equal image of God; all men are before the law. equal before God.

(c) All tribes are equal in (c) All states are equal the Covenant. in the federal system, with congressional repre­ sentation reflecting size of population.

(d) Decrees and injunctions (d) State laws which ne­ issued by a ruler are in­ gate basic human rights valid if they conflict with and the U.S. Constitution Covenant Law. are deemed invalid.

(e) The Sixth and Eighth (e) Every individual has Commandments sanction the basic inviolable rights to individual's rights to life life and property. and property.

(f) Judges are required to (f) The requirement for protect the human rights of "due process" of law as­ the accused, and to adhere sumes the presumption of to fair judicial procedures. innocence until there is clear and established evidence of guilt. 147

(2) Topics for Student Inquiry— Comparing and Contrasting

What shall be the qualifications for judges? How shall they be

selected? Federal judges are appointed for life by the Presi­

dent, with the consent of the Senate. In most states, municipal,

county and supreme court justices are elected directly by the

people for a limited term of office. What are the prescribed

methods for the selection of judges in the Bible? How are judges

selected in Israel today? What are the advantages and disadvan­

tages in each method of selection?

(3) Topics for Student Inquiry— Hypothesizing on a Public Issue

A basic assumption in the American system of law is that a per­

son is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another related principle is that the purpose of law is to pro­

tect the innocent fully as much as to punish the guilty. Justice

Holmes, an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court between

1902 and 1932, said: "It is less evil that some criminals should

escape than government should play an ignoble part."

- Do you agree or disagree with the statement by Justice

Holmes? Why or why not?

- Do you think that Abraham's argument, in his pleading with

God to save Sodom (Gen. 18:23), supports this statement?

Why or why not?

- Some claim that current protections of the rights of the

accused have become so excessive that they restrict the

power of the state or police to investigate and, perhaps, 148 prevent crime? Do you agree or disagree with this claim?

Do we have a proper balance between the rights of the accused and the need for public safety and tranquility? BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Curriculum for the Afternoon Jewish School. Experimental Edition. New York: United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education, 1978.

A Curriculum for the Elementary School. United Hebrew Schools of Metropolitan Detroit, 1970-71 (Hebrew), 1973.

A Statement on the New Curriculum Design for the Congregational Reli­ gious School. New York: United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education, 1977.

Abrahams, Israel. Jewish Life in The Middle Ages. New York: Meri­ dian Books, Inc., 1958.

Ackerman, Walter. "An Analysis of Selected Courses of Study of Con­ servative Congregational Schools, Part II." Jewish Education 40:2 (Summer, 1970), 37-48.

"The Jewish School System in the United States." The Future of the Jewish Community in America. Edited by David Sidorsky. New York: Putnam Publishers, 1973, 176-210.

"The Americanization of Jewish Education." Judaism 24:4 (Fall, 1975), 416-635.

Adar, Zvi. Jewish Education in Israel and in the United States. Tel Aviv: Gomeh Publishing, 1969 (Hebrew).

Alberty, Harold B. and Elsie J. Reorganizing the High School Curricu­ lum. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1962.

Arian, Shraga. "Structuring a New Bureau of Jewish Education for the 70's." Jewish Education 42:1 (Winter, 1972-73), 33-41.

Baron, Salo. Steeled By Adversity. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publi­ cation Society of America, 1971.

Bellack, Arno. "Selection and Organization of Curriculum Content: An Analysis." What Shall the High School Teach. 1956 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington, D.C., 1956.

149 150

Bellack, Arno. "Knowledge, Structure and the Curriculum." Philos­ ophical Problems and Education. Edited by Y. Pai and J. T. Myers. New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1967, pp. 274-284.

Ben-Horin, Meir. "The Role of Educational Philosophy in the Jewish School Is— Sovereign, Equal, and Subordinate." Religious Educa­ tion 58:2 (September-October, 1963), 470-473.

Benderly, Jamson. The Problems of Jewish Education in New York City. New York: Bureau of Jewish Education, 1911.

Berkson, Isaac B. The Ideal and the Community: A Philosophy of Edu­ cation. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1958.

