סתיו תשע"ה • AUTUMN 2014 Mission & Vision Reenvisioning Day Joseph Telushkin 10 School & Responses 50 on the Rebbe’s Mission in this issue: RAVSAK News COLUMNS: From the Editor, page 5 • From the Board, page 6 • Good & Welfare, page 7 • Dear Cooki, page 8 • Jonathan Woocher, Keeping the Vision, page 34 PROGRAMS: Hebrew Poetry Contest, page 17 • North American Jewish Day School Conference, page 19 • Moot Beit Din, page 23 • RA VSAK Welcomes Yael Steiner, page 29 • HoS PEP, page 38 • Judaic Art Contest, page 53 • Head of School Survey, page 60 • Thank You to All Our Donors, pages 66-67 • Nevatim Conference, page 69 • JCAT, page 71 • Reshet Roundup, page 75 A Bold New Visio N Beyond Continuity, Literacy and Identity: Making a Compelling 10 Case for Jewish Day Schools to 21st Century American Jews Daniel L. Lehmann A Bold New VisioN: Respo Nses 18 The Creativity Imperative Miriam Heller Stern A Compelling, Yet More Demanding, 21 Vision for 21st Century Day Schools Michael S. Berger 24 Enacting the Case: A Response from a Practitioner’s Perspective Susie Tanchel 26 Pluralism: An Inquiry Steven Lorch 28 Pluralism, Ethnos, Creativity and Israel Shaul Magid 30 A Mission and Vision of the Present Rivy Poupko Kletenik 32 A New Theory of Vision Jon Levisohn 36-37 MissioN stAteMeNts fRoM ouR schools Bialik College, Melbourne, Australia • B’nai Israel Community Day School, Gainesville, Florida • Hillel Academy, Tampa, Florida • Bialik Hebrew Day School, Toronto, Ontario • New Community Jewish High School, West Hills, California • Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School, Northridge, California pRoduciNg MissioNs 40 The Power and Practice of Visioning Robert Leventhal 44 Crafting Effective Mission and Vision Statements Ray Levi 46 Establishing an Integrated Community and School in Israel Ayelet Lehman 50 Leadership Lessons from the Rebbe Interview with Joseph Telushkin usiNg MissioNs 54 Mission Driven Teachers Tzivia Garfinkel 56 From Mission Statement to Disciplinary Policy Mark H. Shpall 58 Partnering with Parents: It’s All About Mission Alli Debrow thiNkiNg ABout MissioNs 62 הידיעון Giving Our Missions a Why Jeffrey Schrager 64 Eliana Lipsky The Pluralistic Mission in Everyday Practice • HaYidion 72 Building Community Using Mission Statements Menachem Hecht and Pinchos Hecht 76 Complexity Leadership for Complex Day Schools Sharon Pollin [3] A New Theory of Vision ¿ By Jon A. levisohn The world of Jewish education has been To begin to answer this question, we can go of “aims” and “purposes,” rather than “vi- thinking about “the vision thing” for a de- back all the way to 1959, when Fox—thirty sion.” But this diagnosis is consistent with cade or more. Of course, that phrase reminds years old, working as an assistant to Chancel- his later critique of the absence of vision, in us that the concern for vision has a long lor of JTS Louis Finkelstein with oversight Visions of Jewish Education (p. 8): history. Back in 1987, then-Vice President over the Camp Ramah system—published a Bush was criticized for lacking a vision at paper titled “A Prolegomenon to a Philoso- Why do we emphasize vision? Without a guid- the outset of his presidential campaign. His phy of Jewish Education.” In that paper, he ing purpose, an educational system is bound unscripted and exasperated use of that mem- argues that, traditionally, philosophies of to be scattered and incoherent, incapable of orable phrase—“the vision thing”—at once education “first developed their principles … consecutive effort, unable either to grasp the affirmed the importance of vision while also [and then] adumbrate[d] the kind of societ- possibilities of effective action or to avoid the betraying some confusion as to what the cri- ies [and] men … which would exhibit these obstacles in its path. Lacking a directive guide tique was all about. principles.” These “embodiments … then to the future, the system becomes repetitive and served as guides to determine the education- uninspired, prey to past habit, incapable of In my experience with Jewish educators, that al approach.” justifying itself to new generations of our youth confusion about vision is familiar. We are in the world they will inhabit. much better at criticizing the absence of vi- In other words, we must start by determin- sion than we are at articulating exactly what ing our most foundational commitments. The last element in particular, the notion a vision is. Our colleague Danny Lehmann These commitments will then be encom- that our educational systems must be contin- has proposed a set of intriguing, generative passed or embodied in specific forms as ideal ually reinvigorated with new ideas appropri- ideas. Do these ideas amount to ate to a new generation, finds a vision of Jewish education? Do an