Yachdav/School-to-School Israel-Diaspora Virtual Mifgash Preliminary Program Evaluation

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

Yachdav/School-to-School Israel-Diaspora Virtual Mifgash Preliminary Program Evaluation Lisa D. Grant July, 2006 Over the past few decades, we have observed an increasing distancing of American Jewry from Israel and a declining connection to the Jewish collectivity. This is particularly true for younger American Jews who are multiple generations distant from any immigrant experience and have minimal and/or diluted familial connections to Jews from other places around the world (Cohen 1998, American Jewish Committee 2003, Reinharz, 2003). Caring about Israel’s survival may be understood as important by most American Jews, but it does not figure into their religious identity or how they make personal meaning from being Jewish (Liebman and Cohen, 1990; Cohen and Eisen, 2000; Horowitz, 2000). This is hardly a one-sided problem as Israelis appear equally if not more disassociated from Jews elsewhere in the world. In a recent study more than twothirds of respondents (69%) said that the Jewish people in Israel are a different people than Jews living abroad (Guttman/Avi Chai survey, 2000). Again, the younger the population, the greater the sense of disconnect. These trends are worrisome to those Jewish educators who believe that cultivating a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people is an essential component of Jewish identity regardless of where one lives. Yet, cultivating a commitment to Jewish peoplehood may be one of the most challenging aspects of Jewish education. While much within Jewish education can be taught experientially, at least in part, Jewish peoplehood is difficult to experience beyond the symbolic level in a classroom or even in an informal setting. In recent years, a number of North American and Israeli initiatives have begun to address the challenge of this ethnic disconnect through a variety of programs that provide for personal interactions between Israeli and American Jews. Each year, the Jewish Agency for Israel sends over 1000 Israeli counselors, educators, and other program specialists to American Jewish summer camps. Jewish day school teacher trips to Israel often include some kind of meeting with educators in a sister city (Pomson and Grant, 2004), as do most UJA and community trips. Lately, many North American communities have brought young emissaries (post-high school age young adults) to live with families and work in schools and other Jewish educational settings for a year. Likewise, other “people to people” programs have begun in Jewish day schools. While there are no comprehensive data about the range and extent of these programs, a recent study (Kopelowitz, 2005) showed that slightly more than a third (36%) of American community day schools encourage their students to participate in activities that promote social engagement with Israel, either through partnership programs, events that create connections to Israeli youth, or (to a much lesser extent) programs that encourage Aliya. The Yachdav: School-to-School project of the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center in Haifa, is one such initiative designed to

1

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

enhance the level of social interaction between American and Israeli Jews. This “virtual mifgash” project is built around a series of units that include the exchange of work products between two classrooms, one in Israel and the other in the United States. In Israel, the program is taught by Lokey educators who come into the participating community schools on a visiting basis. Most of these educators teach in just one or two classes, though they also may teach other Lokey curriculum to different classes in the same school. In the U.S., the curriculum is taught by one or more classroom teacher in each school. Both the Hebrew and English program guides clearly state the project goals as follows: The Yachdav: School-to-School Israel-Diaspora Virtual Mifgash program aims to cultivate meaningful connections between Jewish fifth and sixth grade students in Israel and in the Diaspora. The basis of these connections is in getting both groups in touch, through a mutual learning experience, with what they have in common – Jewish content and values – while at the same time, giving them the opportunity to explore each group’s own unique identity as citizens of different cultures and countries. The project began with a few schools in Haifa and the Boston area in 2004 and quickly expanded the following year to include 26 American and 17 Israel schools. All of the Israeli schools are State secular schools. Three of the American schools are Reform or community day schools and the remaining are Reform and Conservative synagogue schools that generally meet twice a week for a total of four or five hours. In the spring and summer of 2006, I conducted a preliminary evaluation study of this program to begin to explore the extent to which the project goals were being met. Together with the educators and Yachdav program leadership, I wanted to explore two questions: (1) In what way does Yachdav enhance the level of social engagement between the students and faculty in the partner schools? And (2) How does Yachdav develop attitudes and attachment between Israel and the Diaspora? During the pilot phase of this project, I conducted a 90 minute focus group meeting with four Lokey Academy educators who teach the Yachdav program in Israeli partner schools and an additional one hour personal interview with another Lokey educator for a total of five. I also conducted hour-long face-to-face interviews with Atar Livni who, along with Aviva Golbert wrote the curriculum, and Yonaton Sacker, the Yachdav Program coordinator. In addition, I conducted telephone interviews with four principals and one teacher from participating schools in Massachusetts and Philadelphia. These conversations ranged between 30-40 minutes. Atar Livni served as a research consultant and in that capacity conducted interviews with three classroom teachers from two different schools in Haifa. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. As we will see below, a critical analysis of these data yields four central and interrelated issues. They are:

2

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

1. 2. 3. 4.