"Jewish Education— Achievements and Needs." The American Jew: A Composite Portrait. Edited by Oscar Janowsky. New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1954, pp. 56-91.

Berman, Saul. "The Jewish Day School: A Symposium." Tradition 13:1 (Summer, 1972), 96-99.

Bidney, David. Theoretical Anthropology. New York: Schocken Books, 1970.

Blumenfield, Samuel. "John Dewey and Jewish Education." Judaism and the Jewish School. Edited by Judah Pilch and Meir Ben-Horin. New York: American Association for Jewish Education, 1966.

Bobbitt, Franklin. How to Make a Curriculum. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1924.

Bock, Geoffrey. The Social Context of Jewish Education: A Litera­ ture Review. New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1976.

Bode, Boyd H. Modern Educational Theories. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1928.

Brameld, Theodore. Education for the Emerging Age. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961.

"Imperatives for a Reconstructed Philosophy of Education." School and Society, Vol. 87, No. 2145 (January 17, 1959), 18-20.

"The Meeting of Educational and Anthropological Theory." Educa­ tion and Culture. Edited by George D. Spindler. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963, 84-115.

Philosophies of Education in Cultural Perspective. New York: The Dryden Press, 1955. 151

Breed, Frederick S. "Education and the Realistic Outlook." Philos­ ophies of Education. Forty-First Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 1. Chicago: Universi­ ty of Chicago Press, 1942, 87-138.

Broudy, Harry S. Building a Philosophy of Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954.

Bruner, Jerome S. The Process of Education. New York: Vintage Books, 1960.

Butler, Donald J. Idealism in Education. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1966.

Chazan, Barry. "Israel in American Jewish Schools— Revisited." Jewish Education 47:2 (Summer, 1979), 7-17.

The Language of Jewish Education. New York: Hartmore House Publishers, 1978.

"The Nature of Contemporary Philosophy of Jewish Education." Proceedings of the Philosophy of Education Society. Edwards- ville, Illinois: Philosophy of Education Society, 1972, 175- 188.

Childs, John L. Education and Morals. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1950.

Chipkin, Israel S. "Twenty-Five Years of Jewish Education in the United States." The American Jewish Year Book, Vol. 38 (1936), 27-116.

Cohen, Gerson D. Jewish Identity and Jewish Collective Will in Amer­ ica. New York: Council of Jewish Foundations and Welfare Funds, 1973.

Cohen, Jack. "Our School and Our Society." Jewish Education 31:1 (Fall, 1960), 4-17.

Cronbach, Lee J., ed. Text Materials in Modern Education. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1950.

Cumins, Harry. "An Experiment with an Activity Curriculum." Jewish Education 3:2 (January-March, 1931), 39-48.

"An Integrated Curriculum for the Jewish School." Jewish Educa­ tion 4:2 (April-June, 1932), 93-102.

Curriculum Compendium for Solomon Schechter Day Schools. New York: The Solomon Schechter Day School Association of the United Syn­ agogue Commission on Jewish Education, 1978. 152

De Vos, George and Romanucci-Ross, Lola. Ethnic Identity: Cultural Communities and Change. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield Publish­ ing Co., 1975.

. Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press, 1966.

Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books, 1963.

Dinin, Samuel. "The Contribution of Jewish Education to the Develop­ ment of the American Jewish Personality." Jewish Education 22:3 (Summer, 1951), 19-23.

"Israel in American Jewish Education." Jewish Education 38:3 (Summer, 1951), 19-23.

Judaism in a Changing Civilization. New York: Teacher's Col­ lege, Columbia University, 1933.

"The Role of Israel in American Jewish Education." Jewish Edu­ cation 38:3 (June, 1968), 6-11.

Dinsky, Samuel. "A Program for Secondary Jewish Education in the United States." Jewish Education 32:1 (Fall, 1961), 8-19.

Drazin, Nathan. "Common Elements in American Jewish Teaching." Jewish Education 17:1 (November, 1945), 5-13.

Dushkin, Alexander. "Common Elements in American Jewish Teaching." Jewish Education 17:1 (November, 1945), 5-13.

