Acknowledgements

JESNA wishes to thank the following people who contributed theirinsights and energy to this report: Michelle Brooks, Gail Dorph, LeoraIsaacs, Steven Kraus, Andi Meiseles, Kate O’Brien, Shira Rosenblatt,Mark Silk, and Devorah Silverman.

© JESNA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THIS REPORT AND ITS CONTENTS ARE THE PROPERTY OF JESNA AND MAY NOT BEREPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.

ii • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

JESNA’s Publication and Dissemination Project is funded by a generous

grant from the Mandell L. and Madeleine H. Berman Foundation.

Table of Contents

Methodological Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Highlights of Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Making Jewish Education Work:Professional Development for Educators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Works Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix:Referenced Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . App-1

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • iii

Methodological PrefaceThe Publications and Dissemination Project (PDP), aninitiative of JESNA’s Learnings and Consultation Center(LCC), brings JESNA’s knowledge and expertise topractitioners and policymakers in the field by means ofprint and online media.

Each report of the PDP focuses on lessons learned aboutan aspect of Jewish education based on research andevaluations (performed primarily by JESNA’s BermanCenter for Research and Evaluation in JewishEducation), as well as on-the-ground knowledge(primarily gleaned from JESNA’s LCC staff who workdirectly with Jewish educators in the field). The PDPreports are vehicles through which JESNA interprets anddisseminates lessons learned in the various modes of ourpractice as a way to enhance Jewish education deliverysystems.

This issue of Making Jewish Education Work considersProfessional Development for Educators, because it is acritical component on their educational continuum.Learnings are derived from three sources:

• Evaluation reports developed by JESNA’sBerman Center for Research and Evaluation;

• Tacit knowledge and anecdotal feedback fromJESNA’s LCC gleaned from demonstrationprojects and ongoing consultative work in thefield-at-large; and

• Literature about, and reports from the field ofgeneral (i.e., not specifically Jewish) education.

It should be noted that the Berman Center evaluationsand LCC reports referenced in this report deal withprofessional development programs for Jewish educatorswho work in different contexts, including classroomteachers, experiential educators, school principals, rabbis,and executives of Jewish organizations. Further, thecontent and format of the programs vary — some focusspecifically on professional development related to“teaching” and others focus on professional developmentas one component of a larger initiative (where othercomponents included management strategies, spiritualdevelopment, etc.). The programs varied in duration,

intensity and modes of delivery. The evaluations wereconducted between January 2006 and December 2008. Tolearn more about the programs referenced, please seeAppendix: Referenced Programs.

Although this report includes references to specificcohorts of educators, most notably classroom teachers,the broader lessons learned from ongoing work,references, evaluation reports, and demonstrationprojects that are cited seem to transcend specificprograms and populations and may therefore begeneralized. Additional lessons may be derived for sub-populations (e.g., rabbis) that pertain only to them, butthat is beyond the scope of this report. Therefore, for thepurposes of this report, distinctions are not made betweencohorts of “educators,” nor are they identified (to preservethe anonymity of the programs).

We hope that this report will guide those who design andimplement professional development programs foreducators. JESNA’s staff is available to consult withorganizations seeking greater alignment and increasedeffectiveness among goals, strategies, and resourcesinvested in professional development for educators inaddition to other facets of Jewish education.

Highl ights of LessonsLearnedWHAT IS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT?

The term “professional development” is used by differentorganizations to reference myriad opportunities forongoing learning and growth. Important aspects toconsider include:

• The context within which the professionaldevelopment is offered and the means by whichthe professional development opportunity iscontextualized;

• The availability and accessibility of expert “staff ”(to administer the program and nurtureparticipants) and “faculty” (to do the actualteaching/facilitating);

iv • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

• The integration of the goals and content of theprofessional development;

• Pedagogies and methodologies used, includingtechnology;

• The duration of the opportunity (ongoing vs.one-shot); and

• The target audience (whether a hetero- orhomogenous group), keeping in mind thatprofessional development is important for alleducators, regardless of whatever formal trainingor education they may have had previously, theircareer stage, and/or their accomplishments aseducators.

IMPORTANT COMPONENTS OF PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

In-person retreats, seminars, and conferences offer criticalopportunities to cultivate relationships amongparticipants, and with staff and faculty.

Communities of Practice (also known as Networks) providea structure for ongoing learning and networking during(and often as follow-up to) the professional developmentprogram, and for the incorporation of technology into theeducators’ learning.

Mentoring usually is designed to provide participants withone-on-one guidance and exposure to exemplary modelsof practice from more experienced colleagues in the field.Mentoring:

• Requires an investment of time — it is not anad hoc strategy to assist faltering teachers;

• Is often a highly valued component ofprofessional development, often a factor whichcontributes to educator retention; and

• Can effectively involve educators at any stage intheir career, as well as during transitions.

Professional Development requires the investment of timeand money. Educators should not be required toparticipate in professional development opportunities ontheir own time and/or at their own expense.

The investment and support of supervisors and lay leadersworking with educators participating in professionaldevelopment is essential because it can lead to a morecomprehensive integration of what is learned into theeducator’s practice.

JESNA encourages program providers to anticipate anddesign their programs to include follow-up assessmentstudies to explore the longer-term impact of professionaldevelopment programs. However, there are no publishedstandards yet for the professional development of Jewisheducators, nor are there widely-accepted best practices orbenchmarks for success.

HOW DOES PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

LEAD TO CHANGE AND GROWTH?

High-caliber professional development opportunities:

• Offer strategies that educators can applyimmediately and re-tool as needed, resulting inbetter teaching on the part of the educator, andbetter learning on the part of the learners;

• Provide educators with access to colleagues andpeers, thus enabling them to feel less isolated intheir positions;

• Enhance educators’ skills and confidence in theirown abilities;

• Strengthen the personal and professional Jewishidentities of participants;

• Lead educators to feel “legitimized” in theircareers; and

• Advance participants’ thinking about their careersas Jewish educators by deepening their love ofJewish education.

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • v

“”

Profess ional developmentis a process, rather than aprojec t or event. The contex twith in which meaningfulprofess ional developmenttakes place is impor tant.

Making Jewish Educat ion Work:Profess ional Developmentfor Educators

Introduction

Henry Brooks Adams once said that educators affect eternity — they never knowwhere their influence stops.1 People often use the metaphor of a pebble tossed into apond, its ripples moving out slowly but surely across the water, to describe the realeffects of a good educator whose influence is felt by many, far beyond the individuals inhis/her immediate contact.

Educators are among the most influential people in a person’s life. Therefore, it is notsurprising that much effort has been expended trying to identify what makes educators“excellent,” and how educators can become “excellent.” One thing seems certain —ongoing professional development is one important means to enable educators toenrich their skills and to enhance the ways they interact with their learners.

What is Professional Development?