Different needs/Shared goals – How different are the needs for the program on each side of the partnership? How do these needs shape articulation of goals and expectations? The impediment of language - Can the language barriers be overcome? Multiple channels of communication – How can communication be enhanced between all the various parties within Israel and between Israel and the U.S.? Overall fit with curriculum – How does Yachdav fit within the broader educational vision and program of each participating school?

The analysis that follows does include a few recommendations for adjustments and improvements to the program. However, I do not delve into many of the operational issues that are better addressed through ongoing project management. Rather, my focus in this preliminary study is to raise a range of broader and more substantive questions that speak to Yachdav’s longer-term impact and potential. I conclude with these questions and the suggestion that they form the basis for any further inquiry. Different needs/Shared goals Not surprisingly, it appears that the orientation to the project is driven by social, cultural, and organizational factors that are distinct for each side of the partnership. Simply put, each side shapes their goals based on their perception of how the Yachdav curriculum might be able to meet their needs. For the Israelis, the emphasis is on building a stronger connection to Judaism; for the Americans, the project is about building a stronger connection to Israel and through Israel, the Jewish people. Yonaton Sacker, the Yachdav program coordinator commented on these differences in his interview: I think there’s a big difference between our goals here in Israel and the goals for the schools in the U.S. We come from absolutely different places in terms of what we are trying to accomplish. From our perspective in Israel, I think we are trying to introduce and deepen the students’ understanding of the Jewish world, to explore where they stand in the Jewish world and how they relate to the fact that there are Jews outside of Israel. For those in the U.S., I think the goal is to connect to Israel in a dynamic way through Israeli children. While clearly each side comes from “absolutely different places” as Yonaton states, the differences in ultimate goal may not be as distinct as he claims. I asked each of the educators to describe the goals of the project in their own words. Generally, there was broad consensus about the goals within each country. Lokey Academy educators and the school-based teachers in Israel all agreed on three primary goals: 1. 2. 3.

To develop an understanding that there are Jews outside of Israel and explore what it means to be a Jew outside of Israel; To create a connection to Jewish children outside of Israel; and To begin to understand the idea of Klal Yisrael.

3

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

One of the Lokey teachers articulated another goal as well, namely to strengthen both the Israeli and American students’ sense of connection to and pride in the State of Israel. For each of the American educators I interviewed, the primary goal of the program was as Yonaton stated, to develop a relationship with Israeli peers, where each group would learn what they shared in common with the other. Some noted they hoped this program would dispel what they perceived as an estrangement between the two communities. All hoped that the program would be an engaging way to help their students learn about the history, land, and people of Israel through this connection. Based on these statements, developing a strong personal relationship appears to be a stronger goal for the Americans but still central for both sides of the partnership. Both sides want to increase awareness and understanding of the other. Both sides believe that this connection can enhance a feeling of Jewish belonging. Though the angle of orientation for each side is naturally different based on their social and cultural context, at the heart of the matter, the ultimate goal for both sides is to strengthen Jewish identity through a meaningful encounter with other Jews who live elsewhere in the world. Evidence of learning Though the two sides may share ultimate goals, their experience of the program is more likely driven by their perception of needs than the end they have in mind. This subtle distinction between needs and ends emerged when I asked the educators to describe what their students learned through the program. For the Israelis, these needs were expressed in terms of building Jewish identity and awareness of the Jewish world beyond the borders of Israel; for Americans, the needs were also focused on building Jewish identity, but by using a personal connection to Israel as the means to achieve this end. Notwithstanding some significant obstacles, the Israeli educators reported a much higher level of enthusiasm for the program than their American counterparts. Several teachers noted how the students waited with great anticipation for the American students’ materials to arrive. All of the Israeli teachers I interviewed were quite enthusiastic about the video-conference, both from their own perspective and in terms of what they observed from their students. This excitement about the exchange of work and the videoconference was far less consistent on the American side. Overall, the Lokey educators felt that their students’ awareness of Jews and Jewish life outside of Israel increased substantially through their studies in Yachdav. They reported that many of their students had no conception that there were Jews elsewhere in the world prior to the Yachdav experience. As a result of Yachdav, they did begin to recognize that there are Jews all over the world and they also grasped that American Jews have to exert an effort to connect to the Jewish community and participate in Jewish life. One of the host-school teachers remarked that her students think they are lucky because they do not have to go to two different schools like their American counterparts.