"Democracy and Jewish Education." Jewish Education 14:2 (De­ cember, 1942), 94-100.

"Fifty Years of American Jewish Education— Retrospect and Pros­ pect." Jewish Education 37:1-2 (Winter, 1967), 44-57.

"How Modern Can the Jewish School Be?". Jewish Education 5:2 (April-June, 1933), 65-66.

Jewish Education in New York City. New York: Bureau of Jewish Education, 1918.

"The Next Decade of Jewish Education in New York City." Jewish Education 12:2 (September, 1940), 65-78.

"The Pattern of Community Thinking in Jewish Education." Jew­ ish Education 35:3 (Spring, 1965), 136-147. 153

Dushkin, Alexander. "The Personality of Samson Benderly— His Life and Influence." Jewish Education 20:3 (Summer, 1949), 6-15.

Dushkin, Alexander and Engelman, Uriah. Jewish Education in the United States. New York: American Association for Jewish Edu­ cation, 1959.

Ebner, Eliezer. Elementary Education in Ancient Israel. New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1956.

Eby, F. and Arrowood, C. F. The History and Philosophy of Education: Ancient and Medieval. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1946.

Edidin, Ben. "Teaching Democracy in the Jewish School." Jewish Education 14:3 (March, 1943), 155-160.

Encyclopedia Judaica, 1972 ed. S.v. "Haskalah," pp. 1433-1452.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967 ed. S.v. "Empiricism," pp. 499- 505; "Rationalism," pp. 69-75.

Fishman, Joshua. "Childhood Indoctrination for Minority-Group Mem­ bership." Daedalus: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 90:2 (Spring, 1961), 329-347.

Fox, Seymour. "Toward a General Theory of Jewish Education." The Future of the Jewish Community in America. Edited by David Sidorsky. New York: Putnam Publishers, 1973, 260-270.

Friedenreich F. and Gittelson, A. J. Interdisciplinary Integration in the Jewish School: The Process of a Pilot Project. New York: American Association for Jewish Education, 1979.

Frost, Shimon. "Integrating the Judaic and General Studies Curricu­ lum." The Synagogue School 24:3 (Spring, 1966), 28-33.

Gamoran, Emanuel. Changing Conceptions of Jewish Education. New York: Teachers College, 1920.

Gannes, A. P. "Israel's Role in American Jewish Education." Jewish Education 42:2-3 (Spring, 1979), 3-6.

Gartner, Lloyd, ed. Jewish Education in the United States: A Docu­ mentary History. New York: Teachers College Press, 1969.

Glazer, Nathan. "The Social Background of American Jewish Educa­ tion." The Social Context of Jewish Identity. New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1976, pp. 1-11. 154

Glazer, Nathan and Moynihan, Daniel. Beyond the Melting Pot. Cam­ bridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963.

Golub, Jacob. "An Activity Curriculum for Sunday Schools." Jewish Education 14:3 (January-March, 1943), 146-154.

"Principles of Jewish Education." Jewish Education 9:3 (Octo­ ber, 1937), 13-16.

Goodman, Mary Ellen. The Culture of Childhood. New York: Teachers College Press, 1970.

Goodside, Samuel. "Religious and Secular Studies in the Day School." Jewish Education 24:2 (Fall, 1953), 55-58.

Gordis, Robert. "Judaism and Religious Liberty." Jewish Education 34:3 (Spring, 1964), 148-161.

Grad, Eli. "Issues of Quality in Jewish Education." Jewish Educa­ tion 46:3 (Autumn, 1978), 10-15.

Greely, Andrew and Rossi, Peter. The Education of Catholic Americans. Chicago: Aldine Publishers, 1966.

Greenberg, Simon. "Jewish Educational Institutions." The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, Vol. II. Edited by Louis Finkelstein. New York: Harper and Bros. Publishers, 1960, 1254-1287.

"The Philosophy of the Conservative Day School." The Synagogue School, Vol 16:1 (September, 1957), 12-15.

"The Role of Israel in American Jewish Education." Jewish Educa- tion 42:2-3 (Spring, 1973), 27-33.

"The Tangibles of Jewish Education." Jewish Education 31:2 (Winter, 1961), 5-11.

