FORUM I Trends and Challenges in Jewish Family Education

ALVIN I. SCHIFF

synagogue after daily morning and Shabbat minhah services is still a common practice A TRADITIONAL CONCEPT in almost all traditional synagogues. More­ involving parents and over, daily learning, particulady the Daf adult family members is an idea as old as Yomi—xhc study of a page of the the Jewish people. In Judaic tradition, life­ each day, instituted in Lublin, Poland by long learning— study, as broadly Rabbi Meif Shapiro in 1913—is a regular defined —has been a critical dimension of occurrence in many segments of the Ortho­ Jewish life, particularly for men (Talmud, dox community. ?eah la; Yoma 35a; Kosh Hashana i8a; When speaking about Jewish family , 1:10). More­ education two decades ago, even to Jewish over, the role of the home in education is educators, my words, by and large, fell on paramount [Pirkei Avot, 1:4). An adult deaf ears. Only a few educators and fewer man engrossed in the study of Talmud lay leaders considered this subject worthy during an evening or Shabbat afternoon of serious deliberation. Now, Jewish family in his home was a common scene in the education is generating a great deal of Eastern Eutopean shtetl, as was the practice excitement and interest. What has led to of fathers reviewing the weekly Torah por­ this avalanche of interest by the Jewish tion with their sons. Mothers and daughters community? The answer to this question were involved in Jewish family education requires a retrospective look. In reality, through the home rituals and activities in involving Jewish parents in Jewish life and which they engaged. Jewish school activities and offering parent Judaic learning was considered so impor­ education ptograms are not entirely new tant that it was elevated to the level of subjects on the Jewish educational agenda. prayer by the sages of the Talmud. Indeed, What is new is the universality of interest the prayer book contains numerous sections and the urgency and intensity with which from the Bible and Talmud for which the Jewish family education is now being considered. reader merits the mitzvah of study as well as prayer when reciting them. The Kaddish d'Kabbanan was formulated specifically to follow a study portion of the prayers AMERICAN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (Maimonides, Ha-Kaddish). A On a formal community-wide level in the prime example of the interlacing of study , the earliest Jewish family with prayer is the inclusion of Pirkei Avot education effort was sponsored by the (Ethics of the Fathers) in the traditional Bureau of Jewish Education of New York prayer book. Incorporated into the liturgy in the early 1900s (Winter, 1966). At that in the 9th century, Pirkei Avot achieved a time, the goal of family education was a prominent place in the prayer book of combination of Jewish acculturation and Amram Gaon. Group in the Americanization. In 1917, Samson Benderly, director of the Bureau, inaugurated the Jewish Home Institute, a correspondence Presented at the North Amencan Netwoik Con­ ference of the Melton Senior Educators' Program, course for mothers of young children. Lack­ New York. ing sufficient funds, this creative project

162 Trends and ChaUenges in Jewish Family Education / 2.63 was abandoned soon after its initiation gram for parents of students in the first

(Winter, 1966), grade of afternoon Conservative schools. It Since then, parental involvement in had three basic elements: subject matter Jewish education has taken many different correlative with the cur­ fotms. For example, from the 1930s to the riculum, with special emphasis on issues