There are several ways to understand what different researchers and practitioners meanby the term “professional development,” and several components to professionaldevelopment for educators. Much has been written about professional development forclassroom teachers, in particular.

The National Staff Development Council (NSDC), an organization regarded by manyas the authority on professional development for teachers, suggests that professionaldevelopment is “a comprehensive, substantiated, and intensive approach to improvingteachers’ and principals’ effectiveness in raising student achievement.”2 Further, theNSDC suggests that professional development of teachers must be comprised ofprofessional learning that is conducted among educators at the school and that isfacilitated by well-prepared school principals and/or school-based professional coaches,mentors, master teachers, or other teacher leaders.3

The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory cites technology as an importantcomponent of professional development, given the many ways technological advancesare changing the ways people learn and teach. That organization, therefore, suggeststhat professional development is more than training of educators. Instead, it “includesformal and informal means of helping teachers not only learn new skills but alsodevelop new insights into pedagogy and their own practice.”4

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • 1

1 Henry Brooks Adams, as quoted on Thinkexist.com.Information retrieved on June 11, 2009 fromhttp://thinkexist.com/quotation/a_teacher_affects_eternity-he_can_never_tell/7801.html.

2 Information retrieved on February 13, 2009 fromhttp://ndsc.org/standfor/definition.cfm. In 2001, theNational Staff Development Council created thisformal definition of professional development for usein the reauthorized version of No Child Left Behind.

3 Ibid.

4 Information retrieved February 13, 2009 fromhttp://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd2prof.htm.Original citation in C.M.Grant,(n.d.).“Professional Development in a TechnologicalAge:New Definitions, Old Challenges, NewResources.” Full text available at http://lsc-net.terc.edu/do.cfm/paper/8089/show/use_set-tech.

“Ongoing professionaldevelopment is one

important means to

enable educators to

enrich their skills and to

enhance the ways they

interact with their

learners.”

These two definitions alone touch on many aspects of professional developmentopportunities, including:

• The location — ideally, professional development should include an on sitecomponent so that it is contextualized for and with the educators;

• The faculty — those conducting the professional development should behighly skilled; and

• The methodology — professional development opportunities should berelevant and up-to-date, including current innovations, such as technology.

Regardless of how professional development for educators in general is defined, it isimportant to note two understandings about professional development that areaccepted as “conventional wisdom” in the field. First, professional development is aprocess, rather than a project or event.5 Second, the context within which meaningfulprofessional development takes place is important. Whereas educators used toparticipate in “in-service day” presentations often coordinated city-wide, there is now agenerally accepted perspective that professional development is more effective and hasa greater impact when facilitated within professional communities designed to respondto educators’ specific needs.6

Who Should “Staff ” Professional DevelopmentOpportunities and Who Should Serve as “Faculty”?

Professional development opportunities are usually “staffed” by someone whoseprimary responsibilities include managing logistics and maintaining contact withparticipants. In addition to that person, there is usually a “faculty” who do the actualteaching and facilitating of sessions. In some cases, both roles are assumed by oneindividual.

In professional development programs, it is equally important that the initiatives bestaffed by people with the necessary skills to manage the program and all of the peopleaffiliated with it, and that those staff people have adequate time to devote to the initiativeand to nurturing the participants in particular. Participants in several professionaldevelopment programs evaluated by JESNA’s Berman Center clearly articulated theimportance of those people. It is rare for educator professional development programs tohave full time-staff devoted to the “care and feeding” of participants, as well as to thedesign, planning, general oversight, and implementation of the program (including anynecessary mid-course corrections). But what a difference it makes….

In terms of the professional development faculty (sometimes including consultantswith specialized expertise in one area of focus), it is important that they be both skilledand accessible. Participants in one Berman Center evaluated program lauded theirfaculty for their teaching and leadership, as well as their availability. One respondent inthat evaluation project said of the faculty, “You have a question? It gets answered. Youneed counsel? They make time for you.” Another noted that faculty members “werewilling to come to you at your level, yet challenged you to stretch and grow further.”

2 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

5 Emily Hassel. (1999).Professional Development:Learning from the Best – A Toolkit for Schools AndDistricts Based on the National Awards Program forModel Professional Development.Oak Brook, IL: NorthCentral Regional Educational Laboratory.

6 Ibid.

One more participant explained that “being able to study with stars in the fieldwhetted my appetite for more study.” Simply put, when the staff and faculty of theprofessional development programs are deemed “excellent” and accessible byparticipants, the impact on participants seems deeper.

What Makes a Professional Development Program“Excellent”?

Literature about professional development programs for teachers identifies importantpractices regarding their design that JESNA believes should inform professionaldevelopment opportunities for any non-classroom Jewish educators as well. “Effectiveprofessional development for teachers integrates goals and content in a way that isresults-driven and embedded in a teacher’s job.”7 It must be “relevant, ongoing,rigorous, sustained, and technologically adaptable.”8 Based on its consultative fieldwork, JESNA also advocates involving participants in the design of the program as away to enrich their buy-in and overall experience.

It is important to ensure that all programmatic elements of the professionaldevelopment program are well-aligned with one another, and with the overall goals ofthe program. Participants should be able to understand how the parts fit together. Ingeneral, JESNA’s experience has confirmed that professional development programsthat have clearer, more limited agendas and foci are often the most successful inachieving their goals. This has also been the case during multi-day professionaldevelopment conferences facilitated by JESNA for our Communities of Practice(CoP’s).9 Participants have indicated their clear preference to explore fewer issues ingreater depth versus exploring a greater breadth of topics less deeply.

Often, professional development opportunities are designed to provide teachers with theknowledge and tools to implement emerging and proven theories successfully, and withstrategies to teach effectively; they aim to build and strengthen educators’ corecompetencies. Opportunities must be provided for teachers to learn such theories andstrategies and to reflect, analyze, and work on their practice in the context of theprofessional development initiative. Ensuring that teachers can promptly test thetheories and approaches they are learning has been shown to yield great success. Severalheads of schools where customized on site professional development workshops wereprovided offered feedback on this issue. They noted that every one of the teachers whoparticipated in the workshops integrated what they had learned; they were able toaddress challenges “almost in live time.” The vast majority “achieved success” and,among those who did not, they were able to immediately refocus and try again.

In terms of the timing of ongoing professional development opportunities, where thesame participants are convened over a period of time, it is critical that there is enough,but not too much time between such sessions. To be sure, teachers need time toimplement suggestions and newly learned techniques. However, it is important toreconvene shortly after their “trial runs” so that their experiences remain clear in theirmemories and they are able to build upon them. In a program evaluated by the

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • 3

7 D. Sparks and S.Hirsch. (1999).A National Plan forImproving Professional Development.Oxford, OH:National Staff Development Council.

8 JESNA. (n.d.) “Ensuring a Cadre ofWell-QualifiedEducational Personnel for Jewish Schools.”Forthcoming chapter in the International Handbook ofJewish Education.New York: Springer.