4

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

The Israeli teachers also believed that their students learned a lot of content, such as Talmudic terms, and information about historical figures central to the creation of the modern state of Israel. They all agreed that their students enjoyed the activities and found the informal methods of instruction highly engaging. But, these educators also expressed lingering doubt about how deep the learning actually was. They wondered whether the students went beyond a basic awareness that there are Jews elsewhere in the world to a level of understanding and connection that Jews share something in common no matter where they live. They also acknowledged that there are natural limits to a program that has only thirteen units and is an add-on to the formal curriculum of the school. The assessment of learning as a whole was quite mixed at the American schools. For the most part, the principals were not able to cite specific examples of what the students learned. This may be due to the fact that they do not have the direct contact with the students that the classroom teachers have. When I asked them about evidence of learning, they shared their perceptions about whether the goals had been met. Three of the four principals expressed disappointment in this regard. These principals felt that their primary goal of building an active and meaningful relationship with Israeli students had not been achieved. One principal offered the following critique: The biggest thing they learned is there are kids in Israel similar to them. But, I didn’t feel we did this exploration of cultures and identity in any kind of deep way. Oh, he plays soccer and I play soccer, she goes to the mall and I go to the mall. We both have three siblings. We both listen to the same kind of music. There wasn’t a lot of what makes them Jewish, what makes us Jewish – how do we identify with each other aside from calling ourselves Jews. Impediments of language It appears that the language barriers were greater than anyone initially anticipated. Part of this problem relates to expectations and assumptions that in retrospect may have been better clarified prior to the start of the program. Neither side was particularly satisfied with the exchange of materials. Both expressed frustration that not everything was translated before it arrived. There were also misunderstandings about who would be responsible for translation and where it would take place. Some schools had the resources to undertake the translations themselves; others did not. Two of the American principals reported they had been assured that the materials would be translated into English in advance of being sent. They said this did not occur. Another principal noted that the problem was resolved after the first exchange of materials came in Hebrew. Hence forward, all the students’ products were translated into English before they were sent. This solution to the problem had repercussions on the Israeli side. The Lokey educators I interviewed indicated that their students’ invested a lot of time in translating their materials into English. When the exchange took place, they were very disappointed that

5

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

their American counterparts had not made the same effort to translate theirs. They noted that this was one of the major shortcomings of the process. Clearly, the exchange of materials should take place in a language that each side can understand. For an equitable partnership, each side should take responsibility for doing this work. However, teachers at virtually all American supplementary schools work just a few hours a week and there are few resources available to translate materials. They also have the advantage of the dominant language. Further, Modern Hebrew is not a curricular priority in American supplementary schools. Thus, the Americans typically expect that the translation work will be done on the Israeli side. It is not likely that a 13-week curriculum can change such a profound cultural expectation on the part of the Americans. In the short-term, this problem needs to be resolved by clarifying expectations and defining roles in advance of the school year. Steps must also be taken to make sure that the process is structured in ways that does not create disappointment or frustration on the part of the students in either the American or Israeli classrooms. Ultimately, this may require more support from faculty at the participating schools. Indeed, one of the Lokey educators and one of the classroom teachers from a host school both commented on how the English teachers were recruited to help with the translation of materials. This may actually serve as a means of increasing the involvement and commitment of the host school to the project. A longer-term idea may be to think about how to integrate the Yachdav curriculum into English language classes at the host Israeli school, and Hebrew classes at the host American school. Under this scheme, the students would be more actively engaged in doing their own translations with teacher support and supervision. Obviously, this would require a much greater commitment to the project in terms of time and integration into the broader vision of the school. Multiple Channels of Communication Perhaps the most visible and persistent challenges to this work all relate in some way to communication among and between the various parties engaged in the program. There are multiple relationships to cultivate, coordinate and maintain within Israel and between Israel and the American schools. There are constant scheduling issues and numerous logistical details to coordinate for each school and every partnership. These details of coordination are best left to day-to-day operations. For purposes of this pilot study, I want to pose several questions that may help thinking and planning about how to manage this complex task. There are four types of relationships and each presents its own particular questions and challenges. 1. Lokey Academy educators and Israeli schools