1950s, emulating practices of the public relating to parent-child relationships; the school (which until recently, with the ex­ uniqueness and direction of parenthood as ception of isolated individual and group understood in Jewish tradition; and general efforts, discouraged parental involvement), Jewish knowledge and skills. An ambitious participation of parents in Jewish schooling endeavor, PEP required parents to study a was often in the nature of PTA activity. minimum of 1V2 hours each school week. Patent involvement was expressed not by Soon after the beginning of PEP, the actual learning, but through service to the United Synagogue launched the Family school, such as serving refreshments to Kallot program. Each Kallah was designed children, providing financial support to to provide intensive Jewish living expeti- schools by purchasing needed equipment, ences fot parents and children as family and providing scholarship aid. units over a period of 5 days at Camp After World War II, following the lead Ramah in Pennsylvania. of American education, many Jewish early By the fall of 1978, three different study childhood educators began working with programs had been developed — PEP I for parents as part of their educational activity. parents of elementary schoolchildren on As a rule, Jewish eady child educators formal subject mattet, PEP II for parents consider parent education a significant of adolescents on societal problems involv­ part of their instructional work. ing teen-aged youth, and PEP III for pre- As the modern synagogue grew in mem­ nursery and nursery school parents offering bership, adult education programs were guidance on Jewish family living. In 1985, organized by individual synagogues. These the PEP program was reconstituted as the generally included courses in Hebrew read­ Family Education Program. Although it ing, , , has shown positive results in the partici­ Bible and prayer, as well as lecture series pating synagogues, PEP never achieved by prominent leaders and scholars. In both wide popularity (Hyman Campeas, personal these courses and lecture series, only the communication, 1990). highly motivated synagogue membets par­ In 1 949, the Community Services Division ticipated with regularity. Both types of of University launched YUDAE, a programs continue to be sponsored by program aimed at bringing Jewish learning synagogues and synagogue schools. to adults through their Orthodox syna­ Each major ideological movement has gogues. A unique feature of the program developed its own form of parent educa­ was its credit-bearing coursework that led tion. The Union of American Hebrew to a university certificate upon completion.

Congregations of the Reform movement At its peak in the 1960s several thousand has had a longstanding interest in adult adults in the United States and Jewish education, which has been expressed were enrolled in YUDAE. over the years in a wide variety of policy In another vein, Yeshiva University statements on the importance of lifelong organized Torah Tours in 1961. The pur­ learning and through the publishing of pose of this program has been to reach out books on the Bible and Jewish history to the more isolated communities and to

(Segal, 1971-73; Manuel Gold, personal strengthen the synagogue thtough family communication, 1990). Shabbatonim for adults and childten, sep­ In 1970, the United Synagogue Com­ arately and together; at these retteats pat- mission on Jewish Education initiated the ticipants use creative group techniques to Parent Education Program (PEP), a pro­ plan and develop the activities themselves. 2-64 / Journal of Jewish Communal Service

Staffed by Yeshiva University students, in this issue); in New York, the Parent and Torah Tours reaches some 30 communities Children for Education synagogue-based throughout the United States (Mordecai program by Joan Kaye, and the Schnaidman, personal communication, program by the Early Childhood Education

1990). and Outreach departments of the Board of In the area of all-day Jewish education, Jewish Education; in Los Angeles, the Torah Umesorah, The National Society for creative holiday materials, research and Hebrew Day Schools, launched an ambi­ advocacy activities by Dr. Ronald Wolfson; tious parent education in Metropolitan New and in Washington, the Jewish Discovery

York in the 1950s involving hundreds of Room for hands-on-activity by the Board parents each week in serious coursework in of Jewish Education.

Judaic studies. Currently, it is co-sponsored By the end of the 1980s, most Jewish by the National Council of Young Israel communities could point to some Jewish as an adult education lecture series. For family education activity in their locales. over two decades, beginning in 1950, Torah Umesorah's National Association of Hebrew Day School PTAs published The Jewish REASONS FOR UPSURGE OF INTEREST Parent, a magazine for families of yeshiva IN FAMILY EDUCATION students. This publication served to inform Two factors fuel the current interest in and its readership about various aspects of the development of Jewish family education Jewish day school and to strengthen ties to programs. First is the increasing awareness the day school movement (Joshua Fishman, of the growing bipolar state of Jewish personal communication, 1990). behavior. A minority of thejewish com­

In the late 1970s there developed a new munity is involved intensively in Jewish interest in Jewish education for adults and schooling, whereas increasingly larger families. In many communities, pre- numbers of demonstrate little or no breakfast and lunch-and-learn sessions interest in Jewish life for themselves or for were organized in professional offices and their children. This latter group—compris­ communal agencies. Among other indicators ing, by far, the vast majority of American of the growing interest in this area was the Jewry —is the product of the acculturation/ mini-conference on Jewish family education deculturation syndrome of Jewish life as sponsored in 1980 by the Conference of Jews became integrated comfortably into Alternatives in Jewish Education. At that American society. conference, which convened several of the Jewish communal leadership now feels pioneers in the field, six categories of the urgent need to find ways to address Jewish family education were delineated: the Jewish needs of alienated and margin­ celebration and observance, workshops, ally affiliated Jews and to involve them in sedarim, joint learning, ongoing learning thejewish community. One way of doing experiences, and extended time programs. this is through Jewish family education.