9 CoP’s allow teachers who have a shared practice towork together to improve that practice by creatingand sharing knowledge and insight through a diverserange of social interactions, research projects, andpresentations.

“Ensuring that teacherscan promptly test the

theories and approaches

they are learning has

been shown to yield

great success.”

Berman Center, one practitioner interviewed for the study noted that if there arelarge gaps in time between professional development sessions, participants become“de-energized.”

Much has been learned and written about the benefits of targeting homogeneousversus heterogeneous groups of educators to participate together in professionaldevelopment programs. JESNA’s field work has confirmed that both strategies havethe potential to be effective, so it is important to carefully consider both the goals ofthe program and its anticipated participants. In many cases, learning is more efficientwhen participants are grouped according to comparable work settings, levels ofknowledge, expertise, and needs. Sometimes, the unique setting of a group of educatorsand/or a shorthand developed by a group of educators would suggest greater success ispossible by gathering a homogeneous group of participants. In other circumstances,however, the benefits of mixing groups and convening educators with differentexperiences and skills to learn from one another have been remarkable. Where thelatter is the case, it is largely because the varied backgrounds contribute to the richnessof resources “around the table.” Of course, it requires a great deal of finesse to managea group with diverse experiences successfully so that no one cohort dominates and sothe needs and interests of each participant is met.

A review of current literature in general education is consistent with findings andrecommendations from JESNA’s experience regarding the importance of embeddingprofessional development opportunities within an educator’s ongoing work, as opposedto facilitating isolated (occasional or most especially “one-shot”) programs. Though in-service days are still relatively common for classroom teachers, research shows that theyrarely result in lasting change. This is largely because “when teachers are given nosupport after an initial training workshop, 90 percent of the investment in instructionalimprovement is lost…. It may take up to 20 follow-up and coaching sessions forteachers to successfully implement a new practice.”10 Further, “teachers are more likelyto apply new instructional strategies if they receive feedback and support while tryingthe new strategies.”11 This suggests that teachers need regular opportunities forreflection and problem-solving at the same time the students are in school.12 Again,these lessons should be applied to educators in general, and not only to classroomteachers. Isolating professional development from the experience of using the gainedknowledge or skills minimizes the potential impact and resulting growth of theeducators.

As new strategies and theories emerge in the field of general education, professionalsupervisors and lay leaders expect educators to incorporate those new ideas. And it isincumbent upon field-leaders to recognize that so much of what educators deal withon a daily basis, and so much of what they are expected to be not only competent, butproficient in traditionally is not taught in the course of their formal training asclassroom teachers, rabbis, or other education professionals. For example, as the generaleducation field lauded the practice of differentiated instruction, so, too, did parentssending their children to Jewish schools expect teachers to integrate these newmethods to provide opportunities for different types of learners to succeed. Similarly,

4 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

10 Hassel, 1999.

11 Cathy J. Cook and Carole Fine. (1997).Critical Issue:Finding Time for Professional Development.Information retrieved May 11, 2009 fromhttp://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd300.htm.

12 Ibid.

13 L.Darling-Hammond and N.Richardson, (2009).“Teacher Learning:What Matters?”EducationalLeadership (ASCD). 66(5).

congregants expected rabbis to develop ways to enable children with special learningneeds to celebrate b’nei mitzvah. Of course, teaching the educators how to do so, andsupporting them as they tried to do so, required an investment in professionaldevelopment.

Do All Educators Need Professional Development?

Professional development is important for all educators. Teachers need ongoingprofessional development regardless of whatever formal training or education they mayhave had previously, their career stage, and their accomplishments as educators.Researchers who discuss teachers’ needs vis-à-vis ongoing learning have said, “justbecause we went to school for teaching doesn’t mean that we come out of school asmaster teachers.”13 As JESNA’s chapter in the soon-to-be published InternationalHandbook of Jewish Education notes, “research demonstrates it can take upward of fiveto eight years before a teacher masters the art and science of teaching.”14 Frequently,teachers are hired by organizations to teach and are called “teacher” before they are ableto teach effectively. (This is even more likely to be the case for teachers incomplementary education settings, which almost 60% of Jewish school-age studentscurrently attend.) Even, or perhaps especially after they are hired and begin to teach,educators in classroom and non-classroom settings must continue to learn aboutteaching to improve their skills and enhance their success.

It has been suggested that the first 10 years of an educator’s career comprise threesometimes overlapping stages: the first years (up to six years), years four through eight,and years six through ten. For some teachers, the first stage is “‘an easy beginning’characterized by positive relationships with pupils and an early sense of pedagogicalmastery. Others experience ‘painful beginnings’ marked by difficulty with pupils and asense of isolation among peers.”15 Usually, the second stage can be considered “a periodof pedagogical ‘stabilization’ during which teachers consolidate their basic instructionalrepertoire, expand upon their ability to differentiate materials and treatments based onstudents’ reactions, and become integrated into a peer group.”16 For many teachers, thethird stage is “spent refining and diversifying classroom materials, instruction, andmodes of classroom management.”17 Following these three stages, teachers enter“‘trajectories’ characterized by such themes as serenity, ‘limiting and focusing,’conservatism, and disengagement.”18

Understanding a classroom teacher’s career path in this way highlights the differentialneeds for professional development during each stage. For example, a teacher in thefirst years of her career is likely to benefit from mentoring and from opportunities toexplore issues related to classroom management and pedagogy. As teachers gainexperience, they are ready to be introduced to and challenged by new curricula and/oreducational strategies, and may benefit from serving as mentors for novices.

Careers of non-classroom educators can be similarly characterized, as needing toacquire and access different skills during the first years, and others subsequently.Reports from several Berman Center-evaluated programs stressed the importance of

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • 5

14 JESNA. (n.d.) “Ensuring a Cadre ofWell-QualifiedEducational Personnel for Jewish Schools.”Forthcoming chapter in the International Handbook ofJewish Education.New York: Springer.

15 Sharon Conley and Allan Odden, (1995).“LinkingTeacher Compensation to Teacher CareerDevelopment.” Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis. 17(2).

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

“Teachers need ongoingprofessional development

regardless of whatever

formal training or

education they may have

had previously, their

career stage, and their

accomplishments as

educators.”

professional development opportunities during an educator’s initial five years in thefield. Based on data from individual programs, the Berman Center has found thatduring those years, educators tend to be more open to learning new ways of teachingand adapting their practice. In cases where the evaluations included non-classroomeducators, some of those professionals reported that they believe continuing educationand training should persist throughout a professional’s career. A respondent in one ofthese evaluation studies observed that “only once [educators] are out of school and inthe field do they truly begin to learn what it takes to function successfully….Continuing education should continue throughout a professional’s tenure, not only inthe early career stage.”