Gutek, Gerald Lee. Philosophical Alternatives in Education. Colum­ bus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1974.

Hertz, Joseph H. The Authorized Daily Prayer Book. New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1948.

Hoffman, Justin. "Toward an Understanding of the Jewish College Student." Religious Education 60:6 (November, 1965), 443-450.

Honor, Leo. "Jewish Education and American Democracy." Jewish Edu­ cation 14:2 (December, 1942), 68-69. 155

Hook, Sidney. "The Justifications of Democracy." The American Prag­ matists . Edited by Milton Konvintz and Gail Kennedy. New York: Meridian Books, 1960, pp. 379-403.

Horne, Herman H. The Democratic Philosophy of Education. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1933.

"An Idealistic Philosophy of Education." Philosophies of Educa­ tion . Forty-First Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942, 87-138.

Hostetler, John and Huntington, Gertrude. Children in Amish Society: Socialization and Community Education. New York: Holt, Rine­ hart and Winston, 1971.

Hyman, Ronald T. Approaches in Curriculum. Englewood-Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973.

Iram, Yaakov. Theory and Practice in Jewish Education: Alexander Dushkin * s Thought and Work in the United States and Israel. Tel-Aviv: Gomeh Scientific Publications, 1977 (Hebrew).

Isseroft, Sampson A., ed. Course of Study and Teacher's Guide for the Hebrew School. New York: National Commission on Torah Education, 1970.

Janowsky, Oscar. The American Jew: A Re-Appraisal. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1964.

Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964.

Kallen, Horace M. Culture and Democracy in the United States. New York: Boni and Liveright Publishers, 1924.

Kaminetsky, Joseph. "The Hebrew Day School." School and Society 82:2 (October 1, 1955), 105-107.

Karp, Abraham J. "American Jewry: 1954-1971." The Jews in America: A History. Rufus Learsi. New York: Ktav Publishing Co., 1972, 359-398.

Kaufman, Jay. "Day Schools: Not Whether, But How?". The Central Conference of American Rabbis Journal 12:3 (October, 1964), 3-9.

Kerber, August F. and Smith, Wilfred R. A Cultural Approach to Edu­ cation . Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1972. 156

Kimball, Solon T. Culture and the Educative Process. New York: Teachers College Press, 1974.

King, Arthur and Brownell, John A. The Curriculum and the Disci­ plines of Knowledge. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966.

Kliebard, Herbert. "Persistent Curriculum Issues in Historical Perspective." Curriculum Theorizing. Edited by William Pinar. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing Co., 1975, 39-50.

Kneller, George F. Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971.

Kohn, Eugene. "The Values for Democratic Living in Jewish Education." Jewish Education 11:3 (January, 1940), 159-172.

Kurtzband, T. K. "Notes on a Life-Activity Curriculum." Jewish Edu­ cation 3:3 (October-December, 1931), 172-176.

Lamm, Norman. "An Orthodox Perspective of Jewish Education and Jew­ ish Identity." Determining the Goals of Jewish Education. New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1977.

Lewis, C. I. Mind and the World-Order. New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1929.

Mailer, Julius B. "The Role of Education in Jewish History." The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, Vol. II. Edited by Louis Finkelstein. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1960, 1234-1253.

Morris, Nathan. The Jewish School. New York: The Jewish Education Committee Press, 1964.

Morris, Van Cleve and Pai, Young. Philosophy and the American School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1976.

Newman, William T. American Pluralism: A Study of Minority Groups and Social Theory. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1973.

Nudelman, E. A. "Re-Evaluating Jewish School Curricula." Jewish Education 11:3 (January, 1940), 200-212.

Pilch, Judah, ed. A History of Jewish Education in America. New York: American Association for Jewish Education, 1969.

"The National Curriculum Research Institute." Jewish Education 37:4 (January, 1968), 152-161.

Pollack, George. "Back to the Basics." Jewish Education 45:4 (Win­ ter, 1977), 5-9. 157

Rappoport, Israel B. "Some Essentials in the Reconstruction of the Jewish School Curriculum." Jewish Education 8:3 (December, 1936), 141-146.