echo in Lehmann’s article they do the work that a vision is as well: “We must think more supposed to do? Confusion about vision is familiar: boldly in response to the needs we are much better at criticizing and aspirations of this genera- My purpose here is not to engage tion of Jews.” with his specific proposals. In- the absence of vision than we are at stead, I want to work out what we articulating exactly what a vision is. But back to the 1959 paper. mean by vision, how visions work, Fox is not content to offer a and why they’re important. And I critique; he also proposes a will do so by offering a critique of the domi- societies or ideal people. Then, once we have solution that should sound strikingly famil- nant theory of vision in Jewish education as these in mind, the rest of our educational de- iar. He writes about the need to cultivate expressed by my teacher and the teacher of cisions will flow from or will be determined so many of us in this field, Seymour Fox. by them. a number of schemes, differing as different scholars give different weights to different Many readers of HaYidion will recall Sey- Alas, “Jewish education and Jewish educa- sources of Jewish tradition and organize them mour Fox as the head of the Mandel Foun- tors have forgotten the problem of ends or according to their lights. … Each scheme will dation-Israel, and before that a leader at goals.” As a result, he says, Jewish education be a valid theory for education and an authen- the Melton Centre at Hebrew University, has become, quite literally, “aimless.” The ef- tic image of Judaism. the Melton Center at JTS, and Camp Ra- forts of Jewish educators have no articulated mah—and for his role in creating the Vi- aims. “And when education is aimless then We need to call on our best scholars to devel- sions of Jewish Education Project at the the practical, the means of education … be- op “schemes,” informed by their own deeply Mandel Foundation, which produced the comes a matter of taste.” Rather than being informed interpretations of the Jewish tradi- edited volume Visions of Jewish Education in guided by principles, our educational efforts tion. There will be multiple schemes—Fox 2003. That project focused on the voices of are instead characterized by idiosyncrasy. was a pluralist long before anybody used the the scholars whose learning Fox revered and “The problem for a philosophy of Jewish language of pluralism—but each one will be on whom he relied to produce the creative, education is to disclose the principles that “authentic,” and each one will be an “image diverse visions encompassed in the book. In will lead to a coherent structure of ends and of Judaism.” A bit later on in the paper, he other words, the specific visions produced by means.” Instead of idiosyncrasy, he wants co- lays out a comprehensive map of the funda- the project were those of Twersky, Brinker herence, a fully-worked out system in which mental, existential questions that a philos- הידיעון and the others. However, the theory of vision the means lead to ends and the ends are em- ophy of Jewish education should consider. in the project was Fox’s own. bodiments of our principles. And then he says, “When we answer such questions as these … then I believe we will • HaYidion So what is Fox’s theory of vision? Interestingly, in 1959, Fox uses the language [continued on page 32] [31] discover the image of the ideal or educated Let us call Fox’s theory of vision, the the- ways been done. We want them to ask why. Jew.” ory that focuses on the development of a And we want them to keep asking why, like comprehensive image of the ideal educated a bunch of unruly two-year-olds, pushing Thus, a philosophy of Jewish education Jew, “Vision-with-a-capital-V.” Why, we and probing, not accepting superficial an- ought to pursue the question of purposes or might wonder, does Fox expect a Vision to swers, getting to the bottom of things. goals. And it must be comprehensive and be comprehensive? What’s wrong with just systematic, encompassing the answers to offering a few good ideas to guide practice? So there’s something attractive about the all of life’s important questions. But what is The answer is that, when it comes to the notion that each of our decisions about especially striking is his proposal about the pursuit of purposes, Fox was as scared of su- practice—decisions about what to teach way to pursue those questions, namely, by perficial and incoherent ideas as he was of (curriculum) and how to teach (pedagogy), developing robust images of the ideal edu- the absence of ideas. He often denounced as well as other important considerations cated Jew, images that are excavated out of “slogans,” meaningless phrases or phrases such as whom to admit and serve, and the Jewish tradition.