Another important factor to consider is the role that professional development hasbeen shown to play in the retention of teachers. In 2001, the New Jersey StateDepartment of Education reported that “professional development emerged as theessential tool to increase teacher satisfaction, contribute to the retention of newteachers, enhance the work and investment of veteran teachers and improve teachingand student learning.”19 Regardless of when educators first participate in professionaldevelopment programs, there is broad consensus in the field that they must continuethroughout their careers.

What Motivates Educators to Participate in ProfessionalDevelopment Programs?

There is remarkable agreement across the literature (both formal and informal) aboutthree primary factors that motivate educators to participate in professional developmentopportunities. First, there is a desire on the part of the participants to “break out of theisolation” that they feel is inherent in their positions. No matter their specific positions(e.g., classroom teachers, rabbis, etc.), educators said they value opportunities to meetand interact with their peers and colleagues, particularly within a “safe space.” Second,feedback from Berman Center-evaluated programs confirms that participants in manyhighly respected professional development programs believe that their participationelevates their profession and them as professionals. Perhaps as a result, they frequentlystate that following their participation in professional development opportunities, theyhave increased their capacities as educators and experience heightened confidence intheir abilities. Finally, participation is more likely when educators believe they will gainnew skills, techniques, and ideas that they will be able to apply successfully to theirpractice immediately. They are far less interested in programs that offer exploration ofcontent that is not relevant to their current positions.

It is important that the organizations within which educators function also aremotivated to have their educators participate in professional developmentopportunities. JESNA’s field work confirmed that when organizations do not viewthese experiences as critical to the enrichment of their educators, learners, and theeducational community-at-large, they are less likely to endorse (and in certain casespay for) educator professional development. If it is true that improving the learning ofstudents is at least partly dependent upon the ongoing professional development of the

6 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

19 New Jersey State Department of Education. (2001).Standards for Required Professional Development forTeachers: A NewVision. “The New Jersey ProfessionalTeaching Standards Board believes that teachers mustbe dedicated to a continuous plan of professionaldevelopment that begins with their pre-serviceactivities, that continues with their induction into theprofession, and that extends through the life of theirprofessional career in education through on-goingand sustained professional development endeavors.”

educators, then organizations that recognize and understand this vital connection aremore likely to encourage and enable their educators to participate in professionaldevelopment opportunities, and to benefit from their experiences and growth.

What Components of Professional Development Programsfor Educators are Valued by their Participants?

Data from Berman Center evaluations, as well as anecdotal evidence from JESNA’sconsultations and field work, identify aspects of professional development programsthat are valued by participants. For example:

• In-Person Retreats, Seminars, or Conferences that provide the foundation forongoing relationships often “make the difference.” Participants’ assessments ofsuch gatherings tend to be remarkably positive. In several cases, they describedthem as “vital opportunities for reflection and renewal, as well as networkingwith peers.”

• CoP’s that convened cohorts of educators either in-person or virtually(through new web technologies that allow for learning through webinars,wikis, and blogs) during the professional development program, and that aresustained after completion of the program, appealed to educators.

• Informal Networking yielded a wide range of benefits, including opportunitiesto:— Give and receive encouragement;— Collaborate and brainstorm;— Find a sounding board;— Share resources and referrals;— Feel part of a whole; and— Increase community visibility.

• Cross-denominational and Inter-organizational Groupings were key forcertain types of educators (especially early career rabbis), according to thefindings of several Berman Center evaluations. In one case, an educator whoparticipated in an evaluated program reported that “there is a lot of learningthat goes on in speaking to colleagues outside of your own Movement insteadof being locked in your own little silo.” Similarly, feedback from participants indemonstration projects has confirmed that often when educators are convenedwith colleagues whom they do not know, or with whom they previously havenot worked, collaborations form and jointly-facilitated programs ensue.

• Individualized Learning Plans were required of participants in select BermanCenter-evaluated programs. These learning plans, created by participants, weredesigned to give participants an opportunity to study independently and focuson one key aspect of the program most relevant to their development. In onecase, a respondent in a Berman Center study noted that “through thisexperience, participants indicated that they gained greater confidence as leadersand enthusiasm to share their new or enhanced skills with their school.”

• Jewish Learning (i.e., Jewish learning for its own sake) was a component ofseveral Berman Center-evaluated professional development programs and

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • 7

“Regardless of wheneducators first participate

in professional

development programs,

there is broad consensus

in the field that they

must continue

throughout their

careers.”

JESNA demonstration projects. Participants appreciated these opportunitiesfor learning “lishmah” (for the sake of learning) when they were incorporatedinto the program. In one of the Berman Center’s evaluation studies, oneparticipant noted that the Jewish learning component of the program added “alevel of interest, challenge and inquiry that doesn’t exist when you go to secularsources for learning and professional development.” Many participantsremarked that they appreciated the Jewish learning; many had hoped for moresuch opportunities.

• JESNA’s experiences have shown that participants appreciate being able to usetechnology to communicate with one another online, during and followingprofessional development programs. Providing such opportunities throughlistservs, wikis, and other means is critical. “The Jewish educational worldmust catch up with technological advances that can unite local and nationalresources and integrate them into teacher professional development.”20 JESNAhas found, both through select Berman Center evaluations and field-basedexperiences, that there is a wide range of facility and comfort with technologyamong participants in professional development programs often depending onan educator’s age and previous experiences with technology. For some, usingnew approaches and techniques enhances their experiences and is, in and ofitself, a professional development opportunity. Others perceive technology as abarrier to their growth and learning. The “answer” is not to avoid usingtechnology. To the contrary, additional training opportunities are needed toorient participants to technological innovations and practices. Professionaldevelopment program participants who have undergone such training havereported anecdotally that they have incorporated technology differently intotheir work.

• The duration of the professional development program was also important toparticipants. In many cases, those who were involved in opportunities thatstretched over months or years expressed that being able to learn and growwith their colleagues for an extended period of time was a highlight of theexperience. As one participant in a Berman Center-evaluated programcommented, “the fact that we had four retreats spread over the time period [ofthe program] worked well to allow us to ‘come out of our shells,’ to reallydevelop a sense of trust necessary [to grow as individuals and a group].”

• The caliber and availability of staff and faculty (as noted above) andmentoring (as noted below) were other essential components of professionaldevelopment programs that participants characterized as successful.

What are Mentors? (Why) Do Educators Need Mentors?and How Do Mentors Relate to Professional Development?

Mentoring is a process through which a match is made between educators, one ofwhom is believed to have something important to teach and/or model for the other.Often, mentoring is a component of professional development programs for educators.Mentoring usually is designed to provide participants with one-on-one guidance andexposure to exemplary models of practice from more experienced colleagues in the

8 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

20 JESNA. (n.d.) “Ensuring a Cadre ofWell-QualifiedEducational Personnel for Jewish Schools.”Forthcoming chapter in the International Handbook ofJewish Education.New York: Springer.

field. Sometimes the matches work; other times they are less successful. In virtuallyevery case, it takes time (often more than a year) for mentors and mentees to establishworking relationships that enable the kind of open sharing and learning that is mostbeneficial. Mentoring is not intended as an ad hoc strategy to assist faltering educators.