6

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

Questions: How can communication be strengthened between the classroom teacher and the Lokey educator? Should there be a designated liaison at the host school who works more closely with Yachdav? In what other ways can Yachdav become a more ongoing part of the life of the school? The Lokey educator is key to the relationship between the Lokey Academy and the partner schools. Based on the interviews, it appears that the degree to which Lokey staff members are integrated into the daily life of the school varies considerably from institution to institution. For example, one of the educators I interviewed teaches Yachdav in five different fifth grade classrooms in one school. Typically, she is at the school for several hours on a bi-weekly basis. She sits in the teachers’ room and engages in informal conversations with other teachers on a regular basis. Another Lokey educator teaches both Yachdav and another Lokey curriculum at the same school. She too, is a more constant presence at the host institution. In other cases, Lokey educators reported much less frequent and intense involvement in the daily life at their school. The three classroom teachers that were interviewed from the two host schools were all very favorable about the project and reported positive relationships with the Lokey educator. Two of these three teachers felt strongly linked to the project. The one who felt less connected attributed this to the fact that the principal scheduled the Yachdav program to take time from two subjects rather than situate it in a block of time of its own. The rationale here was to minimize the loss of time in other content-areas, but the net effect was that there was no one particular teacher who was thoroughly connected to the process. 2. Lokey Academy and American schools Question: How can the American schools be better supported through this project? The American principals raised a number of concerns about the administration and coordination of the project. We have already observed the frustration and misunderstandings around issues of translation. Each of the principals commented on the amount of administrative time needed to prepare the lessons and keep on schedule. They also noted the challenge of fitting these programs into their limited calendar. Despite their efforts, it appears that they did not always keep to schedule, as a number of the Israeli teachers commented on how there were delays because the materials from the American students didn’t arrive on time. In fact, one of the Lokey teachers described how she made accommodations to the curriculum to allow for these gaps. In addition, most of the principals noted that some or all of their teachers had difficulties understanding the curriculum and were uneasy in making choices about what to include or omit from the program. Two of the four American principals reported on technical difficulties that impeded the end of year video-conference. These problems related to malfunctioning equipment and a delayed start that cut the overall time in half. At one site, once the equipment started working, they were dismayed to find that the images were so small that it was difficult to

7

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

see the children from their partner school. The same principals who were frustrated by technology also said they felt the program itself was stiff and overly scripted with no real opportunity for the children to share who they are with each other. Those principals at those schools that had no technical problems were much more favorable about the videoconference, noting it was the highlight of the process. One of the communication challenges on the American side has to do with the congregational school structure. Total school hours are short, teachers are part-time and not always professionally trained. Some of the principals reported that their teachers felt fully engaged with the materials while others were overwhelmed by the detailed directions, the amount of prep time and content that was new to them. Indeed, it is highly likely that the Lokey educators are far better trained than most of their American counterparts Virtually the entire link between the Yachdav program and the American schools is with Yonaton, the project coordinator. The complexity of coordinating this project at multiple sites with differing levels of expertise and commitment is exacerbated by distance and cultural differences. Even the most satisfied of the American principals described communication glitches and expressed feeling a bit underserved. Given these factors, the Lokey Academy should seek a way to appoint a U.S.-based project coordinator to serve as the liaison and professional support on the American side of the project. 3. Between the Lokey educators themselves Question: How can the Lokey staff enhance the project through their collective wisdom and experience? Each of the Lokey educators has a different ‘basket’ of responsibilities. They teach at different sites and do different programs. Some work full-time, some part-time, and some teach Yachdav on a free-lance basis. This makes it very challenging to bring the staff together on a regular basis to develop collective wisdom. Yonaton acknowledge that there is a serious problem of meeting-overload at Lokey and that they are exploring ways to reorganize so that staff members are not required to participate in as many meetings. The question that remains is how to streamline the meeting schedule without sacrificing the opportunity for staff to reflect together on their Yachdav experiences and learn from each other. 4. Between Israeli and American schools Question: How can the direct school-to-school relationships be enhanced? There is little sense of a real school-to-school partnership on either side, although greater optimism about the potential for developing a partnership over time was expressed by the Israeli educators. Both the Israeli classroom teachers and the American principals who were interviewed felt the most substantive partnership was with the Lokey staff. As we