During the 1970s and 1980s, a variety of The second reason for the upsurge of creative education efforts for children and interest in Jewish family education is the thejewish family were launched in com­ BJE of Greater New York's 1988 landmark munities throughout the United States: in study of thejewish supplementary school, Baltimore, for example, the Home Start I Jewish Supplementary Schooling: An Behrman House project by Dr. Hyman Educational System in Need of Change. Chanover; in Cambridge, Massachusetts, The findings and conclusions of this com­ the Harvard-Hillel School by Sherry Kohler prehensive 3-year effort, which used both Fox; in Detroit, the hands-on Jewish Expe­ normative survey and scientific measure­ riences for Families and other activities by ment techniques, confirmed the worst fears Harlene Applebaum (see article by Bernard of lay and professional leaders in Jewish Trends and Challenges in Jewish Family Education / i6 5

education. Supplementary school, is, with The wide dissemination of the BJE study very few exceptions, not an effective instru­ findings, conclusions, and recommendations mentality for the transmission of Jewish has had a major impact on the Jewish knowledge and values. The fact that 70% educational community: the hiring by of the Jewish school enrollment is found growing numbers of synagogues and com­ in congregational schools makes attention munities of Jewish family educators, the to these findings all the more urgent. intensification of extant Jewish family edu­ A major reason for the nonefifectiveness cation programs, the launching of major of the Jewish supplementary school is the communal and regional conferences on lack of Jewish home environment and Jewish family education, the initial efforts family support for Jewish schooling. The by some synagogues to reorganize their overwhelming majority of parents of Jewish program thmst and retool for Jewish family supplementary school pupils have very lit­ education, and the strengthening of the tle knowledge of and are very role and influence of the handful of Jewish marginally affiliated with organized Jewish educators who have been laboring with life. They enroll their children in the syn­ dedication in the vineyards of Jewish family agogue school solely for Bar/Bat Mitzvah education. preparation. They are unsure of what they Over the past few years, a variety of want or should expect from the school and national, regional, and local conferences provide little or no support, encouragement, on Jewish family education have taken or reinforcement at home. Moreover, most place. The i-day conference sponsored by parents feel that they have neither the the Principals Service / Resource Center of time nor the desire to become involved in BJE of Greater New York at Columbia the school or the synagogue. University in 1989 might serve as a model These findings remind us of George for bureau-based Jewish family education Bernard Shaw's biting comment, "There meetings (Schiff, 1989). A key element of might be some doubt as to who are the this conference was the composition of the best people to have charge of children; participants. It included all the stakeholders but there can be no doubt that parents in Jewish family education— rabbis, prin­ are the worst." Just ponder this statement cipals, teachers, youth leaders, parents, vis-a-vis Jewish upbringing. and synagogue and communal lay leaders. The BJE study concludes that, unless Jewish education of the entire family be­ comes the absolute priority of the syna­ EVERYONE IS DOING JEWISH gogue, unless the parents become more FAMILY EDUCATION involved in thejewish education of their The universality of Jewish family education children, unless the school program is (JFE) is a trend in itself. The list of spon­ geared to the needs of families, and unless sors of JFE programs in North America all synagogue personnel are able to relate reads like an encyclopedia of Jewish organ­ effectively to pupils and then parents, very izations. It includes central agencies for little or no improvement in Jewish supple­ Jewish education, family service agencies, mentary education can take place. synagogues, congregational schools, Jewish This conclusion is supported by research day schools, independent early childhood regarding education in the public sector, programs, Jewish Community Centers, particularly the landmark studies of James federations, Jewish community relations Coleman (1966), Christopher Jencks (1972.), councils, Jewish museums, schools of higher and David Cohen (1971) in the 1960s and Jewish learning, national Jewish organiza­ 1970s, and by the research of Andrew tions and their local chapters, fraternal Greeley and Peter Rossi on Catholic edu­ groups, ideological commissions of educa­ cation in the 1960s (1966). tion, human relations agencies, and Zionist i66 / journal of Jewish Communal Service