JESNA’s on-the-ground experiences and anecdotal feedback indicate that mentors arenot routinely provided for educators in Jewish schools or other settings. However,research in the field of general education demonstrates that mentorship, especially earlyin a teacher’s career, is often a highly-valued component of professional developmentand is one of the top four factors that influenced educator attrition and retention.21

JESNA’s research has confirmed this finding, and further has demonstrated that thebenefits of a mentoring relationship can be both career-related and psychosocial. Ifsuccessful, mentoring can be a source of professional guidance, emotional support, andconcrete problem-solving.22

Mentoring is a strategy that can involve educators at any stage in their career. Forthose in the beginning stages “by setting them on the correct path early, mentoringmay help teachers perform better in the classroom and stick around longer.”23

Struggling educators and educators in transition can also benefit from mentors able toassist them in bolstering their practice and in guiding their careers.24 And, feedbackfrom Berman Center-evaluated initiatives confirms that more experienced educatorsexperienced satisfaction and growth when they served as mentors. One such mentoroffered, “when you teach, you are forced to think things through; you always learnmore yourself. I have had to think more methodically about what I do, in order tofigure out what will work for them and how to solve problems.”

Mentees who participated in one of the Berman Center-evaluated programsconsidered for this report expressed the belief that the mentoring component of his/herprogram was “essential” and “critical.” The opportunities provided through mentoringare simply unlike any others. These mentees seemed to appreciate the advice theyreceived about concrete issues. In the words of one participant, his/her mentor’s advicewas always “dead on.”

What are the Primary Obstacles to Teacher Participationin Professional Development Opportunities?

Participating in professional development opportunities comes with many associated“costs” for the participants, and for their schools or organizations. Many barriers toparticipation have been identified, but they boil down to two principal obstacles: timeand money.

According to one researcher, “a fundamental lesson learned in the past decade of schoolreform efforts is that far more time is required for professional development andcooperative work than is now available. In fact, time has emerged as the key issue inevery analysis of school change appearing in the last decade.”25 Professionaldevelopment, especially good professional development, is ongoing, embedded into the

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • 9

21 L.Darling-Hammond. (2003).“Keeping Good Teachers:Why it Matters,What Leaders Can Do.”EducationalLeadership (ASCD). 60(8).

22 JESNA. (2008).Making Jewish EducationWork:Mentoring Jewish Education Professionals.

23 Darling-Hammond and Richardson, 2009.

24 Ibid.

“Many barriers toparticipation have been

identified, but they boil

down to two principal

obstacles: time and

money.”

educator’s practice — it takes time. And yet, researchers note that “the public” thinksthat educators are working only when they are with their students. As a result, there islimited advocacy and support to provide educators with the time needed to enhancetheir practice.26

Sometimes, it is the educators themselves who do not want to designate time forprofessional development, though this is usually the case when they are expected toparticipate in opportunities in addition to their other responsibilities, meaning when itis not part of their jobs. JESNA’s experience has been that participants make moretime for professional development activities once they have established personalrelationships with other participants and with the staff and/or faculty.

Professional development, especially excellent professional development, costs money,and the costs associated with the ongoing professional development of educators mustbe covered. According to JESNA’s Educators in Jewish Schools Study, even when schooladministrators understand the need for professional development (and some require itof their teachers), most teachers are expected to cover their own related expenses; manydo not even receive paid time off to participate in the programs.27 Comparisons may bemade with non-classroom educators as well. And, while participant feedback confirmsthat ongoing, in-person professional development opportunities provide increasedbenefits to the educators, their students, and the organizations within which they work(e.g., synagogues, schools, etc.), these programs are more expensive to plan, facilitate,and attend.

(How) Should Supervisors and Lay Leaders Be Involved inthe Professional Development of Educators?

Professional development can not occur in a vacuum. Extensive anecdotal feedbackgleaned through JESNA’s demonstration projects has shown that where there wasongoing communication between participants and their supervisors, the professionaldevelopment experience was better integrated into the practice of the educators. Notonly were there concrete benefits to the participants when they engaged theirsupervisors in some aspect of their professional development experience (minimally,sharing information), but also there were negative effects when they did not involvetheir supervisors at all. For example, one teacher, ready to incorporate new strategiesinto her classroom, found that her principal objected to trying new tactics because theywere foreign to him. Reflecting on that experience, the teacher indicated that shebelieved that had she discussed her learnings with her principal “in the moment” ratherthan at the end of the process, he would have been more receptive to the newstrategies.

Additionally, supervisors (e.g., principals, rabbis, executive directors) should provideforums for the sharing of experiences among educators and also with lay leaders, “bothfor the substantive input they can offer and for the support they can lend.”28

Generating lay advocates for professional development undoubtedly will serve thefield-at-large quite well. One Berman Center-evaluated program required participants

10 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

25 J. Kent Peterson. (1995).“Critical Issue: Leading andManaging Change and Improvement.”OriginalCitation in M.G. Fullan and M.B.Miles (1992).Gettingthe Reform Right:WhatWorks andWhat Doesn’t.PhiDelta Kappan, 73(10). Information retrieved May 11,2009 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le500.htm.

26 Cook and Fine, 1997.

27 JESNA. (2008).Educators in Jewish Schools Study(EJSS).New York: JESNA’s Publication andDissemination Project.

to demonstrate support for their participation from their congregation’s rabbi, boardpresident, and education committee chairperson. The evaluation found that thisprocess encouraged buy-in even before the teacher’s participation. In anotherevaluation, the program invited participants’ supervisors (principals and/or rabbis) andlay leaders from participants’ schools to participate in one component of the program.In at least one such instance, supervisors and lay leaders were inclined to support theeducator’s learning. As one participant said, “my working relationship with the layleader who accompanied me has grown stronger.” Participants also suggested that keypoints during professional development programs be identified, and that updates beprovided by the program sponsors/facilitators to the participants’ supervisor and layleadership. Of equal importance, when people other than the participants (e.g., theirsupervisors and lay leaders) interact with the organizations that sponsor theprofessional development, they begin to develop greater understandings of thoseorganizations themselves, as well as of the resources (human, financial, curricular, etc.)available to them.

Especially during our challenging economic times, when JESNA has observedsubstantial reductions (and often the elimination) of budgets for professionaldevelopment opportunities, generating advocacy and advocates for professionaldevelopment is of the utmost importance. Researchers in general education have notedthat “community support is essential for creating the professional developmentopportunities teachers require to help all of their students reach higher levels oflearning. Professional development has been referred to as ‘the linchpin for any reformefforts, not an addition to them.’”

How Should We Measure the Success of ProfessionalDevelopment Programs for Educators?