8

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

have seen, on the Israeli side, this is represented by the Lokey educator who comes to their school. On the American side, the relationship is with Yonaton Sacker, the Yachdav program coordinator. Several possibilities should be considered for ways to increase the communication and relationship-building between the educators who are actually teaching the curriculum. At the start of the school year, both the American and Israeli teachers were asked to complete a brief survey about themselves with questions such as why they chose teaching as a profession, a meaningful Jewish experience, and what they would they would like know about their partner school. The response rate was spotty at best and to my understanding, no American teachers completed the form. One of the American principals noted that it was nice to receive this information from the Israeli teachers, but it was in Hebrew, her teachers couldn’t read it and they didn’t have time to send something back. Perhaps, rather than filling out a written form, a teacher-to-teacher video conference could be arranged at the beginning of the project. Even simpler would be a telephone conversation and/or exchange over email. Clearly, actual visits to partner schools are ideal and any time American teachers travel to Israel or Israeli teachers travel to the U.S., visits to the partner school should be arranged. One of the Lokey educators suggested developing a parallel learning program for the teachers themselves. All of this takes a great deal of time and effort that may not be feasible with current staffing levels and budgetary resources. However, if the goal of a meaningful connection is to be achieved, greater attention must be paid to cultivating the relationships between not just the students but the teachers who are their guides to this process. Fit with broader curriculum goals Perhaps the most important issue relative to the overall success of Yachdav is how well the project fits with the broader educational vision and goals of the school. More interviews with a broader range of participants as well as in-school observations would be needed in order to develop a detailed picture of the place of Yachdav at each site. While that level of research is well beyond the scope of this study, these preliminary findings yield impressionistic evidence that raises questions and concerns. On the Israeli side, the Yachdav curriculum is perceived as something extra and special at most of the host schools in Israel. For the most part, study of American Jewry or Jews in the world beyond Israel is simply not part of the standard Israeli public school curriculum. Also, the leadership of many Israeli secular schools does not consider building Jewish identity of their students as part of their core educational mission. Thus, in some schools, the project fits within the content area “Jewish heritage”; but in other cases, it is a stand-alone and entirely unique subject. Further, the Lokey educators reported that many of the principals do not fully understand or buy into the goals of the project. Often, the impetus for signing up comes from outside pressure from their

9

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

American Partnership 2000 community. The Israeli principals see it as a “treat,” as a way to free up their own teachers, and maybe as a way to get a free trip to the U.S. However, there are also cases of schools that have a strong affinity to the project’s goals and well-established relationship with the Lokey Academy through a variety of curriculum projects. Certainly anecdotal reports suggest that there is a stronger relationship and clearer understanding of project goals in those schools where Lokey educators are a more active presence. But, further investigation is necessary to determine whether this is indeed the case and if so, whether a stronger relationship with the Lokey academy results in a more successful outcome. On the American side, the Yachdav curriculum seems also to be a stand-alone product, though again for different reasons. While some aspect of Israel is a part of most religious school programs, it is more likely to be the focus for part of one or two years than a topic that is interwoven into the ongoing subject matter. American religious schools are more likely to connect to Israel in symbolic ways through posters, the Israeli flag, and episodic celebrations around Tu B’Shvat and Yom Ha’atzmaut, than they are through substantive engagement with Israeli society, history, and culture. Indeed, the Yachdav program was attractive to all of the principals I interviewed because of the opportunity it offered to deepen the level of engagement beyond what one principal described as “making Israel real instead of just academic.” Each of the principals I interviewed saw Yachdav both as a way to improve their Israel curriculum in particular and to enhance the level of their school’s connection to Israel in general. Yet, none of the schools used Yachdav to enrich an already existing program; rather three of the four principals indicated that they replaced their prior Israel curriculum with Yachdav. Thus, it appears that they did not dedicate additional time for Israel study, but rather hoped this more intensive and interactive program would be a more engaging approach than what they had done in the past. For the fourth school, this was the first time they taught Israel at all. Interestingly, when I asked this principal to describe the potential impact of Yachdav on her school, she began to articulate a vision for how she would build upon this curriculum across grades, with children and parents, and in formal and informal settings. She said: I think it could have a tremendous spin off if these relationships do take off – extend it from kids to families. That could really bring people in. The kids who went on the 11/12th grade trip this year, met with Lokey. If these kids remain in the program, we would change our high school program to keep that alive. Next Steps This preliminary analysis shows that there have been both significant achievements and major impediments blocking full attainment of the program’s goals. Early in the report, I listed two questions that shaped this inquiry. The first of these questions relates more to the program specifics of relationship-building between two partner schools. The second question transcends the project details and gets to the heart of a deeper issue about

10

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

Yachdav might contribute to developing stronger levels of connection between Israeli and American Jews. 1.