Rappoport, I. B. and Nudelman, E. A. "An American Jewish School— A Proposal." Jewish Education 11:2 (September, 1939), 105-120.

Rosen, Ben. "Survey of Jewish Education in New York City." Jewish Education 1:2 (May, 1929), 82-96.

Rudavsky, David. "A Shift in Emphasis in the Curriculum of the Week­ day Afternoon Jewish School." Jewish Education 24:1 (Spring, 1953), 13-18.

"The Status of the Jewish Secondary School." Jewish Education 30:2 (Winter, 1960), 61-65.

Ruffman, Louis. A Curriculum Outline for the Congregational School. New York: United Synagogue Commission on Jewish Education, 1959.

Sachar, Howard M. The Course of Modern Jewish History. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1958.

Sandrow, Edward T. "Our Educational Dilemma Today." The Synagogue School, Winter, 1973.

Sanua, Victor. "The Jewish Adolescent: A Review of Empirical Re­ search." Jewish Education 38:3 (June, 1968), 39-45.

"The Relationship Between Jewish Education and Jewish Identifi­ cation— Review of Research." Jewish Education 35:1 (Fall, 1964), 37-50.

Scharfstein, Zevi. History of Jewish Education in Modern Times, Vol. 3. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass Publishers, 1962 (Hebrew).

Schiff, Alvin J. "Israel in American Jewish Schools: A Study of Curriculum Realities." Jewish Education 38:4 (October, 1968), 6-24.

The Jewish Day School in America. New York: Jewish Education Committee Press, 1966.

"Jewish Education in America: Achievement and Challenge." Jewish Education 45:2 (Spring, 1977), 12-22.

Sebo, llano. "A Step at a Time: Developing A Social Studies/Judaic Program." The Pedagogic Reporter 29:2 (Winter, 1978), 13-15. 158

Sidorsky, David, ed. The Future of the Jewish Community in America: A Task Force Report. New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1972.

Siegel, Morton. "The Experimental Curriculum for the Congregational School." Curriculum Newsletter (Winter, 1978).

Silberman, Charles. "Goals and Practice in Jewish Education: A Personal Perspective." Determining the Goals of Jewish Educa­ tion. New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1977, pp. 13-25.

Skinner, B. F. About Behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books, 1974.

Sklare, Marshall. America’s Jews. New York: Random House, 1971.

Soref, Irwin. "The Challenge of Israel." Jewish Education 39:4 (December, 1969), 48-49.

Swift, Fletcher H. Education in Ancient Israel. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co., 1919.

Taba, Hilda. Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1962.

Tanner, Daniel and Laurel. Curriculum Development: Theory Into Practice. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1975.

Toubin, Isaac. "The Right Hand's Cunning." Jewish Education 42:2-3 (Spring, 1973), 44-47.

Touroff, Nissan. "Jewish Education for the Moment or for the Future?". Jewish Education 16:3 (May, 1945), 30-33.

Trends in Jewish School Enrollment in the United States. New York: American Association for Jewish Education, 1976.

Tyler, Ralph. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1950.

Weinburger, Paul. "The Effects of Jewish Education." The American Jewish Yearbook, Vol. 72 (1971), 237-249.

Wild, John. "Education in Human Society: A Realistic View." Modern Philosophies of Education. 54th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955.

Wilds, Elmer Harrison and Lottich, Kenneth V. The Foundations of Modern Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. 159

Wingo, Max G. Philosophies of Education; An Introduction. Lexing­ ton, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Co., 1974.

Winter, Nathan. Jewish Education in a Pluralist Society. New York: New York University Press, 1966.

Wirth, Louis. "Education for Survival: The Jews." American Journal of Sociology 48:6 (May, 1943), 682-691.

Zais, Robert S. Curriculum Principles and Foundations. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1976.

Zborowsky, Mark. "The Place of Book Learning in Traditional Jewish Culture." Childhood in Contemporary Cultures. Edited by Margaret Mead, et. al. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966.

Zeligs, Dorothy. "Why an Activity Program?". Jewish Education 15:2 (January, 1944), 96-104.