JESNA has long advocated program evaluation and assessment of programimplementation and impact in the short- and longer-term. It also has taught andtrained myriad educators the skills to enable them to evaluate their own efforts. Firmlybelieving that evaluation must be incorporated into programs from the outset, JESNAencourages providers of professional development programs to clarify their desiredoutcomes and goals, identify benchmarks to determine whether those goals are beingmet, assess their efforts during each stage of the program’s implementation, and applywhat they have learned to enhance and/or improve the programs. The Berman Centerregularly encourages program providers to anticipate and design their programs toinclude follow-up evaluation studies to explore the longer-term impact of professionaldevelopment programs. Such studies would allow for a greater understanding of theeffects of participation beyond the immediate program “afterglow.” Such assessmentsshould, at different times (i.e., before, during and after professional developmentprograms), incorporate multiple measures of success related to educators and learners.

To be sure, the short- and longer-term success of professional development programsfor educators is closely connected to issues such as performance, satisfaction, andretention. Also, the direct connection between educator professional development and

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • 11

28 Hassel, 1999.

29 Cook and Fine, 1997.

“Professionaldevelopment, especially

excellent professional

development, costs

money, and the costs

associated with the

ongoing professional

development of

educators must be

covered.”

student achievement must be taken into account. However, currently there are nopublished standards for the professional development of Jewish educators, nor are therewidely-accepted best practices or benchmarks for success. This makes it exceedinglydifficult, if not impossible, to assess empirically the effectiveness of any professionaldevelopment program for Jewish educators or to provide guidance to educationalinstitutions in this area. Toward that end, JESNA is partnering with program providersto identify and articulate program outcomes, and to design systematic ways to evaluateand assess the effectiveness of programs. Further, JESNA has embarked on a pathengaging in projects that will help the field to articulate and measure learner outcomesin a variety of contexts.

What is Different about Educators Who Participate inProfessional Development Programs?

Extensive anecdotal feedback gleaned through consultations and field work, inaddition to findings from several Berman Center evaluations, demonstrate thatparticipants in a wide variety of professional development programs experienced a widerange of benefits; some were related directly to the explicit goals of the programs, whileothers were not. For example, participants reported that they:

• Perceived that they had the ability to be better educators because of the newskills they learned and/or mastered and the new literature and research theystudied;

• Made personal connections and fostered a “community” for the purposes ofconnecting with other professionals, gaining exposure to other ideas, learningfrom others, and sharing ideas and skills with others;

• Felt more confident, reflective, intentional, validated, and “legitimized” asJewish educators;

• Strengthened their personal and professional Jewish identities;• Developed “a new sense of vision and direction,” a “new understanding of what

excellent Jewish education looks like,” and deepened their “love of Jewisheducation,” and, in so doing, they advanced their thinking about careers asJewish educators; and

• Developed better understandings of resources available for further learning andsupport.

Across several professional development programs that the Berman Center hasevaluated, participants from many different educational settings have expressed thevalue of their professional development experiences in their own words. For example:

• “Having a [professional development] program that tells you what you aredoing is meaningful, needed, and valued makes your efforts and output moreheartfelt, and therefore makes you a better worker and a better teacher.”

• “I have actually become a resource for colleagues. The director of mysynagogue religious school asked me for some info!”

• “Participation in this [professional development] program helped me to see my

12 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

role more clearly, to see my strengths and weakness more clearly and to beginto move in the direction of where I can be most effective.”

In some cases, supervisors of the participants in the professional developmentprograms evaluated by the Berman Center were asked to reflect on the effect of theseprograms on participants. Some of these supervisors were able to identify ways inwhich the students, schools, and/or congregations benefitted from the educators’participation in professional development programs (e.g., successfully integratingtechniques learned and suggestions offered). They cited ways that effective professionaldevelopment has led to “better teaching” on the part of the educator and “betterlearning” on the part of the students. Some participants even said that they helpedrefine the visions or the philosophy of the school and the content being taught as aresult of the professional development experiences. In one evaluation, a participantobserved, “I am not the same person [after having participated in the program].Hence, my school and my work must have changed in ways that are not alwaysquantifiable.” In another case, a lay leader working with a principal who participated inprofessional development programs observed “significant growth” in the principal’sconfidence and leadership skills. S/he commented: “Our principal now has aframework to achieve excellence in leading the school.”

It should be noted that while Jewish schools and communities often recognizeeducators and commend their ongoing professional development, those same educatorsare not (for the most part) used or deployed differently within the community asresources following their professional development engagement — neither as experts inthe content areas explored through their professional development programs, nor asadvocates for professional development or Jewish education. JESNA believes this is amissed opportunity for disseminating and applying professional development learningswidely to benefit as many teachers in as many contexts as possible for the good of theeducators and their students.

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • 13

“JESNA has embarked ona path engaging in

projects that will help

the field to articulate

and measure learner

outcomes in a variety of

contexts.”

Conclus ionThe Tosefta comments: “Our masters taught: A teacher takes precedence over a kingof Israel; if a teacher dies, we have none like this person. If a king dies, all Israel areeligible for kingship.”30

As a people, we have long recognized that educators play pivotal roles by developingand nurturing the Jewish identities of learners. What we have gleaned fromcontemporary research and thinking in the field of general education reinforces this,and recommends ongoing, high-caliber professional development programs foreducators. Such opportunities address not only the needs of the educators, but also ofthe learners. In theory and in practice, their experiences are inextricably linked. Thecritical importance of providing ongoing, excellent, embedded opportunities foreducators to grow as educators cannot be overstated.

As poet and essayist Richard Henry Dann asserted: “He who dares to teach mustnever cease to learn.”31

14 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

30 Tosefta, Horayot:13a.

31 As quoted in Diane Hodges. (2008).Quote This!Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, p. 11.

Works CitedConley, Sharon and Odden, Allan. “Linking TeacherCompensation to Teacher Career Development.” EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 1995, Volume 17, No.2, 219-237.

Cook, Cathy J. and Fine, Carole. Critical Issue: Finding Time forProfessional Development.Retrieved May 11, 2009, fromhttp://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd300.htm.

Darling-Hammond, L. “Keeping Good Teachers: Why ItMatters and What Leaders Can Do.” Educational Leadership(ASCD), 2003.

Darling-Hammond, L. and Richardson, N. “Teacher Learning:What Matters?” Educational Leadership (ASCD), 2009.

Hassel, Emily. Professional Development: Learning From the Best.Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional EducationalLaboratory, 1999.

Hodges, Diane.Quote This! Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress, 2008.

JESNA. Achieving Excellence in Professional Development andResources for Jewish Educators — Report on Community Scan andNeeds Assessment Study, Greater Hartford, CT. Unpublisheddocument. 2008.

_____. Achieving Excellence in Professional Development andResources for Jewish Educators — Report Re: Rhode Island.Unpublished document. 2007.