organizations. In addition, thete are many An analysis of over lOo projects publi­ instances of interagency collaboration and cized as Jewish family education demon­ co-sponsorship of Jewish family education strates that there are essentially eight types programs. of programs. Among the variety of sponsoring groups, it is clear that the synagogue is the piimary 1. parallel education programs in which agency for Jewish family education. The parents meet regularly or occasionally case for congregationally based Jewish to study the same subjects and texts family education can easily be made because that their children are studying in school synagogues most readily possess the com­ 2. shared experiences for parents and chil­ bination of factors needed for Jewish family dren in an institutional setting, gen­ education to succeed. Synagogues can teach erally centering around Shabbat and the largest number of families. They were holidays, that lend themselves to hands- established, in the first instance, to serve on activities families. The three Hebrew terms used 3. family learning experiences through interchangeably for the word "synagogue" actual celebration or observance of clearly convey this point: bet knesset (house Shabbat, holidays, or special events of assembly), bet tefillah (house of prayer), 4. projects and/or materials about the and bet midrash (house of study). As a Jewish family for home study or work multifunctional agency, the basic synagogue by parents and children structure lends itself to providing Jewish 5. education parents: seminars, lec­ family education setvices fot its members. tures, workshops, or discussion groups Moreover, it has the staff for effective about Jewish themes Jewish family education. Accordingly, the 6. guidance concerning family life to indi­ recommendations of the BJE of Greater vidual parents and to couples New York Study emphasize the importance 7. community-wide events for families, of the team approach to Jewish family including Shabbat and festival meals, education involving all synagogue profes­ sedarim, and special events, such as sionals—the tabbi, assistant rabbi, school Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom Hashoah principal, cantor, teachers, youth leaders, 8. retreats and weekend Shabbatonim or and parent and lay volunteers. week-long camp experiences for families

The most popular of these activities are TYPES OFJEWISH FAMEY EDUCATION education for parents, (particularly formal Not all the activities promoted as Jewish lectures), individual parental guidance, family education by the various organiza­ and shared experiences in institutional set­ tions ate really Jewish family education. tings, usually hands-on activity about Some programs are planned carefully to Jewish holidays and the Jewish life cycle. include children and parents. Others are Do-it-yourself projects at home and mu­ hip-pocket efforts. Some are developed seum activities are being promoted with out of the convicuon of the absolute need more regularity. for and value of Jewish family education; Gaining in popularity are retreats and others are sponsored because "it's the thing camp programs for families. Retreats are to do" at this time. Some are programs expensive and depend upon the availability involving the whole family; others are of significant funding. In this regard, it purely adult education activities. Some must be noted that Istael expetiences for place great stress on the Jewish aspects of families are not yet a serious consideration home life; others are family life education for most organizations because of their programs with little or no attention to the expense and time-consuming nature. Jewish component of Jewish family living. In view of the current variety of pro- Trends and ChaUenges in Jewish Family Education I 167 grams, the question emerges: which of developing guidelines for families these programs are the best or most effec­ 4. the need to develop training programs tive? The answer, of course, must be "all for Jewish family educators, such as the of them," if they tespond effectively to colloquium, "Educating the Jewish particular needs. Although some may be Family Educator," presented by the effective in producing specific results, the BJE of Greater New York in 1990, programs' effectiveness must be evaluated which included these components: in terms of how they enhance the Jewish a) understanding the Jewish needs of living of the families involved. Again, the marginal Jewish families answer depends on the participants' needs b) ways of conceptualizing change in and the nature of their communities. Jewish family life It is abundantly clear that much more c) establishing the basic knowledge well-planned experimentation with Jewish needs of Jewish family educators family education must take place before regarding Judaism and educational considering which approaches should be practice disseminated or emulated as most effective. d) exploring models of professional training e) learning how teams of specialists JFE NEEDS AND CHALLENGES can work together most effectively Any discussion on Jewish family education f) learning how to develop JFE materials is incomplete without attention to needs g) developing evaluation techniques and challenges facing it. Five needs require for Jewish family education immediate responses: 5. the need, given the plethora of Jewish family education eflfotts cutrently taking 1. the need to plan programs for single place, to define the elements of effective parents, a growing segment of our Jewish family education (Jewish family community education means so many different 2. the need to address two critical target things to different people), establish populations more aggressively: criteria for determining effectiveness, a) young parents and their preschool develop procedures for evaluation, and children, as done by Mishpacha evaluate the effectiveness of current programs successfully piloted by the program prototypes BJE of Greater New York and spon­ sored also by several other agencies The final need stated above will help guide b) pre-Bar/Bat Mitzvah youth and theit the future development of JFE efforts. As parents via organized study experi­ such, it takes precedence over all othets. ences and self-study matetials. An Jewish family education faces a numbet example of appropriate materials is of administtative and institutional chal­ Coming of Age as A Jew (Glatzer, lenges. The first is restructufing synagogues 1989), the two-volume Bar/Bat so that the emphasis of the congregational Mitzvah manual and workbook for school is on education of the entite family parents and children recently pub­ — including the child —instead of schooling lished by the Board of Jewish Edu­ for the child only. This requires that all cation of Greater New York synagogue personnel be organized into 3. the need to harness modern technology JFE teams. — the videotape and computer—for The second challenge is integrating for­ family home study and activity by mal and informal education programs, making available extant software, new creating the necessary confluence of the software, arranging the materials in cognitive and affective domains. The arti­ sequential order for home use, and ficial division between formal and informal i68 / Journal of Jewish Communal Service