In what way does Yachdav enhance the level of social engagement between the students and faculty in the partner schools? and How does Yachdav develop attitudes and attachment between Israel and the Diaspora?

2.

The findings of this phase of the study reveal much more about the first question than the second. Here, we can say that Yachdav does enhance the level of social engagement between the students and faculty in the partner schools simply because most of these schools had no substantive interaction with the “other” prior to implementing this program. It is also clear that many of the educators on both sides believe that more needs to be done to develop these relationships. We saw that both American and Israeli educators reported concerns about communication between the partners, translation of materials exchanged between the classes, and expectations about the depth of interpersonal engagement between the students. We also saw that disappointment and frustration with the administrative details, limited logistical support, and technology ran higher among the American schools. Along with this criticism however, we found strong support and commitment to the program on both sides. Most of those interviewed express good will in wanting to make it work better for all involved. It is far more complicated to explore the second question articulated above. At this stage of the process the data available focus far more on the programmatic details than they do on this larger question. Further, this was the first year of the program for almost all of these schools. Assessing this larger question about changing attitudes and deepening connections between Israeli and American Jews will require much more detailed study over time. The few recommendations offered in the body of the report focus mainly on minor adjustments to the program and processes that are already in place. Indeed, that is the function of an evaluation report such as this. Aside from these details however, the analysis did raise several questions that may help direct further inquiry and planning. •

Breadth or depth in terms of partner schools –Should Lokey work more deeply with schools that have an affinity towards the goals or try to spread the program as far and wide as possible?

•

Breadth or depth in terms of the curriculum – Should the curriculum stay as is, or should it be modified to allow for more substantive conversation on fewer topic areas?

•

How can the video-conferencing technology be better utilized to enhance communication and connection?

11

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

•

What expectations and commitments are needed from the schools before signing on? Should American teachers be compensated for the extra time it takes to establish and maintain the relationship?

•

How can Lokey staff improve communication and coordination among and between the participants?

•

How can Lokey staff work to more effectively to engage and positively exploit the host school teachers?

12

Report Prepared for the Lokey International Academy of Jewish Studies at the Leo Baeck Education Center, Haifa, Israel

References Bram, Chen and Neria, Eran Neria. (2002). Veni, Vedi, li? : Israeli 'Shlichim' "Identity Encounters" in U.S Jewish Summer camps. Jerusalem: JAFI Research Report. Cohen, Steven M. (1998). Religious stability and ethnic decline: emerging patterns of Jewish identity in the United States. New York: The Florence G. Heller – Jewish Community Centers Association Research Center. Cohen, Steven M. and Eisen Arnold. (2000). The Jew within: self, family, and community in America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Horowitz, Bethamie. (2000). Connections and Journeys: Assessing critical opportunities for enhancing Jewish identity. New York: UJA-Federation of New York. Kopelowitz, Ezra. (2005). Towards what ideal do we strive? A portrait of social and symbolic engagement with Israel in Jewish community day schools. Jerusalem: The Jewish Agency for Israel and RAVSAK – The Jewish Community Day School Network. Levy, Shlomit, Levinsohn, Hanna, and Katz, Elihu. (2000). A Portrait of Israeli Jewry: Beliefs, Observances, and Values among Israeli Jews 2000. Highlights from an In-Depth Study Conducted by the Guttman Center of the Israel Democracy Institute for The AVI CHAI Foundation. Liebman, Charles and Cohen, Steven M. (1990). Two worlds of Judaism: the Israeli and American experiences. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pomson, Alex and Grant, Lisa D. (2004). “Getting personal with professional development,” in Education and training. Jerusalem: Research Development Unit of the Department for Jewish Zionist Education of the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Melton Centre for Jewish Education of the Hebrew University. Reinharz, Jehuda. (2003). Israel in the eyes of Americans: a call for action. Waltham, MA: Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University.

13