_____. Achieving Excellence in Professional Development andResources for Jewish Educators — Report Re: WesternMassachusetts.Unpublished document. 2007.

_____. Educating for Spirituality: A Summative Evaluation of theInstitute for Jewish Spirituality’s Educators’ Leadership Program—Pilot.Unpublished document. 2006.

_____. Educators in Jewish Schools Study (EJSS).New York:JESNA’s Publication and Dissemination Project: An Initiativeof JESNA’s Learnings and Consultation Center in Partnershipwith JESNA’s Berman Center for Research and Evaluation inJewish Education, 2008.

_____. “Ensuring a Cadre of Well-Qualified EducationalPersonnel for Jewish Schools.” Forthcoming chapter in TheInternational Handbook of Jewish Education, n.d.

_____. Evaluation of the Jewish Professionals Co-Op — FinalReport of Findings.Unpublished document. 2008.

_____. Kehilliyot Da’at Evaluation — Brief Feedback Memo I.Unpublished document. 2008.

_____. Legacy Heritage Fund Rabbinic Enrichment Initiative atYeshiva University — Final Evaluation Report.Unpublisheddocument. 2008.

_____.Making Jewish Edcucation Work: Mentoring JewishEducation Professionals.New York: JESNA’s Publication andDissemination Project: An Initiative of JESNA’s Learnings andConsultation Center in Partnership with JESNA’s BermanCenter for Research and Evaluation in Jewish Education, 2008.

_____. Report of Findings: Star Peer Executive LeadershipProgram.Unpublished document. 2008.

_____. Summary Memo About the Impact of Shofar onParticipants.Unpublished document. 2008.

_____. Summative Evaluation of the Star Peer Program— PilotPhase.Unpublished document. 2006.

_____. The Leadership Institute for Congregational SchoolPrincipals.Unpublished document. 2007.

National Staff Development Council. NSDC’s Definition ofProfessional Development, 2001. Retrieved February 13, 2009,from http://nsdc.org/Standfor/definition.cfm.

New Jersey State Department of Education. Standards forRequired Professional Development for Teachers: A New Vision.New Jersey, 2001.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Critical Issue:Finding Time for Professional Development, 1997. RetrievedFebruary 13, 2009, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd300.htm.

Peterson, Kent. Critical Issue: Leading and Managing Change andImprovement, 1995. Original Citation in M.G. Fullan and M.B.Miles (1992). Getting the Reform Right: What Works andWhat Doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10). Retrieved May 11,2009 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le500.htm.

Sparks, D. and Hirsch, S. A National Plan for ImprovingProfessional Development.Oxford, OH: National StaffDevelopment Council, 1999.

Tosefta, Horayot 13a.

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • 15

“”

Improving the learning ofstudents is dependent uponthe ongoing profess ionaldevelopment of the educators.

Appendix:Referenced Programs

The Leadership Institute for Congregational SchoolPrincipals

The Leadership Institute for Congregational School Principals (“the LeadershipInstitute”) was established in 2004 in response to an identified need forcomprehensive training and ongoing professional development ofcongregational school principals. The Leadership Institute program focuses onbuilding and strengthening principals’ competencies in three key areas or“archways” — Leadership, Pedagogy, and Judaica. The program wasconceptualized, developed, and jointly administered by Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR), The Jewish Theological Seminary( JTS), and UJA-Federation of New York.

The main program components included two Summer Seminars (full daysessions held over a two-week period in July, 2005 and 2006) and eight AnnualSymposia (two-day sessions held throughout the two years). Both combinedformal study sessions provided by field leaders with opportunities fordiscussion/reflection. In the first year, the Leadership Institute participantstraveled to Israel for a week-long learning seminar. The Israel Seminar tookplace in January, 2006. For the Mentoring component, each of the 40participants was paired with one of 12 program mentors who served as guidesand supervisors. Mentors helped participants to navigate the program andintegrate learning into their practice. Early in the program, participantscompleted a 360-Degree Assessment to enable principals to assess themselvesand to have their colleagues assess them on their leadership strengths andweaknesses. Participants also completed an Independent Learning Project (ILP)focusing on enhancing program-relevant skills and knowledge, and an ActionResearch Project, where they planned for and implemented a modest projectwithin their own schools.

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • App-1

App-2 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

The Leadership Institute program was extended to principals of alldenominations in congregational schools in the New York Metropolitan andsurrounding areas. Forty (40) participants and 12 mentors began their formallearning in summer 2005, and concluded the program at the end of April, 2007.

The Jewish Professionals Co-op

The Walter and Elise Haas Fund awarded the Bureau of Jewish Education(BJE) of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties a planninggrant in 2005 to explore the interests and needs of new Jewish organizations. InDecember, 2006, it provided a two-year grant to help launch the pilot phase ofthe Jewish Professionals Co-op ( JPC).

The JPC, which also is funded by grants from the Richard and RhodaGoldman Fund and the Koret Foundation, brings together San Francisco BayArea directors of start-up Jewish non-profit organizations that promotecommunity building, Jewish learning, and organizational development. It alsoattracts individuals working in Bay Area branches of national Jewishorganizations with similar visions. The mission of the JPC is to form andsustain a learning community of these individuals and organizations to provideprofessional support, increase their capacities to develop vibrant and sustainableJewish organizations, and engage in high-quality Jewish learning that willinform their programming and nurture their Jewish identities.

The JPC’s year-long program includes six day-long seminars, more than 10hours of one-on-one business consultation tailored to each organization’s needs,coaching and mentoring, showcasing events, and networking opportunities.

Kehilliyot Da’at (Knowledge Communities)

Knowledge Communities is dedicated to promoting knowledge, sharing, andinnovation in organizations by helping them build their capacities to launch andsupport the growth of learning communities, especially as it pertains todeveloping and implementing Communities of Practice (CoPs).

In 2006, the Covenant Foundation awarded Knowledge Communities a three-year grant to launch and develop Kehilliyot Da’at, a meta-CoP designed tobuild the capacities of diverse Jewish organizations to launch and sustain CoPs.

Shofar

In the early 2000s, the Bureau of Jewish Education (BJE) of San Francisco, thePeninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties and the East Bay Center for JewishLiving and Learning (CJLL, the educational division of the Jewish CommunityFederation of the Greater East Bay) — in collaboration with the Richard and

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • App-3

Rhoda Goldman Fund — established the Ti-ke-a Fellowship for Educators ofJewish Teens. Ti-ke-a was a professional development initiative designed toamplify the focus on ongoing training for these informal Jewish educators.

Following on the heels of the success of Ti-ke-a, these same partners createdthe Shofar Fellowship in 2006 to test the hypothesis that an analogous programin which funders, program providers, and participants invested considerably lesstime and money (than they did in Ti-ke-a) could produce similar and/or equallypowerful impacts in the areas of Jewish learning, connection to Israel,knowledge of adolescent development, and increased familiarity and facilitywith Jewish communal life.