instructional activities reduces the potential it augufs well, both for the future of the effectiveness of the education process. Jewish education enterprise and for the Defining, empowering, and supporting Jewish community. the role of Jewish family educatois are crucial to the success of any JFE enterprise. Support presupposes the provision of full- REFERENCES

time career opportunities for at least one Cohen, David. (1971, November 15). Why cur­ Jewish family educator in each synagogue. riculum doesn't matter. The New Leader, Developing suategies to empower parents p. 16. to teach, guide, and provide support to Coleman, James S. (1966). Equality of educa­ their children is a critical dimension of tional opportunity. Washington, DC: US each family education effort if that effort Government Printing Office. Glatzer, Shoshana. (1989). Coming of age as a is to take permanent root in the home life Jew. New York: Board of Jewish Education of the family members and is to help the of Greater New York. children succeed in the synagogue and Greeley, Andrew M., & Rossi, Peter H. (1966). school. Parents must become involved in The education of Catholic Americans. planning these strategies and all programs Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. involving famihes. In doing so, they become Jencks, Christopher. (1971). Inequality. A vested in the programs and in Jewish life reassessment of the effect of family and activities. schooling in America. New York: Basic Books. Finally, a major challenge is the devel­ Segal, Abraham, (197L-73). The road to learning opment in each community of the means in celebration of the founding of the Union of American Hebrew Congregadons. In Jewish to sponsor Israel experiences. Well-planned book annual, vsl. 30. New York: UAHC. total immersion programs in the Jewish Schiff, Alvin I. (1989, Summer-Winter). The State have had a remarkable influence Jewish family in socio-educational perspective. upon Jews of all ages. As such, we must Jewish Education, 57 ('1-4). exploit Israel as an educational resource Schiff, Alvin I., & Botwinik, Chaim Y. (1988). for families. Jewish supplementary schooling: An educa­ In sum, thejewish community, spear­ tional system in need of change. New York: headed by the pioneering programs devel­ Board of Jewish Education of Greater New oped by forward-looking Jewish educators, York. has entered a new era of Jewish education. Winter, Nathan H. {i<)GG). Jewish education in Since this phase of Jewish schooling em­ a pluralist society. New York: New York phasizes the education of the whole family University Press.