The first cohort of 14 Shofar Fellows began the program in January, 2007.

Modeled after the Ti-ke-a Fellowship experience, the components of the ShofarFellowship program are:

1. Orientation (to meet fellow participants and considermotivations/paths to leadership in Jewish teen education);

2. Retreats (two off-site two-day retreats with several facultypresenters);

3. Seminars (three four-hour seminars using outside presenters toaddress the curriculum);

4. Critical Colleagues Group Meetings (series of three meetingswhere Fellows share workplace challenges with theoversight/support of Shofar faculty and staff );

5. Teen Network (at least three opportunities to participate inspecial sessions that are part of the BJE’s ongoing TeenNetwork meetings); and

6. Israel Trip (10 days).

Specific learning objectives for Shofar Fellows include building educators’capacities in the following areas:

• Judaism/Jewish knowledge (e.g., texts and master stories, roleof Israel in American and world Judaism, guiding teens in theiridentity-building and use of Jewish resources, etc.);

• Adolescent development (e.g., adolescent cognitive, identity,and physical development, and creating safe environments);

App-4 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

• Programming and practice (e.g., identifying components ofquality Jewish teen experiences, creating and implementingquality Jewish teen programs, thinking about andimplementing program evaluation); and

• Organizational life (e.g., fundraising, setting program goals,becoming an advocate within their institutions, andunderstanding models of collaboration and strategies forleveraging institutional resources).

The Institute for Jewish Spirituality’s Educators’Leadership Program

The Institute for Jewish Spirituality (IJS) has positioned itself as a field leaderin the arena of training clergy and lay leaders to become more spiritually adeptand attuned. Responding to a crisis of spirituality in North American Jewry thatarguably arose on the heels of the so-called “continuity crisis,” IJS has createdmeaningful, viable, and even transformational personal and professionaldevelopment programs for rabbis, cantors, and lay leaders who seek spiritualgrowth for themselves and the communities in which they function. With itsinaugural Educators’ Leadership Program, IJS continued its leadership as theJewish community’s premier institution seeking to, and succeeding in,developing a Jewish communal leadership that is sensitized to and skilled in itsability to bring meaningful spiritual exploration and practice to the broaderJewish community.

The IJS chose to focus its pilot phase of the Educators’ Leadership Program onteens and teen educators. Thirty-one educators of Jewish teens were chosen forthe inaugural program, which ran from July, 2004-January, 2006 with alumniprogramming continuing through December, 2006. Applicants were selectedbased on their personal and professional maturity, teaching experience, diversityof educational settings in which they teach, and the likelihood of creatingchange in their home institutions in the overall direction of IJS’s aspirations.

Legacy Heritage Fund Rabbinic Enrichment Initiativeat Yeshiva University

The Legacy Heritage Rabbinic Enrichment Initiative (LHREI) supportscontinuing education and ongoing professional development for alumni ofrabbinic seminaries. The LHREI at Yeshiva University sits within YU’s Centerfor the Jewish Future (CJF), which draws on Yeshiva University's richintellectual resources to renew and refresh, strengthen and support, and inspireand energize Jewish communities in North America and around the world.

The LHREI at YU program seeks to foster a cultural change within the

Making Jewish Education Work: Report 4 • App-5

rabbinate by providing professional development, training, and support toAmerican Orthodox rabbis to enable them to be as effective as possible in theirroles as teachers, preachers, pastors, and builders of Jewish religious communityin their respective settings. More specifically, the program intends to enhancerabbis’ Judaic knowledge, strengthen their pastoral and synagogue managementskills, and decrease their perceived sense of social and professional isolation byencouraging and supporting long-term collegial relationships among membersof the rabbinate, their families, and lay leadership.

STAR (Synagogues: Transformation and Renewal)PEER (Professional Education for Excellence inRabbis) Executive Leadership Program

STAR PEER is a year-long applied learning fellowship designed to developearly career pulpit rabbis of all denominations in the areas of executiveleadership skills by helping them explore, refine, and implement their vision ofthe congregational rabbinate. One central focus of STAR PEER is theleadership development project through which participating rabbis apply theirgrowing body of knowledge and skills in these key areas to real-world situationsand challenges. The rabbis are supported in their projects during monthlymentoring calls with the program’s faculty. Ultimately, STAR PEER aims tonurture pulpit rabbis who are able to integrate and balance their religiousleadership skills with the non-profit management knowledge required to lead a21st century synagogue.

In the first two years of the three-year pilot program, any pulpit rabbi in yearstwo through five of his/her career was eligible to apply; in year three, the rangewas extended to years two through seven. Once accepted into the program, across-denominational community of STAR PEER rabbis participates in twoon-site retreats and two online courses taught by field leaders in the areas ofnon-profit management and visioning for Jewish communal life. Through theSTAR PEER Alumni Program, rabbis are able to deepen their foundationalknowledge, learn new skills and strengthen their community. They also have anopportunity to learn with a rabbi-in-residence who has modeled the creation ofa vibrant synagogue community at an annual retreat.

Ultimately, STAR PEER envisions its impact manifest in a broad communalagenda of synagogue transformation and renewal in North America. The short-term (immediate) goals of the STAR PEER program are to endow and investparticipants with the knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and skills mentionedpreviously. The intermediate-term goals are to build pulpit rabbis’ capacities tobecome change agents, inspiring and insightful religious leaders, andsophisticated non-profit managers. The long-term goal of the STAR PEERprogram is to create high-functioning synagogues guided by transformationalleaders.

Achieving Excellence in Professional Developmentand Resources for Jewish Educators

This project was designed to strengthen the capacity of local communities toprovide quality support for, and to enhance the professional knowledge andskills of teachers in Jewish contexts. One key component of this project involvedspecific initiatives undertaken in three “demonstration communities” in the NewEngland region: Hartford, CT; Rhode Island; and Western Massachusetts.Work began with these communities during summer, 2006, and continuedthrough November, 2008.

The Hartford “team” worked with JESNA to build on work doneindependently within the community and also together with JESNA vis-à-visthe La’atid project. (La’atid is a project of the Greater Hartford JewishCommunity focusing on congregational change. It is designed to help selectedcongregations in Greater Hartford nurture a strong sense of Jewish identity,increase Jewish knowledge, and enrich Jewish living in their constituents of allages.) Most efforts focused on the piloting and evaluation of on site professionaldevelopment workshops provided within three La’atid and one non-La’atidSynagogue Supplementary Schools.

The Rhode Island and Western Massachusetts “teams” and JESNA conductedindividualized environmental scans and needs assessments, and used collecteddata to develop Strategic Plans to guide each community’s next steps related tothe strengthening of supports and resources for local educators working withJewish schools, particularly through their Resource Centers and professionaldevelopment offerings for teachers.

App-6 • Publ icat ions and Disseminat ion Projec t

http://www.jesna.org