Saul Kaiserman Qualifying Paper Introduction In the Fall of 2015, I served as adjunct faculty at the New York School of Education of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion (hereafter referred to as NYSOE and HUC-JIR), teaching a course entitled “Laboratory in Teaching and Learning.” Taught for several years prior by Dr. Lisa Grant, this is a required course for all students working towards a Master’s degree in Jewish education, focusing on the fundamentals of classroom instruction. Although I had been a guest educator for single sessions of courses before, this was my first experience teaching for an entire semester. I was provided with Dr. Grant’s syllabus and access to her readings and assignments, but also authorized to rethink the course as I saw fit. In trying to decide how best to revise the syllabus, I was curious if there were best practices for a course of this type. I wondered how similar the syllabus at NYSOE was to the comparable course at the Rhea Hirsch School of Education (RHSOE) of HUC-JIR in Los Angeles, or to the Davidson School of Education of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (henceforth, Davidson), where I am currently pursuing a doctorate. Under the supervision of Dr. Shira Epstein, herself a former professor of a similar course at Davidson, I pursued an independent study exploring how this course is taught at these three schools, as well as American Jewish University in Los Angeles. As practitioner research, this project was the basis upon which to critically reflect on my work as a novice professor, both during the semester itself and also so that I might improve my teaching of this course in the future. The following year, largely for pragmatic rather than ideological reasons, my class was merged with two similar classes, one for rabbinical students and one for cantorial students. I revised the syllabus and methodology extensively, in an attempt to account for the increased diversity of the learners, to respond to their more varied goals, and to support their interaction and collaboration as students in pursuing different degrees. I continued to teach this course for two more years, each time modifying the reading list, Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 1 of 60 classroom activities, and assignments in response to student feedback, my observations of my practice, and my continued research on excellence in teaching and learning. In the current era, rabbis and cantors in the progressive movements are increasingly incorporating educational roles (such as oversight of a religious school) into their portfolios, and educational activities (such as bar/bat mitzvah training) are intrinsically part of their work (Wertheimer 2007). Teacher training is an increasingly well-researched field of study, and there is a fair bit of literature about the training of clergy in pastoral care, institutional leadership, and worship. Yet, there is little data on the training of Jewish clergy as educators. How might the training of rabbis and cantors in teaching and learning require distinct approaches, different from the training of other Jewish educators? In this study, I will explore the existing literature on excellence in teacher training and in the pre-service education of rabbis, and attempt to draw conclusions that could frame further research to answer this question. Research Question While I have a vested interest in the training of both rabbis and cantors as educators, for practical reasons I have limited the scope of my research to the training of rabbis.1 Core Question: What are the distinct elements required for the training of rabbis as excellent teachers? To answer this question, I will first explore three related questions relating to teacher-excellence: 1. What does the literature indicate makes for excellence in teaching? 2. What does the literature indicate makes for excellence in teacher-training? 3. What are the distinct elements of pre-service teacher-training programs for Jewish educators? 1 I have been unable to find a single source discussing the training of cantors as educators, even though nearly all play an educational role in their professional work. This could be a very interesting and fruitful direction for future research. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 2 of 60 Theoretical Framework Personal Research Stance I characterize my personal orientation to education as eclectic, but largely informed by pragmatic and constructivist thinking. By this I mean that any statements about the learning process should be considered as conjectural, that no one theory or world-view can encompass the totality of human experience or account for all the variables in a particular situation, and that learners actively create their own understanding of the world around them. These stances on epistemology and ontology influence, and perhaps delineate, my approach to research, my choice of theoretical framework and methodologies. For example, I believe the point of research is not to reach certainty or truth, but rather is primarily to guide problem solving and deliberation about particular issues in order to reach consensus. This stance is rooted in a progressive tradition of education at the Davidson School, since its earliest days as Teachers Institute under the leadership of Mordecai Kaplan, where I am studying and where I did my master’s degree. It characterizes a chain of scholarship that includes many of those whose writing has informed my research (and that of my professors), including many of those cited in this paper. While I acknowledge the bias inherent in this perspective, at the same time I regard it as appropriate for this project because it has at its audience those who are informed by these same scholars and theories. With this in mind, I take a critical theory approach to this research. By this catch-all definition, I mean that our knowledge of the world is approximate, probabilistic, and socially constructed; that all knowledge is intrinsically value-laden, subjective and political; and that a key purpose of research is towards social transformation. Challenges faced by this research As a result of my research stance, I am faced with a challenge when employing such terms as “excellence,” “expertise,” “teaching,” “learning,” and “knowledge.” Education draws upon many different disciplines (psychology, philosophy, cognitive science, professional development, sociology, etc.) and each has its own Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 3 of 60 specialized vocabulary and ways of thinking. This can be useful for articulating one’s approach with great clarity or situating it within certain scholarly traditions and fields of research, but can also lead to confusion when different researchers and theorists prefer one entire vocabulary of discourse over another, are using similar vocabulary to mean different things, or employ different language to point towards similar activities, behaviors, or characteristics.2 For example, Ball and Forzani (2009) write that “today the word training is in disfavor because it seems to connote mindless and atomized repletion.” Like many others, they assert that teaching is a highly skilled and professional activity, and argue that “training…is in fact fully worthy of the intricate demands of teaching” and the “disciplined approach to preparing teachers,” observing that “no one balks at ‘medical training’.” Following their lead, and that of others who incorporate write about “professional training,” I will likewise use that term here. While I will be clear in how I am making use of educational vocabulary, I also acknowledge that different authors I cite (and readers of this paper) may understand them in dissimilar ways to my own. A second challenge I face is the lack of consensus about the aims of education (which will not be debated in this paper, save to acknowledge it),3 and the methods by which it may be studied. Educational theory can be developed based on conclusions drawn from personal experience -- such as the literature and training on education for difference, “All Kinds of Minds” (Levine, M. 2002) -- or inaccurate or exaggerated implications may be drawn from research. For example, while learners may state a preference for visual, auditory, or kinesthetic modes of instruction, Hattie and Yates (2014) were unable to find any studies demonstrating a link between the identification of a “learning style” and improvement in student learning. Since so many variables are involved in any learning situation, some researchers are skeptical In addition, individual theorists may invent their own terminology (such as “neoindigenous” “with-it-ness” or “flooding out”). Bowers and Flinders (1990), for example, describe three paradigmatic “arguments” for the purposes of education: “Technocratic,” typified by B.F. Skinner and oriented towards preparing workers for the needs of the marketplace; “AcademicRationalist,” typified by Mortimer Adler and emphasizing the preparation of informed citizens; and “Critical-Pedagogy,” typified by John Dewey and concerned with empowering learners to define their own meaning and shape reality. 2 3 Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 4 of 60 about nearly all attempts to link theory and practice (Korthagen 2010). For this paper I have attempted to present literature that is grounded in measurable research, knowing that in some instances the field of study may be quite narrow and the findings limited or imperfect. Finally, it is appropriate to ask if conclusions can really be drawn from the preparation of classroom teachers to the development of rabbis. I argue that there are lessons to be learned from the training of teachers due to their professional role as instructional, policy, and association leaders. As teacher leaders, imagining and enacting inspirational visions and shaping school culture, teachers have influence on the community beyond their own classrooms (Teacher Leadership Competencies 2014, Feiman-Nemser et al. 2013, Meier 1995). At the same time, many rabbis function as educational leaders even when they are not formally teaching because of their responsibility to guide educational initiatives. Their work requires that they “educate relevant constituencies … concerning matters that bear on the success of education” (Nisan 2012). I therefore contend that I may legitimately generalize from the research on classroom instruction to the educational work of rabbis more broadly. What does the literature indicate makes for excellence in teaching? The teacher as the most important variable in student learning There is an extensive body of research on teaching and learning. Within this scholarship, there is a broad agreement that “while a variety of dynamics influence the successful education of children … the single most important educational determinant” (Isaacs 2011), “the single most influential component of an effective school” (Marzano 2007), “the most important factor affecting student learning outcomes” (Feiman-Nemser, Tamir and Hammerness 2013), and the “common denominator in school improvement” (Stronge et al. 2011) is the teacher. Teacher excellence is a more significant variable than curriculum, class size, and perhaps even the setting and the students themselves (Ripley 2013).4 4 Some of the other key elements of a strong education include institutional vision (Feiman-Nemser et al 2013), institutional leadership, safety (Marzano 2007), parent engagement, and student “grit” or perseverance (Ripley 2013). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 5 of 60 Yet, there is a lack of consensus defining or describing teacher excellence. There is “no well-developed framework for parsing teaching” (Grossman 2009), nor for “describing and analyzing instruction; neither scholars nor educators have been able to agree even on descriptions for the various components of instructional practice” or a “set of agreed-on core tasks” (Ball and Forzani 2009). There are three fundamental challenges to establishing a definition for excellence in teaching. First, teaching is a complex task that takes place in a multitude of settings (Stronge et al. 2011, Ball and Forzani 2009). Saphier (2017) identifies seven separate kinds of professional knowledge that are required for “skillful teaching.”5 Although others (such as Green 2014) refer to the work of Lemov (2015) as a “taxonomy” for teaching skills, he himself asserts that he has merely organized a set of techniques into categories and not developed a comprehensive system. A second concern is that successful teaching is highly dependent on the contexts in which it takes place. “The best research can do is tell us which strategies have a good chance (i.e., high probability) of working well with students” (Marzano 2007). Third, individual institutions and researchers hold divergent views about what constitutes excellence, because assessments of teacher quality are predicated on one’s beliefs, values and priorities and there are varied reasoned positions about the purposes of education (Feiman-Nemser et al. 2013). Therefore, any descriptions of excellence will inevitably be partial, contingent and shaped by politics and culture. Nevertheless, many scholars do attempt to describe what it is that successful teachers do differently (Lemov 2017, Ball and Forzani 2009). Increasingly, there is an insistence that definitions of teacher excellence must be grounded in research (Marzano 2007, Sapher, Speca and Gower 2017), incorporating our increasing knowledge from related fields, particularly cognitive science and psychology (Emdin 2017, Hammond 2015, Hattie and Yates 2014). 5 These include generic and content-specific pedagogy (PCK), knowledge of content analysis (how to break the content into concepts and sub-concepts, skills and sub-skills – which is different from knowing the content itself), knowledge of the academic discipline (content knowledge), knowledge of individual differences in learners (cognitive developmental differences, cultural differences, learning characteristics); knowledge of behavior of individuals in effective organizations (teams, meetings, communications); knowledge of how to communicate effectively with families and communities (homework, enlisting support). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 6 of 60 Teaching Excellence: Expertise and Effectiveness Research on teacher excellence, broadly speaking, focuses on the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the teacher, which I will refer to as “expertise,” the outcomes of instructional practice on student learning in particular contexts, which I will call “effectiveness,” or a composite of both of these elements (Stronge et al. 2011).6 In this section, I will look closely at these two approaches, highlighting the strengths and challenges of each perspective and concluding why both are necessary for an understanding of teacher excellence. Experts, whether chefs, accountants, or musicians, are individuals able to consistently perform at the very top of an identifiable domain. Traits common to experts include, among others, the ability to perceive large and meaningful patterns, to work quickly, and to anticipate and solve problems with little error (Hattie and Yates 2014). Expertise is predicated on specialized knowledge and skills which do not necessarily transfer to other tasks or contexts – we would not expect an expert pianist to be able to play the trombone. Expertise develops through deliberate practice over years of steady preparation – a total of 10,000 hours or 5-10 years is often cited - but “time and experience alone do not advance skillfulness.” Developing expertise requires a highly supportive and supervised environment, generally with a coach who can help set progressively more complex goals; without training, one can develop bad habits and plateau in one’s growth (Hattie and Yates 2014). Expertise cannot be reduced to the mechanical use a set of easily replicated techniques, but requires the development of a flexible repertoire of strategies that can be skillfully employed in varied situations. Research on teacher expertise attempts to establish a base-line for competence, and then to investigate what allows certain individuals to excel. Grossman (2009) suggests that “core” or “high-leverage” practices characteristic of expertise can be uncovered by observing teachers in action, because they occur with high 6 While other writers use the terms “expertise” and “effectiveness” in varied ways, I am using these definitions to target our attention either on the teacher and teaching or on the learner and learning. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 7 of 60 frequency and preserve the integrity and complexity of teaching. Interviews can provide additional data, by asking teachers to describe their decision-making process during instruction (Stronge et al. 2011).7 Hattie and Yates observe that “for classroom teaching, there is considerable evidence supporting the presence of expertise,” which strongly parallels “expertise in other fields of human achievement” (2014). Examples of the knowledge and skills characteristic of expert teachers include the ability to anticipate and plan for difficulties students are likely to encounter with new concepts, to explain complex ideas with astonishing clarity, to plan lessons as interlinked sequences with different means of achieving the same goals, and to improvise and alter instruction in response to classroom situations. Expert teachers are also vigilant in monitoring student learning and attention, using a wide range of assessment tools (Ball and Forzani 2009, Goodwin and Kosnik 2013, Grossman 1990, Hattie and Yates 2014). While experts possess a high level of knowledge of specialized subject matter, this does not inevitably bring with it the ability to teach a topic well.8 For teachers, depth of knowledge supports the ability to identify what is needed for student improvement, evaluate the quality of student work, detect and correct errors, and give specific feedback to learners (Hattie and Yates 2014). Similarly, longevity of tenure or teaching experience does not intrinsically result in expertise.9 While continued effort over time is a necessary prerequisite for expertise, and Rosov (2019) notes that the first few years of teaching are typically associated with a steep increase in teacher ability, bad habits and negative beliefs that perpetuate unproductive or oppressive teaching practices can develop and be reinforced by unhelpful supervision, a lack of guidance or through a teacher’s association with ineffective and inexpert teachers (Emdin 2017).10 Korthagen critiques this approach, writing that “the most fundamental critique of the competency-based approach is that it is actually impossible to describe the qualities of good teachers in terms of competencies” (2017). He asserts that “competency testing has little predictive value,” and falsely reassures the general public about teacher quality. 8 In fact, having extensive subject knowledge can adversely impact one’s ability to see the subject from another’s perspective, leading to an underestimation of the time it would take a novice to accomplish a task or develop a skill. 9 Stronge et al. (2011) found no significant correlations between teacher experience and student achievements. 10 Emdin notes that negative beliefs and oppressive practice can be an outcome of mentoring and co-teaching, as teachers might spend “more time studying each other’s habits and dispositions than their students,” mimic established but unsuccessful practices, or perpetuate hierarchical relationships (for example, of a regular teacher over a specialist/SETTS provider). 7 Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 8 of 60 Research on effectiveness correlates teacher actions with measurable outcomes on student learning. Studies of this type investigate differences in academic growth among students with different teachers, generally by looking at quantifiable measures such as test scores, or evaluating evidence in student work samples using a rubric.11 They also observe classroom activity, noting, for example, student time on task, the quality of student engagement, and the frequency of disruptions to the learning. Stronge et al. (2011) affirm that we are increasingly able to accurately assess teacher effectiveness due to improved data-gathering techniques, greater access to large databases of information on student achievement, and the ability to manipulate that data. Statistical analyses on student achievement indicate that some teachers “are associated with elevated gains in levels of their students’ achievement, and do so repeatedly over the years” (Hattie and Yates 2013). Demonstrable skills that consistently result in student achievement often include those that relate to classroom organization (such as the ready availability of necessary materials and the physical layout of the classroom) and classroom management (such as establishing routines and monitoring student behavior (Bialka 2016, Ripley 2013, Stronge et al. 2011). Lemov (2015) notes that “given that time is a school’s most precious asset,” increases in efficiency, such as decreasing the amount of time it takes to pass out materials – provide an increase in the “school’s scarcest resource.” Effective teachers make use of this time to focus on student learning, increasing the “ratio” of student thinking to teacher talking (Ripley 2013, Lemov 2015). Personal teacher characteristics, or dispositions, also have a consistent impact on student achievement, and include developing a caring, positive relationship with students and ensuring an environment of fairness and respect (Bialka 2016). Critics of teacher effectiveness as a measure raise concerns that it looks at results statistically rather than individually, thereby failing to treat students as individuals; that standardized testing itself is often culturally 11 Looking at teacher effectiveness internationally, Ripley (2013) found that increases in student learning were correlated with such variables as (1) greater prestige of the position, (2) higher qualifications to enter training programs, (3) salaries on par with those of other college-educated professions, and (4) in-service programs for customized professional development. She draws causal connections to student outcomes for all of these points. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 9 of 60 biased and does not always take into account the variability of students and their learning processes12; and that focus on outcomes can either fail to measure the instructional practices that resulted in increased student achievement or lead to the impression that there are singularly effective methods for promoting learning. Further, overreliance on these measures can lead to “teaching to the test,” a reduction of rubrics to checklists, and a lack of concern with developing students holistically (Saphier et al. 2017, Stronge et al. 2011.). On the other hand, teacher expertise is tied to developing a relationship with specific students and settings over time, and may not be transferrable from one context to another. Looking solely at the capabilities of the educator can lead us to inaccurately assume that a teacher will be successful in a different school setting or with students with a different cultural background or learning needs. If one takes the stance that measurable gains in student learning are valid and objective criteria, and that a causal relationship can be drawn between a teacher’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions and student outcomes, then teacher excellence can be understood as a combination of expertise and effectiveness. Rosov (2019) observes that there is a long tradition of research connecting educator characteristics with educational outcomes, especially in terms of student attendance, achievement, socio-emotional well-being, and motivation. While educational theorists and researchers may highlight the importance of either expertise or effectiveness, they describe how teaching excellence incorporates the knowledge, skills and dispositions of the teacher and the impact of teachers on student outcomes (Stronge et al 2011, Ripley 2013, Hattie and Yates 2014, Feiman-Nemser et al 2013, Grossman 2009, Marzano 2007, Arends 2014). Some describe teaching as both a “science” and an “art,” in which technical skill based on well-researched best practices (the “means”) is both influenced by and shapes one’s goals, beliefs, and judgments based on personal experiences (the “ends”). As Lemov (2015) puts it, “every artist – teachers included – is an artisan whose task is to study a set of tools and unlock the secrets of their use…mastery of tools does not just 12 Ripley (2013), taking an alternate perspective, asserts that “testing tends to make schools more fair and more equitable by identifying who is in need of more support.” Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 10 of 60 allow creation, it informs it … the more you understand [the use of a tool], the more it guides you to see what is possible” (Nisan 2012, Marzano 2007).13 Characteristics of Excellent Teaching Teaching is a complex activity incorporating many different domains of knowledge and practice. As there is widespread disagreement both about what those domains include and how they should be organized, it would be impossible to present a full picture of all the varied approaches that researchers take in describing the interplay of teacher expertise and effectiveness. In this section, I am organizing the research into four areas – knowledge (“what do teachers need to know?”), skills (“how can teachers support student learning? ), dispositions (“who is the self that teaches?”), and context (“who are my learners?”). I am distinguishing between these four areas as a heuristic device, knowing that teaching in practice incorporates all of these domains simultaneously and that the characteristics of excellence straddle definitions between these categorizations.14 In using this approach I am following the lead of various researchers who delineated this territory in somewhat similar fashion, albeit using varied language (Grossman 1990, 2009, Feiman-Nemser and Featherstone 1992, Palmer 1998, Hammerness 2006, Feiman-Nemser, et al. 2013). The three dimensions of cognitive, behavioral and affective learning have their roots in the taxonomies of educational objectives of Bloom and Krathwohl. This division also reflects Schwab’s four commonplaces of Teacher, Student, Subject and Milieu, the instructional triangle of Student, Teacher and Content within an environment (Ball and Forzani 2009), and the three professional apprenticeships (cognitive, skills and normative) described in the Carnegie Study (Foster et al. 2006). I am particularly concerned here with instructional practice or pedagogy; in part because this was the area most directly addressed by the class I taught, in part because I believe it most directly highlights the 13 Bialka (2016) distinguishes between methods (replicable technical activities that can be studied scientifically) and. methodologies (repertoires that require one to articulate and examine the philosophical stances embedded in one’s practice). 14 For the course I taught at HUC-JIR, I also used the edTPA structure of planning, implementation, and assessment as an organizing framework; while I stand by this as an excellent depiction of the work of teaching, I found it to be less useful for the purposes of this paper and not as broadly referenced in the literature. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 11 of 60 interaction between teaching and learning, and in part because the research on the training of clergy primarily focuses on pedagogy. Context No two students are alike, and this simple fact has always presented a challenge for educators. Excellent teachers understand that all teaching and learning is situated in specific contexts and think about their learners as individuals who bring their own interests, concerns, social norms, and relationships with them when they enter the classroom. Any one classroom inevitably includes a mix of students with different abilities and preferences, and in many instances a variety of cultural and educational backgrounds. For some educational researchers and scholars, cultural sensitivity and knowledge of individual students is subsumed under classroom practice, with an understanding that teachers need to adapt their work to meet the needs of individual students in particular settings (Saphier et al 2017, Lemov 2015, Marzano 2007). From this perspective, such activities as relationship and community building, as well as teacher dispositions like empathy and care, primarily serve the purpose of supporting student learning. Family members are seen as important supports for student learning, as they can have an impact on student learning through such activities as reading aloud to them, questioning them about their learning, helping them to develop good work habits, and modeling desired behaviors (Ripley 2013). For these researchers, questions about context are largely subsumed under the other headings – knowledge (of students as individuals, and of their differences), skills (for responding to those differences in varied ways) and dispositions (beliefs about students and how they are influenced by their backgrounds). For other researchers, culture and learning are seen as inseparable and codependent, and the classroom is seen as both a microcosm of the society in which it is situated and as itself a community of practice (Hammond 2016, Emdin 2017, Oakes 1999, Macleod and Golby 2003). From this perspective, establishing authentic connections with the students, developing learning partnerships, and creating an environment that enables learners to take risks are foundational to excellent teaching and building Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 12 of 60 community is one of its ultimate purposes. To those taking this approach, the family – and the community as a whole - is an extension of the teacher’s responsibility and inseparable from those who are being taught; in effect, they are “inside the classroom” together with the student. Further, classrooms may be seen as “apprenticeships in democracy,” (Oakes 1999), in which students are held accountable for one another’s learning and “student jobs” (such as erasing the blackboard or passing out materials) highlight the responsibility of each individual student for making the classroom community possible (Emdin 2017). Spending time getting to know learners outside of the classroom setting can be crucial to teaching success. From either perspective, teachers need to be able to address the sociopolitical realities and hidden and null curricula that shape the classroom environment, understanding how their own behaviors and beliefs might conflict with or perpetuate cultural norms and either limit or promote student learning (Epstein and Less 2009, Hammond 2016, Saphier 2017). There are also researchers who advocate for wholesale reform of teaching, from reevaluating its underlying purposes to rethinking and replacing its fundamental structures, in response to the changing nature of the workforce (Robinson, K. 2015), the ecological crisis (Bowers and Flinders 1990), or advances in technology (Sheninger 2016).15 Although these may be some of the most important concerns for the work and training of teachers in the future, space limitations prevent me from addressing them directly. Teacher Knowledge At one point, most research on teaching excellence was framed in terms of teacher knowledge; for example, in a 1992 article Sharon Feiman-Nemser framed teacher-training by asking “what do teachers need to know in order to teach effectively?” and then assessing how to develop that knowledge. This is a reasonable approach, as it is hard to discern whether such teacher tasks as lesson planning and scaffolding curriculum, the ability to incorporate Bloom’s taxonomy, and employing varied approaches to assessment 15 Bowers and Flinders, for example, take the positon that the overriding concerns of the twenty-first century will be to repair the damage to the planet’s ecosystems and to respond to the disruptions in the fabric of cultural life resulting from ecological changes. If they are right, this ought to be a central focus of all teacher education – and perhaps Jewish education, with its emphasis on continuity, should be especially oriented towards “the quality of life that will be available to future generations.” Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 13 of 60 should be categorized as knowledge or skills. Nevertheless, most recent research places more emphasis on teacher practices “the actions required to help children learn,” than knowledge. Subject-area knowledge plays an important but not decisive role in teacher excellence. Contemporary research places more emphasis on the ability to make use of the “great depth and extent of contemporary research in optimal learning processes” (Hattie and Yates 2014). Excellent teachers are aware of the means by which students acquire knowledge, how memory functions, what influences student attention, and the implications of this research on teaching and learning. For example, researchers increasingly support the retention of information through the use of mnemonics, by chunking content, and by attending to the emotional content of material (Hattie and Yates 2014, Hammond 2016, Saphier 2017, Marzano 2007, Carey 2015). Teachers must be aware of different instructional models and their relative benefits and shortcomings, including those grounded in a more teacher-centered approach involving direct instruction and those that take a more learner-centered, constructivist stance (Arends 2014, Ellis 2004). Finally, teachers need to have varied means to engage and assess learners and multiple means of representation and differentiation of process and products (Meyer, Rose and Gordon 2014, Tomlinson 2010). Teacher Skills Contemporary research on teaching is often focused on observable behaviors, attempting to articulate teacher “practices” - “what teachers do” (Green 2008). These include most of the interactions that occur between the teacher and the learner, incorporating techniques for instruction, assessment, classroom management and organization (Oakes 1999). Teacher practices include such varied skills for facilitating meaningful discussions (Lemov 2015, Brookfield 2005), the ability to differentiate instruction for individual learners (Tomlinson and Imbeau 2010), and teacher “presence” or “with-it-ness” (Kessler 2000, Rodgers and Raider-Roth 2006). Expert teachers have a repertoire of diverse multifaceted practices, and then make strategic decisions about which ones are best suited to specific students, situations, or curriculum (Saphier 2017). Lemov describes how effective teachers continually check for student understanding, never being content to say “I taught it” but investigating whether “they learned it” (2015). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 14 of 60 Teacher content knowledge and skills intersect in “pedagogic content knowledge” (PCK), the practices required to effectively teach particular subjects (Nemser and Featherstone 1992). Examples of PCK includes the ability to capture key ideas of a discipline through analogies and examples; to design experiments and projects to develop student understandings; familiarity with the kinds of errors and misconceptions students commonly make when learning a particular skill or concept; and ways to make real-world, culturally relevant connections to engage learners (Saphier 2017).16 Teacher Dispositions Parker Palmer (1998) emphasized the critical importance of moving beyond the “what” and “how” questions about curricular content and pedagogy to ask “who is the self that teaches?” This question, central to the writing of Hanson (1995) and Kessler (2000), is reflected in Feiman-Nemser’s observation that “teaching and learning to teach are deeply personal work rooted in teacher’s emotions, values, and identity” (2007). More recently, she has framed this domain in terms of “dispositions,” (2013) which Bialka (2016) defines as “the union of one’s beliefs and actions.” Dispositions are not solely structures or characteristics in a person’s mind – they exist in the interactions between the teacher and learner in the context of specific settings. This domain of teacher excellence is variously described using the language of “persona” (Palmer 1998), “professional identity” (Pekarsky 2009), “thinking like a teacher” (Dorph 2011, Ingall 2006), “beliefs” (Saphier 2017), “teacher vision” (Hammerness 2016), “pedagogic imagination” (Nisan 2012, Foster 2006), and “paideia” (Rosov 2001, Chazan et al 2017). Korthagen (2017) provides a seven level “onion” model to describe the teacher as a whole person, with “core qualities” at its center and extending outward to mission, identity, beliefs, and competencies, then to behavior, and finally to the environment itself. Each of these educational thinkers uses their distinctive vocabulary deliberately, predicated on different In a similar vein, “reality pedagogy” (Emdin 2017) asserts that teachers need to develop specific skills to teach particular students – in this case, urban or “neoindigenous” populations. This can include: meeting each student on his or her own cultural and emotional turf; creating contexts that position the student as the expert in his or her own teaching and learning, and the teacher as the learner; and the co-construction of the classroom space together with the learner. 16 Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 15 of 60 philosophical positions. For the purposes of this paper, I am conflating the distinctions between these approaches, and Korthagen’s onion-layers, using the term “dispositions” as a catch-all to indicate the critical importance of the teacher’s ways of being, thinking, and believing to their work as decision makers, reflective practitioners, and people of integrity (Arends 2014). Examples of dispositions that impact on student learning include: holding an optimistic belief in the ability of all learners to achieve and a “growth mindset,” in which failure is a natural part of the learning process (Emdin 2017, Hattie and Yates 2014, Saphier 2017); modeling an attitude of care, concern, and even love for the students, and sharing one’s own vulnerability (Kessler 2000, Green 2014, Ben David 2016); showing interest and curiosity in one’s students; and giving infrequent, specific and authentic praise, with a greater emphasis on providing informational feedback (Ripley 2013, Lemov 2015). Expert teachers hold coherent images of possibility and “hopes for the future” in the context of the complex reality of specific contexts and situations (Hammerness 2016, Nisan 2012). Excellent teachers empower students and develop their agency as self-directed, diligent, and confident learners (Emdin 2017, Ripley 2013). When students think about what makes for teacher excellence, it is often the personal qualities of the teacher and how they were integrated into the teacher’s actions in the classroom that they remember most. While a teacher’s credibility or fairness may be more strongly linked to student motivation than to actual learning (Hattie and Yates 2014), there is no question that the cultivation of dispositions is as essential to teacher excellence as their depth of professional knowledge or facility with instructional techniques. Developing Teacher Excellence Contemporary researchers emphasize that excellent teaching is not predicated on innate talent or ability, but is grounded in expertise that can be learned and taught (Green 2014, Hattie and Yates 2014, Bialka 2016). Developing specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions enables teachers to be effective in particular contexts? But, how does this happen? In her forward to Exploring Teaching (1992), Ann Lieberman writes that “one of the oldest and most difficult problems in education [is] how to introduce the study and Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 16 of 60 practice of teaching to beginners.” In these next sections, I will first provide a snapshot of the state of the research into teacher training and argue why pre-service training is vital, before addressing the specific methodologies that are employed to develop expert and effective teachers. What does the literature indicate makes for excellent teacher training? Research on Teacher Training: Just as is in the literature on teacher excellence, most research on teacher-education focuses on observable teacher behaviors (expertise), measurable student outcomes (effectiveness), or both. Writing in 1990, Grossman lamented that there was “no tradition of studying the inner workings of teacher education courses.” This has only somewhat improved over the decades since. In 2009, Darling-Hammond et al. decried the “limited pool of rigorous quantitative studies,” having conducted a meta-analysis of 1,300 research studies and evaluation reports and only identifying nine that could be used to “evaluate impacts of professional development on student achievement.” As recently, as 2013, Feiman-Nemser, Tamir and Hammerness noted the lack of research on teacher preparation, which Korthagen (2017) echoed regarding the study of teacher learning. The research that does exist about teacher training programs can also be problematic. Gibbs and Coffee (2000), in examining teacher training programs in the United Kingdom, found little consistency of goals from one program to another, noting that it was “sometimes considered up to the trainees to determine what they got from the training.”17 Similarly, Feiman-Nemser, Tamir and Hammerness (2013) found it difficult to “connect the dots between teacher preparation and student achievement,” observing that the statistical tools used in qualitative studies were “unstable,” providing only weak correlations between teacher preparation and effectiveness, and that overall they did not offer an accurate picture of teacher 17 Examples of such goals for teacher-training included: Moving from a teaching-centered to a learning-centered view, becoming reflective practitioners, acquiring educational terminology, and launching a trajectory of continuing professional development (Gibbs and Coffee 2000). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 17 of 60 education programs. On top of this, research on teacher training often draws its conclusions from the study of classroom practice (such as Lemov 2017), as opposed to examining pre-service training. Nevertheless, the research points to a number of practices characteristic of successful teacher-training programs. As Rust (2017) asserts, there is a “sense that there could be a unified set of practices that with intense trial and error in the field, all teachers are prepared to enact in their first year.” The Value of Pre-Service Training The challenges in drawing causal links between pre-service training and teacher expertise or effectiveness might lead us to conclude that there is no particular value to teacher training courses. We may also believe this to be true “because everyone has been to school” (Feiman-Nemser 2011) and is therefore familiar with what teaching entails. After all, teaching, in the sense of showing other people how to do things or providing advice, is a ubiquitous part of our daily lives (Ball and Forzani 2009), one that we do without any special training. Cannot teachers develop excellence through practice in the classroom, honing their craft through in-service professional development and in tandem with participation in discussions on social media and reading journals meant primarily for practitioners, such as Educational Leadership and Phi Delta Kappan and articles on websites like edutopia.org? Researchers assert that such misconceptions are predicated on the persistent fallacies that “good teaching relies primarily on content knowledge” and that teaching ability is innate, and therefore that rigorous preparation is irrelevant (Goodwin and Kosnik 2013). They argue that classroom teaching is specialized, complex work that requires “learning to do things that are not common in daily life and that most competent adults cannot do well.” Ball and Forzani give the example that most of the time “people ask one another questions to which they do not know the answers. Teachers, on the other hand, must ask questions all the time to which they do know the answers.” Feiman-Nemser elaborates that “promoting the learning of 25 or more diverse students” is only tangentially related to the “everyday showing, telling, Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 18 of 60 and helping that we do as parents, spouses, and friends.” Goodwin and Kosnik point to the “constant reinvention of practice” needed by teachers to “meet needs presented by ever changing contexts.” There are at least four specific ways in which pre-service training can be particularly beneficial to developing teacher expertise: To respond to assumptions and misconceptions of novice teachers: Hammerness (2006), writes that it can be difficult to imagine classrooms that work differently than those in which one grew up. As a result of this “apprenticeship of observation” common to all adults, “novice teachers will likely replicate what they experienced as students,” which can cause them to duplicate mistakes their own teachers made (Goodwin and Kosnik 2013). Teachers may also enter with “deficit-oriented” beliefs about student capabilities (Bialka 2016), which may cause them to arrive at false conclusions about student ability and motivation (Grossman 1990), or expect students to be like themselves. Ingall (2006) further observes that beginning teachers have simplistic and “mythical assumptions” teacher efficacy. Preconceptions like these “show a remarkable resistance to change,” in part because of the many years of schooling that shape our beliefs about teaching and learning (Korthagen 2010). Responding to these misconceptions can best be done in a setting where they are rigorously examined and challenged. If left unaddressed, they are likely to persist into one’s work, where they are unlikely to be reexamined (Foster 2016, Bialka 2016, Goodwin and Kosnik 2013). For the development of pedagogic content knowledge: Developing teacher expertise requires support and guidance, both to set increasingly complex goals and to prevent the development of “bad habits” as the employment of skills become automatic (Hattie and Yates 2014). Skills such as scaffolding learning, representing knowledge in varied ways, or engaging diverse learner populations require “a context for the re-examination of subject matter from a purposefully pedagogical perspective” (Grossman 1990). Such skills, characteristic of pedagogic content knowledge, “cannot be developed simply through experience or subject-matter course work” (Feiman-Nemser 2011) or through the process of teaching. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 19 of 60 For the development of teacher dispositions: Ripley (2013), among others, observes that subject area knowledge and the skills to teach it must be supplemented by certain kinds of character traits, beliefs about student ability, and personal professional vision “which are not obvious to new teachers.” Rust (2017), for example, observes that developing teacher “presence” is “not likely for new teachers to achieve on their own” since it requires a multifaceted integration of content knowledge, understanding one’s students, and the capacity to reflect in the moment. Only through supervised training and coaching, and in the context of a community of fellow practitioners, can such dispositions be developed. To bridge between theory and practice: Levisohn (2012) acknowledges that teachers, as practitioners, develop a “wisdom of practice.” Nevertheless, he argues that teacher excellence is predicated on sophisticated conceptual frameworks that can best be developed in the context of an academic setting. Tauber (2012), similarly, quotes Scheffler’s arguments for the study of theory and scholarship in a university setting, even when such study doesn’t directly impact on practice, because it raises questions about the goals of education: “It is these questions that students need to continually have before them as they develop into mature teachers, if they are indeed to help shape the purposes and conditions of education.” For a teacher-training program to have a significant positive impact on teacher practice, it must incorporate a compelling mission (in their study, either religious or oriented towards social justice), a robust vision of good teaching, and opportunities to practice their vision-driven training in supportive settings (Feiman-Nemser, et al. 2013). A robust vision of teaching and learning “gives the program coherence” (Darling-Hammond 2000). Strong, vision-driven teacher preparation can enable a novice teacher to adapt to challenging demands in difficult situations. However, teacher training must be accompanied in the early years of teaching through a supportive work environment, ongoing professional development, and participation in “learning communities that enable collaboration, experimentation and reflection” (Rust 2017). As Carol Ingall observes, a critical element in Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 20 of 60 the career of successful teachers is having “colleagues who supported them, listened to them, and solved problems with them” (2006). The three apprenticeships of professional development The Carnegie Foundation, in their study of professional practice, maintains that individuals learn to become professionals through three types of apprenticeships, each grounded in their own historical tradition. The cognitive apprenticeship, with its roots in Academia and European universities, develops knowledge through academic coursework. The practical apprenticeship, grounded in the craft guilds, focuses on building skills, often through clinical work. The normative apprenticeship, which originated in Greek Paideia, is concerned with identity formation, character development, and questions of ultimate purposes, generally through mentoring and reflection (Foster et al. 2006, Rosov 2001, Chazan et al. 2017). These apprenticeships are reflected in the three dimensions of teaching described earlier: cognitive knowledge, practical skills and normative dispositions; they are also echoed by Grossman’s contention that “teacher-education should be organized around core practices in which knowledge, skill and professional identity are developed in the process of learning to practice” (2009), and in the notion that training must cultivate what teachers “should know, care about and be able to do” (Feiman-Nemser et al. 2013). It is critical to note that while in some cases these three apprenticeships are handled separately – for example, the cognitive apprenticeship through theory-based coursework18, the practical apprenticeship through fieldwork, and the normative apprenticeship through “small group reflection” – researchers recommend for them to be integrated into a single framework (Foster et al. 2006, Feiman-Nemser and Featherstone 1992, Grossman 2009). Grossman, among others, encourage introducing theory in response to particular concerns or issues raised by the practice of teachers in their clinical work. An integrated classroom of this type may be seen as a “laboratory” for teaching and learning, an approach that Grossman traces back to Dewey (2009). The challenge for teacher training is to find a continuous balance 18 As is the case in the Davidson School “Foundations” class studied by Tauber (2012). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 21 of 60 between “overt instruction,” which is typical of the cognitive apprenticeship, and “situated practice,” which is characteristic of the practical apprenticeship (MacLeod and Golby 2003), while allowing for normative behaviors and beliefs to be modeled and reflected upon.19 Some researchers take the stance that teacher training can only be effective when it occurs in the context of specific learners and settings (Feiman-Nemser, et al. 2013, Emdin 2017, Hammond 2015)20, while others emphasize the development of a repertoire of generalizable strategies and techniques that can be selected from and adapted for use in multiple circumstances (Goodwin and Kosnik 2013, Saphier 2017, Lemov 2015, Ripley 2013). Grossman (2009) charting a somewhat middle path between these positions, asserts that teacher training should focus on “core/high-leverage practices” that are common to all teaching, but that these must be learned in the context of particular settings or cultures. Novice teachers benefit from being part of a community of practice, together with others and under the tutelage of more experienced practitioners. The particular composition of the group, and the ways in which its members develop relationships and support one another, can be critical to one’s development, because “the kind of teacher you will become is directly related to the kind of teachers you associate with” (Emdin 2017). Additionally, teacher training is shaped by the explicit and implicit values and norms of the institution or program in which it occurs, which in turn have a substantial impact on the beliefs and practice of the students (Feiman-Nemser, et al. 2013). The role of context is just as important for teacher training as it is for teaching itself. Cognitive Apprenticeship (Knowledge) Because it is oriented towards the acquisition of knowledge and understanding, the cognitive apprenticeship in education often occurs in a traditional, classroom setting, just like related graduate 19 Green (2014) describes a fully integrated model that she observed in Japan, called jugyokenkyu. “Translated literally as “lesson study,” jugyokenkyu is a bucket of practices that Japanese teachers use to hone their craft, from observing each other at work to discussing the lesson afterward to studying curriculum materials with colleagues.” 20 Emdin (2017) stresses that understanding context and getting to know students as individuals can only be accomplished by spending time with students outside the classroom, on their own turf. Only by literally understanding where they are coming from is one able to build genuine relationships with learners. He encourages novice teachers to “start by spending time in businesses that are in close proximity to the school and are patronized by students.” Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 22 of 60 courses in psychology, philosophy, history or cognitive science. It is here that inquiry into research literature and analysis of theoretical abstraction plays the greatest role. Study incorporates both subject matter knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge, along with everything teachers need to know about learners and learning. This includes the examination of the purposes of schooling, the hidden curriculum, and topics that support the development of teacher agency (Feiman-Nemser et al. 2013). As a result of their study, a novice teacher should move from “thinking about what a teacher does” to “what a student learns” (Feiman-Nemser and Featherstone 1992, Lemov 2015). The cognitive apprenticeship, with its roots in the Academy, is where overt instruction is most likely to be beneficial to a novice teacher. However, even here, some authors emphasize the potential for a teachereducator to serve as model and facilitator, exposing students to different kinds of teaching and transforming their assumptions about what teaching looks like. Suzanne M. Wilson describes how her students “learn as much from how I act as a teacher as they do from the content of the course,” as she models “kindness, adaptation … curiosity, and providing a safe environment in which they can begin to act like real learners” (Feiman-Nemser and Featherstone 1992). Facilitating small group discussions, developing a community of inquiry among the students, and structuring discussions to increase participation of the learners can all provide means for a professor to model effective practices for cognitive inquiry that a novice teacher can then emulate (Brookfield 2005, Pardales and Girod 2006). Practical Apprenticeship (Skills) Teacher excellence cannot be developed in the classroom alone, by observing a teacher modeling skills and discussing them, but requires students to practice those skills themselves (Ball and Forzani 2009). Although “psychological, philosophical and other theory can provide potential frameworks for teachers’ own analyses of their work, it is only in the practical context that the issues come alive” (MacLeod and Golby 2003). In 1990, Grossman wrote that it was “atypical to have close links between teacher education courses and field experiences, but this is what is needed.” Such linkages are more commonplace today, albeit still not universal. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 23 of 60 Engaging learners in context is often referred to as “clinical practice,” “supervised training,” or “student teaching.” Opportunities to practice in authentic settings provides novice teachers with “images of the possible,” helping them navigate between theory, personal vision, and practice (Levisohn, 2012).21 Goodwin and Kosnik (2013) observe that “novice teachers want tool kits, tricks of the trade, repertoire that can be implemented immediately.” An experienced practitioner - often a clinical supervisor (through the teacher training program) or a mentor (through the field placement site) - can ensure that teacher practices are “not a mindless skill exercise” by guiding novice teachers to reflect upon their work and to develop strategies and methodologies that are grounded in theory (Hattie and Yates, 2014). In the absence of such supervised reflection on practice, field experiences can reinforce negative or mistaken beliefs about students and learning rather than challenging them (Feiman-Nemser and Featherstone 1992, Emdin 2017). Authentic settings can be supplemented in the classroom through approximations of practice. For example, the instructor can “deliberately make the sorts of errors that students will make” in the same way that medical students practice diagnosing illness on actors (Grossman, Hammerness and MacDonald 2009). The challenge for teacher-educators is “to construct learning environments that model the contexts in which original human enquiry is conducted and learning achieved” (Macleod and Golby 2003). Two methodologies that bridge between classroom learning and situated practice are the use of videos and case studies of teachers in action, often using the actual experiences or “dilemmas” of the students themselves. These techniques can provide vivid portraits of the complexities of teaching in varied contexts and promote reflection and collaboration through discussion (Bialka 2016, Ingall 2006, Feiman-Nemser and Featherstone 1992, Marsh and Mitchell 2014, Baecher and Kung 2014). Creating portfolios of one’s work and journaling can also provide a means for a novice to reflect on personal and professional growth (Feiman-Nemser and Featherstone 1992, Ingall 2006, Dinham and Scott 2003). 21 Seymour Sarason, reflecting on his own growth as a teacher-educator, highlighted the importance of teacher preparation incorporating authentic experiences of engagement with learners: “It took me too many years finally to “hear” what almost all teachers were telling me: “I wish I had been made more knowledgeable about and sensitive to the realities of teaching real kids in real school” (Fried 2003). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 24 of 60 However, several authors caution about the lack of agreement for how to conduct such reflection effectively, that many of the methods in use lack empirical or theoretical support, and that without careful facilitation reflection can lack substance or reinforce stereotypes and false perceptions (for example, that beginners can solve complex pedagogical problems) (Marcos et al 2010, Grossman 2009, Korthagen 2010). For this reason, some researchers recommend that reflection make use of a protocol with explicit roles for the participants and parameters for analysis (Baecher and Kung 2014). Normative Apprenticeship (Dispositions) “Prospective teachers don’t begin to think like teachers just because they have declared their intention to become teachers” (Ingall 2006). Although individual researchers articulate the need differently and with specific perspectives, there is broad consensus that teacher-training programs must, like all professional development programs, attend to the character, attitudes and beliefs of novice teachers. Becoming an excellent teacher involves not only learning a body of knowledge and a set of skills, but also “coming to inhabit and enact the role of teacher” (Foster et al. 2006). Dispositions, like knowledge and skills, can “develop and be developed” (Bialka 2016), generally through supported reflection or “soul searching” (Foster et al. 2006). This can require the novice to examine their teaching philosophy in relation to the “enduring, value-laden questions about the purposes and goals of education” (Cochran-Smith 2004). Such reevaluation can dispel culturally biased or exclusionary beliefs of novice teachers (Emdin 2017, Hammond 2015) and fanciful and unrealistic expectations for teaching and learning (Hammerness 2012). Nancy Parkes observes that we “cannot assume that teachers possess social emotional competencies,” and therefore teacher training programs must explicitly teach and support their development (2018). At the same time, Nisan observes that we should not expect the communities and institutions where a teacher will serve to have well-articulated, coherent, and relevant visions and goals (2012), and teacher training must therefore both enable novice teachers to articulate their personal visions and support them in navigating the gap between their ideals and the reality of the teaching experience. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 25 of 60 Dispositions are interdependent with knowledge and skills because of the inseparability of means and ends. For example, developing a belief that all children have the capacity to achieve can be an outcome of learning more about child development and gaining new teaching strategies. At the same time, how one interprets one’s observations of student behavior will be shaped by one’s beliefs about that student as an individual and of students more generally (Bialka 2016, Lemov 2015, Nisan 2012). Developing dispositions can take the form of self-conscious reflection about one’s own educational experiences, the teachers who shaped one’s life, or one’s core values and identity (Epstein and Kress 2011, Meier 1995, Nisan 2012, Korthagen 2010); creating narratives about one’s personal educational journey and examining how one’s views change over time; and analyzing videos of one’s practice to observe how one’s beliefs and practices align (Bialka 2016, Ingall 2006). Experienced professionals can serve as role models through their interactions with novices, and can coach or mentor teachers by asking questions that enable them to take new perspectives. Novice teachers may also be brought into a community of fellow practitioners through “legitimate peripheral participation” in teacher meetings and other school and workplace groups; through these experiences, they can learn to be a part of a professional culture, practice skills for communication and problem-solving, and develop the use of educational vocabulary (Wenger 1998, Stodolsky, Dorph and Rosov 2008). Excellent Teacher Training Learning to teach is more than amassing a collection of skills and knowledge. It requires a novice to develop a personal vision for teaching and learning and an identity that guides their work and enables their participation in a community of professional practice. Effective training incorporates all three apprenticeships characteristic of professional development: cognitive, practical, and normative. Excellent teacher-training can be assessed by the degree to which the novice teacher has developed the expertise and effectiveness described above, and by the retention of graduates in the field of education. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 26 of 60 Excellent teacher training is predicated on a clear and coherent vision of teaching and learning, incorporating both practice and service. Without a shared and well described vision for practice, a training program may inadvertently support “a view of teaching as narrow and technical work” and faculty may not design appropriate coursework and assignments. When a vision of service is absent, graduates may conclude that they can fulfill their personal visions in a variety of ways and not necessarily through teaching (Grossman 2009, Feiman-Nemser et al. 2013). When both visions are well-specified, and enacted in practice through clinical work, graduates can imagine themselves as vision-driven teachers for the long term, even in challenging situations. Therefore, excellent teacher training results in increased retention and leadership potential (Feiman-Nemser et al. 2013).22 Having established some of the key characteristics of excellent teaching and teacher training programs, we can now investigate the role they play in training for Jewish educators. In this next section, I will first explore what it means to articulate excellence in Jewish teaching and how it diverges from general education, and then offer some of the distinct methodologies that characterize its professional apprenticeships. What are the distinct elements of pre-service teacher training programs for Jewish educators? Caveats: Challenges to articulating excellence in Jewish teaching and teacher training While teacher training programs such as DeLet or the “day school track” at Davidson are designed exclusively for the preparation of classroom teachers, many of those who receive formal professional training do so in more generalized degree programs in Jewish education. Such programs prepare educators to serve as teachers in diverse roles and contexts, and their focus is often to develop teacher-leaders whose 22 It is important to acknowledge that “beginning teachers adjust and reinterpret their initial career aspirations based on the kinds of students they teach and the school’s working conditions, professional culture, and administrative support.” The impact of initial job placement plays a critical role in teacher retention, and requires alignment with the training and strong support from peers and program advisors. “When the new teachers were able to see themselves as having a stake in the broader ethos and functioning of their school, this contributed to their sense that their work was both aligned with and valued by the school as a whole”(Feiman-Nemser et al. 2016, Ingall 2006). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 27 of 60 role will go beyond classroom teaching. Defining excellence in the training of Jewish teachers in such settings is challenged in two crucial ways: First, there are virtually no studies on pre-service training in Jewish education, and second, it is difficult to establish the scope of what we mean by Jewish teaching. It is a cliché to write that Jewish education is not a well-researched field. As recently as 2018, Erica Brown made this point in these exact words, going on to write that “it’s hard to be data driven if we don’t have enough data. One scholar shared that there is simply not strong enough evidence on how to teach Hebrew effectively. She then paused and added ‘the same for Israel and Jewish texts.’” Jewish teacher training, as a specific area of study, is even less well-researched. Rosov (2019), in her current study of the professional trajectories of Jewish educators, found no comparable prior studies in Jewish educational contexts and few examples of data about training. Tauber (2011) found little to no scholarly research on adult Jewish education practice. Kress (2014), exploring the field of experiential Jewish education, was unable to cite any sources responding to such questions as “are credentialed/trained experiential Jewish educators more successful in promoting learner outcomes than are innately talented but ‘naïve’ (that is, untrained) educators?”23 The lack of literature on Jewish teacher training is intrinsically problematic. A second challenge for articulating Jewish teacher excellence concerns the question of scope. Jewish education is an extraordinarily diverse field, with full-time teachers comparable to those working in general education (generally, day school educators) constituting only a fraction of those who serve as Jewish teachers.24 Rosov notes that there are increasingly more Jewish education settings that look nothing like schools, from service-learning to educational travel, from camping and museums to online gaming – and all of these demand skills in teaching and learning on the part of the educator. Some recent scholarship argues for an expansive definition of Jewish education and of Jewish teaching. Kress and Rostein (2018), 23 Sinclair (2011), writing about the lack of research in the field, suggested that granting practitioners the time to do serious enquiry on their own practice” would “immeasurably” enrich the field of Jewish education. I would note, in this regard, that were it not for a three month sabbatical from my full-time employment at Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York, I would not be able to write this qualifying paper. I am extremely grateful to the leadership of that organization for supporting me in this endeavor, and I hope that this paper in some small way advances our knowledge. 24 Of course, the “ever-expanding notion of what constitutes Jewish education and what a Jewish educator is and does” (Rosov 2019) should be seen positively, as “more people are accessing Jewish education in more ways than ever before” (Brown 2018). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 28 of 60 for example, contend that a primary task of Jewish education is to enhance the social and emotional wellbeing of students, and therefore any Jewish activity that seeks to do so could conceivably be constituted as a form of Jewish education. Extending this reasoning, it is likely that a general studies teacher at a day school, a waterfront counselor at a summer camp, or a non-Jewish teacher in a Jewish preschool requires some types of specialized expertise to be effective. While one can draw connections between the goals of specific training programs and their outcomes, there is no simple way to generalize about how Jewish teacher training does and should operate. Distinguishing excellent Jewish teaching from other types of teaching One might reasonably take the position that a good Jewish teacher should be indistinguishable from any other good teacher, just like a good Jewish doctor or engineer is simply is a good doctor or engineer. For example, just as a skilled doctor can apply a professional medical repertoire to individuals in specific instances, so too an excellent teacher should be able to apply a professional teaching repertoire to Jewish content matter and to Jewish students. I will take a contrary stance here. Distinguishing informal Jewish education from general informal education, Chazan (2003) notes that they diverge in two major respects that I believe hold true for Jewish education more broadly. First, he asserts that Jewish education is inherently education for Jewish character, lifestyle or identity. In general education, teacher dispositions and skills might be evaluated based solely on their effectiveness for student learning; the importance of an attitude of care for the learners or the ability to develop a safe learning environment primarily relates to their practical benefits for student learning, and in particular for the acquisition of knowledge and skills. When a teacher addresses student dispositions in a general education setting, it is typically those character traits or beliefs which impact on their effective learning, such as work habits (like perseverance and a growth-mindset) or their social-emotional development (which are understood to be universally of benefit to all individuals, such as teamwork or respecting other’s opinions). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 29 of 60 By contrast, in Jewish education (as in all religious or vision-driven education), while knowledge and skillbuilding are important, developing student dispositions is invariably seen as the primary agenda (FeimanNemser et al. 2013).25 “When we teach Judaic subjects,” writes Frankel, “it’s not just for knowledge’s sake. We are training students to be Jewish. We are giving them the tools they need to be lifelong Jews. We are preparing them to join an extraordinary community that spans the whole world” (2017). While the specifics of the learner outcomes vary, and the role of religion in progressive Jewish educational settings is nuanced26 – or even, potentially, absent – there are inevitably character traits, behaviors and beliefs that are seen as intrinsically of value or as moral obligations, and a central purpose of Jewish education is to influence the learner to develop these dispositions (Ingall 2006). “There is an inextricable connection between Jewish education and Jewish identity development,” write Sigel, Kress and Elias (2007). Likewise, Tauber (2010) notes that an important aim of adult Jewish learning is “guiding learners toward increased participation and commitment to Jewish life broadly conceived.” Second, Chazan writes that Jewish educators are inherently shapers of Jewish experience and role models of Jewish lifestyle. The teacher is as much a part of the curriculum as is the subject at hand. This is in stark contrast to some views of general education, where “acting in the learner’s interests entails the deliberate suspension of aspects of one’s self. One’s personal religious convictions, for example, have no place in public school teaching” (Ball and Forzani 2009). While the specifics of one’s practice or beliefs may or may not be the ones that one seeks to impart on one’s students – for example, when Orthodox teachers work in a Reform Jewish setting – the teacher is nevertheless expected to model a viable and meaningful way of being Jewish and living a Jewish lifestyle. Aron (1986) argues that such concerns should be seen as part of a teacher’s qualifications and should impact on the criteria for teacher selection. As noted earlier, Feiman-Nemser et al. believe a “compelling mission” is critical for any effective teacher-training program, in addition to a “vision of good teaching.” We might infer that this is equally true for all excellent teaching, in which case the distinguishing feature of Jewish education would be the particular dispositions and cultures that it seeks to address. 26 For example, not all progressive educators would agree with Rossel that “no matter what the Jewish teacher teaches, the lesson is always God” (1998). 25 Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 30 of 60 As a third distinguishing feature, Jewish educators are also particularly concerned with what is often called “Jewish survival,” the notion that the very existence of the Jewish people rests in the hands of our ability to educate the next generation towards continued participation in Jewish life (Kallen 1964, Sacks, 1994, Dershowitz 1997). To be effective, a Jewish educator must be committed simultaneously to a conservative agenda of maintaining and transmitting existing conceptions of Jewish life (“continuity” or the “chain of tradition”) and to a progressive, future-oriented agenda of developing in learners the capacity for innovation and renewal (“thriving” or “flourishing”). Glaser (2008) writes that “we must educate our students not only such that they can participate in Jewish life as expressed in the here and now, but also to educate them to take responsibility for the ongoing vitality of a living tradition” (Glaser 2008).27 This also speaks to a fourth distinguishing characteristic, the role of Jewish educators as community builders, who are not only teaching children to participate in contexts outside of the classroom but who are establishing plausibility structures for Jewish continuity in their everyday work. From these perspectives, above and beyond the definitions true for all teachers, “expertise” in Jewish education incorporates familiarity with Jewish contexts and the specific knowledge-bases and skillsets that are distinct to Jewish education, while “effectiveness” as a Jewish educator primarily relates to the ability of an educator to support the development of certain dispositions, particularly those that develop sustainable communities. Jewish Contexts As Feiman-Nemser, Tamir and Hammerness observe, creating Jewish communities is both a means and end for Jewish education (2013). Teachers build classroom community not only to create an environment that is conducive to learning, but also to develop a sense of joint enterprise, shared repertoire and mutual engagement that will extend beyond the classroom and the past the conclusion of the schoolyear. As I have written elsewhere (Kaiserman 2007), the students, teachers, and other individuals who together 27 Jewish survival can be claimed as the rationale for as varied purposes for Jewish education as taking action on climate change, guarding against anti-Semitism, or fostering a love for the state of Israel. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 31 of 60 constitute our learning communities hold a diversity of beliefs and embrace practices from a variety of cultures, both Jewish and non-Jewish. One recent study observes that “most b’nai mitzvah cohorts likely include families that have members who are nonwhite.” They conclude that “as younger, more ethnically and racially diverse cohorts replace older, more homogeneous ones, the basic makeup of the American Jewish community will likely change” (Kelman et al. 2019). Jewish teachers must not only be comfortable amidst the plurality of views, behaviors and cultures that shape the populations of our programs, they must model a personal and communal vision of a viable and meaningful way of living a Jewish life (Glaser 2005). They must be expert facilitators as well as facilitators of their own expertise. As Jewish educators attempt to “enculturate” learners into particular expressions of Jewish life, by modeling specific behaviors and dispositions (Aron 1986), they need to recognize and, in nearly all cases, validate the varied ways that Judaism is enacted and simultaneously facilitate their learners to experience this diversity positively (Kaiserman 2011). Further, ter Kuile (2019) writes about how the “remixed, unbundled” millennial culture “requires us to explore the benefits of Jewish education for those who do not identify as Jewish.” Creating a communal sense of belonging among individuals who hold dissimilar beliefs and practice their Judaism in divergent ways is a tall order. I would argue that analogies can be drawn to, and methods learned from, multicultural, urban settings like those described by Hammond (2015) and Emdin (2017). Because the normative views in any Jewish context are unlikely to be the only authoritative perspectives that learners encounter – even among Jewish settings – teachers must be able to take a reasoned and inspirational stance on Jewish belief and practice, navigating the tensions between the institutional values where they work and their personal identity and teacher vision. At the same time, for learners to value the norms and behaviors that define our settings, they must have a voice in setting them. This demands a willingness on the part of the teacher to allow learners and their beliefs and practices to inform the way in which our institutions teach about Judaism (Woocher 2012). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 32 of 60 Because, as Frankel writes, “family education is not just a bonus add-on in our children’s Jewish education but an essential component of any program” (2017), and because family members both serve as models for their children and as learners themselves (Kress 2011), Jewish educators need to be able to engage family members as extended members of the classroom community. As Jo Kay (2003) puts it “the family is ultimately the ‘student’ we are trying to reach.” As interfaith families now form the majority of liberal Jewish households, o it is typical for non-Jewish family members to be participants in Jewish educational settings. Teachers need to be responsive to varied family structures in Jewish households and to the particular approaches that are needed for adult and family education. Jewish Teacher Knowledge Although not exclusively the domain of Jewish education, there are specific subject areas that are likely to be part of a Jewish curriculum in some constellation.28 Books like Joseph Telushkin’s Jewish Literacy (2008), Harold Kushner’s To Life (1994) and Anita Diamant’s Living a Jewish Life (2007), among many others, attempt to provide a comprehensive compendium of Jewish knowledge. Feiman-Nemser (2011), Dorph (2011) and others emphasize the critical importance of developing pedagogic content knowledge for the specific subject areas that are part of a Jewish curriculum. Mishnah, Talmud and other ancient texts have their own set of hermeneutic practices with which an educator must be familiar, just as the teacher of Hebrew must have pedagogic content knowledge appropriate to the teaching of a foreign language. Such methods are found in the chapters in Moskowitz’s The Ultimate Jewish Teacher’s Handbook (2003) or the series from ARE publications that includes such titles as Loeb and Kadden’s Teaching Torah (1997) and Kadden and Kadden’s Teaching Mitzvot (2003). Tauber (2015) recommends that those who will work with adults become familiar with Barry Holtz’s orientations to teaching Bible (2003). She observes that it can “provide a framework by which adult educators can situate their approach, facilitate dialogue with colleagues and students about the implications 28 Horowitz (2019) notes the ubiquity of text study in contemporary Jewish contexts, and the general expectation that lay people will be able to perform such tasks as delivering a dvar Torah at a board meeting. She suggests that there is an emerging conception that understands Jewish civilization, and its texts, as a “collectively valued storehouse of wisdom.” Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 33 of 60 of different interpretative stances, [and] invite them to experiment with different approaches.” This approach can be useful beyond teaching Biblical texts to any situation in which the teacher is trying to guide their learners to see themselves as participants in a Jewish narrative and “make deeper connections to the Jewish story” (Tauber 2010). Dorph (2011) further describes a distinctive kind of knowledge “related to the theological and ideological issues inherent in the subjects we teach, such as, for example, “Who wrote the Bible? Does God answer prayer? How can one believe in God after the Holocaust? How can I support Israel when I do not support its policies toward the Palestinian people?” Backenroth and Sinclair (2014), expanding on this last idea, assert that Israel education in a Jewish context requires an awareness and heightened sensitivity to “how different forms of Israel content knowledge can affect their learners from social and emotional perspectives.” Establishing a “community of inquiry” based around questions and dialogue is also a particular kind of Jewish pedagogy (Frankel 2017). Biblical texts “by their very nature invite critical thinking, discussion, and deliberation over and beyond their literal meaning” (Chazan et al. 2017). There is a “deep rooted tradition in Jewish education, and “indeed in Jewish cultural behavior,” of asking and answering questions as a central form of learning and interaction” (Sigel, Kress and Elias 2007). Those roots stretch back at least as far as the literary style of the Talmud, the “quintessential document of questioning or argumentation and study,” and posing questions is integral to studying Rashi’s commentaries.29 Jewish Teacher Skills No doubt, if there is one methodology that immediately resonates as uniquely Jewish, it is chavruta learning. As a distinctive Jewish form of pedagogy it is distinguishable from partnered learning typical of general education by: its emphasis on the mutual concern and care of the learners for one another (treating one another as a “Thou”); their responsibility for each other’s learning; the cultivation of presence on the 29 I wonder if the pervasiveness of a constructivist approach in Jewish training programs may in part be related to this inheritance. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 34 of 60 part of the teacher and learners; and the role of the text being studied as a dialogical partner with its own voice (Holzer and Kent 2014, Holzer 2016, Raider-Roth and Holzer 2009). Classroom management in a Jewish context requires that we consider the classroom as a “living Jewish community” in which children develop such skills as “behaving with derech eretz” (respect) and “not engaging in lashon hara” (gossip) (Gootman 2003, Frankel 2017). Some scholars advocate using Jewish rituals and cultural markers for the purpose of building relationships or marking transitions, for example, by singing a nigun or playing Jewish music at the outset of class and then turning it off to signal the start of learning (Ben David 2016, Frankel 2017). I would also suggest that there are certain Jewish activities – say, Hebrew baseball or “Jewpardy” – that are not exclusively Jewish methods (or even demonstrably effective), but their ubiquity in Jewish learning environments might de facto qualify them as Jewish pedagogies of some kind. Similarly, I would propose that the extensive incorporation of experiential education into Jewish settings (“making school more like camp”), alongside the sense that experiential education is as native to Jewish learning as is text study (for example, in the Passover seder) would qualify it as a de facto Jewish pedagogic approach (Kress 2012, Rose 2007). Finally, teachers must attend to how the hidden curriculum reflects the “ideas, values and practices of Jewish civilization,” as expressed in elements of the classroom environment, such as setup, décor, and class atmosphere (Chazan et al. 2017). Jewish Teacher Dispositions The emphasis on developing dispositions among the learners is perhaps the most significant difference between Jewish and general education. Jewish teachers are concerned with shaping identity and character, an activity which may be described more broadly as “tikkun middot” or with specific immersive techniques of reflective practice or “mussar” (Kress 2017). Contemporary thinkers may articulate the kinds of dispositions sought by Jewish education in notions of “flourishing” or “thriving” based on Positive Psychology (Bryfman 2016, Levine 2017, Robinson, B. 2018, Berkman 2019) on Social-Emotional Learning (“SESL,” with the extra “S” denoting “spiritual”) (Kress and Rotsten 2018; Parkes 2018) or in Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 35 of 60 terms of “Jewish sensibilities,” “wisdom,” or “particularly Jewish ways of thinking about what it means to be human …that guide and orient a person’s actions and choices” (Ochs 2003, Ochs 2019, Horowitz 2019, Stern 2019). Others point to an intrinsic Jewish orientation towards action or “tikkun olam” (Ben David 2016), to a heightened Jewish sense of responsibility for caring for the planet and its ecosystems (Savage 2018), or argue that the purpose of Jewish education to simply promote “more Jewish education,” or in other words, to cultivate “lifelong learners” (Robinson, B. 2018). To evaluate the relative merits of each of these approaches, alongside others derived from, for example, the Mandel Foundation’s “Visions of Jewish Education” project or the thinking of such scholars as Daniel Pekarsky, is beyond the scope of this paper. Individual institutions and teachers will have their own (often messy and eclectic) perspectives, and an excellent teacher must maintain an ironic stance and hold multiple perspectives as legitimate (Egan 1997). The merit of a teacher’s perspective can be appraised by the degree to which their dispositions are grounded in Jewish text and practice, have been carefully considered and are clearly articulated, have been tested through dialogue with those with different points-of-view, and can realistically be enacted in the lives of the learners (Cohen, J. 1999, Glaser 2005, Pekarsky 2007). Distinguishing Jewish teacher training from other kinds of teacher training There are practical reasons why one might be drawn to a degree in Jewish education and to study in a Jewish preparatory program, such as the alignment of the academic schedule with the Jewish calendar, feeling a sense of connection to one’s classmates and professors, the use of Jewish languages, or the development of subject-area knowledge and skills (Rosov 2019). Some students may be interested in advancing their own Jewish knowledge or exploring their personal beliefs and practices: As Schuster and Grant (2003) point out, people come to any form of adult Jewish learning “because they want to connect with their Judaism in some way.” Others may experience a sense of vocation or “calling” to work in Jewish education, as opposed to working in secular education. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 36 of 60 Yet, ironically, much of the educational coursework in Jewish settings draws from secular sources. Tauber (2012), in describing the “Foundations” course at the Davidson School of Education at JTSA, noted that it introduced students to questions about education primarily using general educational philosophy and theory. She explained this as predicated on “a fundamental belief in the centrality and benefit of the concepts from general education to Jewish education,” although noting it may require a “translation process” to apply the theories and practices to Jewish settings. However, Tauber goes on to explain that the use of materials from general education in Jewish teacher training is also due to “the fact that the academic field of Jewish education has yet to develop its own set of theoretical premises with a corpus of foundational literature from which to draw on.” Tauber asserts that it is “not yet possible to identify a Jewish theory of education or specific pedagogies that would distinguish the course of study in a Jewish school from that of a secular school of education.” She observes that there is no comparable “Jewish theorizing to that of either Dewey or Hirsch,” noting that she was unable to identify Jewish educational thinkers who build on the philosophy of, for example, Rosenak in the way that they do with Dewey.30 There are, of course, many examples of texts that speak to a philosophy of Jewish education, from Maimonides’ introduction to the Guide to the Perplexed, to Kaplan’s views on Judaism as a civilization, to Buber’s writings on dialogue, encounter, and character development (Guilherme and Morgan 2009, Rosenak 2011).31 Tauber herself suggests that there is “an emerging conceptual foundation in such books as Holtz’s Textual Knowledge, Rosenak’s Commandments and Concerns, Tickton-Shuster’s Jewish Lives, Jewish In support of this observation, Kelman, Marom and Keep (2019) found that while Fox and Marom’s Visions of Jewish Education was the second most widely cited text in The Journal of Jewish Education from 2004 to 2014, more than half of the citations were symbolic and perfunctory and did not engage with its ideas in a substantive way. 31 Hawkins’s essay (1967/1974) “I, Thou and It,” which is widely cited as the origin of the teacher, learner and subject matter instructional triangle that has framed much of this paper, is grounded in Buber’s philosophy of relationship and provides a theoretical framework for “chavruta” learning (Feiman-Nemser and Featherstone 1992, Rogers and Raider-Roth 2006, RaiderRoth and Holzer 2009). 30 Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 37 of 60 Learning” and in the Mandel Foundation’s “Visions of Jewish Education” project. Yet, these sources provide neither a clearly articulated nor consistent and broadly applicable framework.32 Perhaps even more importantly, Isa Aron (1986) argues that creating a “liberal” or progressive philosophy of Jewish Education may not even be possible, “because nearly all the premises from which [it] would derive have been called into question, and could easily be replaced by alternate, equally debatable ones.”33 Lacking any external, overarching standards by which to judge the relative merits of one starting point or another, it is impossible to arrive at any general agreement about ultimate purposes. While progressive educational organizations can establish guiding visions, principles, and communal norms, they are always predicated on stances taken by particular individuals, contingently made in the context of a particular set of circumstances, with political, pragmatic, and ideological motivations. The lack of a collective vision of excellence in Jewish education makes it difficult (and perhaps impossible) to draw a causal relationship between the training of Jewish educators and desired outcomes, or to analyze the impact of this training on their learners. In part for this reason, Rosov’s current study of the trajectory of Jewish educators is focusing on “educator characteristics and the extent to which specific programmatic interventions, workplace conditions and background variables contribute to these outcomes” (2019). With all of these caveats, it is unsurprising that the methods employed for training Jewish educators look largely similar to those for general education. In this section, I will highlight some of the key characteristics distinguishing the training of excellent Jewish teachers. As I am writing this in New York City, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the “Whole Person Learning” framework (“Know-Do-Believe-Belong”) developed by Cyd Weissman and Rob Weinberg, which has been incorporated into local educator training through the Leadership Institute, coursework at HUC-JIR and the DSOE, and various professional development initiatives of the Jewish Education Project (Kaiserman 2011). While this is a valuable heuristic for generating discussion about the purposes of Jewish education, it does not in itself offer a statement of philosophy. 33 Holzer goes even one step further, arguing that as “there is no way to establish what is uniquely Jewish,” there can be no single definition of what constitutes Jewish education (2016). 32 Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 38 of 60 Context: Diversity of Jewish Students and Jewish Settings As noted earlier, the training of Jewish educators needs to prepare individuals to work not simply in classrooms but in a wide variety of settings and with increasingly diverse populations. Of particular concern is that Jewish educational training in the United States, which has its roots in the Seminaries of Europe, has not always recognized the presence of ethnic and cultural diversity in Jewish settings. Jews of color have been consistently undercounted in North American population studies, leading to a misperception about the diversity of the American Jewish population (Kelman et al. 2019). Aaron Samuels emphasizes that there is a problem of “widespread whitewashing and Ashkenormativity within modern Jewish education” (Mennies 2019), which teacher training programs must address and rectify. Jewish educational training also must prepare teachers to tackle evaded issues (often part of the null curriculum) related to, for example, gender and sexual identity, body image, harassment and bullying, ableism, and, more recently, #mettoo in our schools and educational programs (Epstein and Less, 2009, Epstein 2018). I would add to this list that Jewish educators may have a particular responsibility for tacking the Biblical rationalizations for land confiscation and slavery, the actions of our slave-owning ancestors, and ways in which slavery has played a role in the prosperity for the American Jewish community. Cognitive Apprenticeship Dorph (2011) observes that novice Jewish educators “often lack solid preparation in their subject matters for teaching.” Simply cultivating familiarity with a Jewish knowledge base can be an essential component of a training program for Jewish educators. Professors may also select examples drawn from Jewish textual sources or employ cases that take place in Jewish settings. There are also particular questions that arise during the training of Jewish teachers. Teacher educators in the DeLeT program have found that their students inevitably raise certain concerns, and are prepared to facilitate discussion around them. For example, they refer to the “bubble conversation,” when future day school students express the challenge of their students not encountering the “other” (Feiman-Nemser et Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 39 of 60 al. 2013).34 Tauber (2012) observed students raising concerns about teaching the historicity of the Bible, and noted that professors need to know how to support their students to handle these sorts of questions. Featherstone and Feiman-Nemser (1992) describe several “dilemmas” that are endemic to courses in Jewish teacher training. These are not “problems to be solved” - there is no one way to respond to these concerns - but rather are issues that professors must constantly manage in their efforts. For example, given the limited time that can be devoted to a course, professors must decide between the “competing demands of breadth and depth.” Tauber (2012) frames this as a balancing act between acculturating students to “a Jewish way of life” and “transmission of a body of Jewish knowledge.” Practical Apprenticeship As is the case in general teacher-training, clinical work in an educational venue affords novice Jewish teachers a supervised “laboratory in which to practice” and develop their skills (Ingall 2006). Ideally, this field work should be an authentic setting of the type that teachers will encounter in their future work, and where their teacher dispositions will be cultivated; this is characteristic of the training for day school educators at DeLeT (Feiman-Nemser et al. 2013). Additionally, those being trained in Seminaries may have access to a Beit Midrash or learner’s minyan, in which teachers can develop their skills for text study and prayer in an authentic context (Foster et al 2006). Normative Apprenticeship “Twenty-first century young American Jews are in many ways a people in search of a paideia” (Chazan et al. 2017). While the most distinctive quality of Jewish teacher training should be an emphasis on preparation for shaping learners’ dispositions, there is not much evidence of this in the literature. However, we do know that teacher training programs support novice teachers in exploring and articulating their values and how they impact on their behavior. Tauber (2010), for example, found that while the Davidson school does not seek to impose any requirements on a student’s religious observance, it does try to foster a 34 I concern that I remember raising myself as a student in the MA program at the Davidson School of Education. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 40 of 60 deepening awareness of their religious and spiritual lives as Jews, and to help them develop as leaders in religious educational settings. Similarly, students in the DeLeT program reflect on their theological and ideological stances and consider the implications for their practice (Feiman-Nemser et al. 2013). Reflection, modeling, and practicing skills, all characteristic of general education, are also key methodologies for the normative apprenticeship in Jewish education. Ben David (2016) recommends asking oneself “Ayeka” (“Where am I?”) in the context of every lesson, as a way to model for one’s students to do likewise. The notion that one can learn about all aspects of life from one’s teachers can be found throughout Jewish sources – such as in the Talmudic story of Rabbi Akiva following Rabbi Yehoshua into the bathroom (Berakhot 62a)35 or the story told by Martin Buber of Rabbi Leib, who went to the Maggid to observe how he ties his shoes (Avnon 1998). Parkes (2018) asserts that the only way to develop one’s skills for Spiritual Social Emotional Learning (SESL) is though practice. One possible distinguishing feature of Jewish teacher training is a heightened importance of bringing the teacher into a community of practice together with other Jewish educators, as only in this way can the teacher shift from teaching about Judaism to living Jewishly. While Foster et al. has found this to be the case in clergy education (2006), and while I have seen this first-hand (for example, when a professor invites students to dine in their family’s sukkah or join for a Shabbat meal), I don’t have any literature that speaks about this specifically for Jewish educators. Excellent Jewish Teacher Training Jewish teachers must perform their work by coordinating between their own dispositions (including their commitments to the demands of the tradition or text), the Jewish and educational philosophies of the institutions they serve, and the various beliefs and practices of their students and the families, communities, and cultures in which they participate. Effective Jewish teacher training supports the 35 “It is Torah, and I must learn!” Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 41 of 60 development of teacher expertise by providing novice teachers with the knowledge and skills to negotiate this complex dynamic as part of a community of fellow practitioners. While we know this to be the case for those in the DeLet program (Feiman-Nemser et al. 2013), we have no other research that draws links between Jewish teacher training programs and teacher retention, professional advancement, or learner outcomes (either for the teachers themselves or for the students they will ultimately teach) (Rosov 2019). Further, with practically no research on the effectiveness of Jewish teachers, it is impossible to draw generalizations about their training programs. What are the distinct elements required for training rabbis as teachers? Introduction: Rabbis as teachers A rabbi is “by definition a teacher” (Grant and Muszkat-Barkan 2011). In rabbinic Judaism, teaching is considered a sacred activity “based upon an obligation to transmit the tradition to current and future generations.” After the destruction of the second Temple, “teaching Torah was elevated to the equivalent of the offering of priestly sacrifices” (Tauber 2015). Today, many rabbis serve in educational roles alongside, or in place of, pulpit responsibilities. Yet, “few rabbis actually pursue extensive studies in education as part of, or in concert with their rabbinic schooling” (Grant and Muszkat-Barkan 2011). While rabbinical students at most Seminaries are required to take at least one education course, additional training is non-compulsory (Foster et al. 2006, Tauber 2012). How might training in teaching and learning benefit rabbis, and what form should it take? To answer this question, it would be helpful to know about the kinds of teaching that rabbis do and the parts of their work that demands teaching skills. Unfortunately, there is little research that sheds light on these areas. Rosov, writing in 2001, noted the lack of research on clergy training, and particularly the training of rabbis. Citing three studies, the most recent one from 1997, Rosov observed that the focus was primarily on the students and their careers post-training, and only to a minimal extent on the seminaries themselves, their curricula, and, “to an even lesser degree, faculty and pedagogical concerns.” A decade later, Grant and Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 42 of 60 Muszkat-Barkan (2011) commented on the small base of research on rabbinical preparation. The extensive Carnegie Foundation study on clergy preparation did not explore how clergy develop teaching skills (Foster et al. 2006). Likewise, more recently published guides to theological education (Ward 2014, Deninger and Eguizabal 2017, Shaw 2014, Ott 2016), whose primary audience is those developing preparatory programs in seminaries, do not offer any research on the training of clergy as teachers.36 While teaching is “fundamental to ministry” (Douglas 2015), there is surprisingly little research about the work of clergy as teachers, and even less about rabbis. Tauber (2015 found “no comprehensive studies focusing on synagogue rabbis as teachers.” Grant and Muszkat-Barkan (2011), exploring how the “skills, capabilities and perspectives” of those trained as rabbi-educators might be distinct from those solely with rabbinic training, describe an “absence of literature” about the work of rabbi-educators. Other than the studies cited in this paper, they found only three relevant articles, the most useful being an opinion piece that is now over thirty years old (Schein 1988). The most recent related data comes from a 2001 survey of 320 Conservative rabbis, examining how they understood their job responsibilities and workload (Cohen, Kress and Davidson 2003). In this study, rabbis consistently rated teaching (and engaging in Jewish education more broadly) as the activity they did best, as their most time-consuming, as the most critical to their success, and from which they derived the most satisfaction – ranking it more than twice as high as any other activity, including preaching and leading worship. The researchers offered a two-part analysis for why the rabbis they surveyed found teaching so vital to their work. First, that “inherently, rabbis love text study. It is, in part, why they became Conservative rabbis: to study, learn, and teach the sacred texts of Judaism.” In other words, teaching is an essential part of their rabbinic identity, a way of engaging their dispositions. Second, rabbis want to “translate the teachings of Judaism into actualities in their congregants’ lives.” Rabbis want to positively impact on the behaviors and dispositions of their congregants. Interestingly, these two findings align with 36 Broadly, they confirm the findings from Foster et al., emphasizing the need for training in the cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains, for integration of the cognitive, practical and normative apprenticeships, and for addressing the hidden and null curricula. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 43 of 60 Chazan’s description of the distinct characteristics of informal Jewish education discussed earlier: that its purpose is to impact on the learner’s dispositions, and that the teacher is a model of Jewish living. Nevertheless, it is unclear if these findings still apply a generation later, or if we can extrapolate from this study to rabbis from other movements.37 One sign that we might not be able to do so comes from the study of rabbi-educators (with a dual degree from HUC-JIR), published in 2013 by Grant and MuszkatBarkan. They found that rabbi-educators broadly fell into three groups: Those who saw themselves as rabbis primarily but working in an educational role, those who saw themselves as “educators who happened to be rabbis,” and those who experienced an integration of the two roles “with both aspects important to their professional identities.” More recently, Rosov (2019) found that rabbis who work in educational roles or take on educational tasks may not identify as educators. On the other hand, Tauber, in the only existing study of rabbis as teachers of adults in congregational settings writes “their clergy identity as teachers shaped not only their teaching, but also the ethos of their synagogues” (2015). Yet, Tauber’s portraiture approach only looked at three rabbis who were identified as “outstanding rabbinic educators of adults.” While her findings may be instructive for those rabbis who think of themselves as educators, it is difficult to draw an inference from this study to the rabbinic field widely. While the rabbis Tauber studied differentiated their work as adult educators from their other professional responsibilities, she observes that “all activities of a congregational rabbi as teacher, pastor, preacher [and] life-cycle officiant incorporate teaching.” Grant and Muszkat-Barkan, also suggest that “certain pedagogies” may be central to the role of a rabbi, among them “facilitating, guiding and the ability to ‘translate’ Jewish sources to contemporary contexts” (2011). In a related example from the AfricanAmerican Protestant church, Emdin (2017) describes what he calls “Pentacostal pedagogy,” which he observed in preaching and in the leading of worship. Emdin advocates for teachers to study this 37 Cohen, Kress and Davidson also found that clergy and congregational leaders alike rated rabbinic responsibility for managerial tasks at the bottom, both in terms of interest and priority. It seems unlikely to me that this would be the case today, in an era where rabbis more commonly play the role of CEO or entrepreneur than scholar. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 44 of 60 methodology for use in their own teaching (especially those who work with urban youth of color).38 This implies certain kinds of ministry work incorporate specific and distinguishable pedagogies. Distinct training needs for clergy Clergy are trained to have a distinctive “way of seeing into and interpreting the world” that “shapes everything pastor thinks/does” and is embodied in specific behaviors or a “pastoral imagination” (Foster et al. 2006). Some of the primary characteristics of rabbinic work that distinguishes it from other professions, and that need to be accounted for as part of their training as teachers, include: The centrality of text and theology: The “essential capacity of clergy practice – and perhaps its most distinctive – is facility with the spiritual dimensions of human experience.” Biblical religions make normative claims about transcendent reality that clergy must interpret to their laity, in their roles as preachers, counselors, teachers, and leaders of prayer. Arguably, scriptural tradition, a “normative canon understood as divine,” does not play as definitive a role for any other profession. Rabbis must therefore pay particular attention to God-language and God-imagery, and acting as agents or mediators, “through their leadership, make God visible” (Foster et al. 2006). Career as a vocation: While teachers, and especially Jewish educators, may view their work as a “calling,” this is far more characteristic of clergy, who may feel a direct connection to God or a personal sense of purpose grounded in a feeling of being “different” from others (Bloom 2002, Foster et al. 2006). Rabbis as intrinsically “holy people:” Clergy, unlike any other professionals, may be viewed as “klei kodesh,” instruments of God’s work, who have special ability to, for example, offer blessings and heal the ill (Rosov 2001, Bloom 2002, Foster et al. 2006). 38 Emdin notes that this form of pedagogy is also characteristic of hip-hop and rap MCs. Built around a call and response, and making use of subtle facilitation skills including voice inflection, the preacher creates a safe space in which to invoke an emotional response. In the school setting, the call and response can take such forms as: “can I proceed?” “yes indeed!” The implicit protocol of “catching the spirit” allows a church member to temporarily take control of the community from the preacher. Emdin asserts that, in the same manner, teachers need to empower the students to take ownership of a discussion in the classroom. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 45 of 60 Rabbis as “symbolic exemplars of Judaism:” Rabbis are expected to “walk the talk,” embodying moral and ethical rectitude and who must demonstrate through their daily practices and behaviors a plausibility structure for a Jewish way of life. Rabbis are expected to model religious commitments and habits, and to explain how the decisions they make about religious observance have implications for how others should act. (Rosov 2001, Bloom 2002). Key to their work as educators is the ability to know how and when to share their own life story and the “perplexities” they encounter in navigating religious and values-driven decisions. Further, because of their pastoral role, rabbis know the personal stories of their learners and can help them to connect their own stories to Jewish “foundational stories” (Tauber 2015).While all of these factors may be true for other Jewish educators, they are intrinsic to the work of clergy. The role of rabbinic authority: Perhaps for these above reasons, the title of “rabbi” intrinsically commands respect. Individuals may look to a rabbi for definitive answers to their questions, may deferentially accept rabbinic opinions, and may be reticent to express disagreement with rabbis (Brown 2008, Grant and Muszkat-Barkan 2011).39 Rabbis must develop skills for interpersonal rapport and approachability to allow for developmentally appropriate interactions, for these reasons and to enable learners to overcome potentially ambivalent and negative memories associated with rabbis or Jewish life (Tauber 2015). Teachers in the United States are more likely to face the opposite challenge, of not commanding sufficient authority or respect (Ripley 2013). The broad proficiency expected of clergy: Rabbis are expected to simultaneously be “specialists” and “generalists.” They must be inspiring spiritual leaders and comforting providers of pastoral care with deep knowledge of Jewish texts, while simultaneously having meaningful and credible perspectives on “the whole of life” (Foster et al. 2006). In contrast with other teachers, who may be able to function effectively with a specific domain of expertise and who may take a more conservative or progressive stance on current events, rabbis must “stand simultaneously for tradition and stability, as well as change and 39 This may be less true for millennials, who are less likely to be religious and therefore may be less included to view its leaders as authorities (Cox and DeVeaux 2019). Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 46 of 60 relevance” (Cohen, Kress and Davidson 2003). Further, rabbinic expertise is more likely to intrinsically incorporate a normative vision grounded in canon seen as Divine (the “spiritual dimensions of human existence”), as they are expected integrate theology and faith directly into their work. The public role of clergy: Clergy perform many of their job-related tasks in front of other people. While training in teaching may not require performance-related skills for work with a larger or more varied audience than a group of students, rabbis often need to learn to manage all of the benefits and challenges that are associated with celebrity (Foster et al. 2006). These factors play into the curricula, kinds of pedagogy and character development that distinguish rabbinic training; further research may enable us to understand how and if they are (or could be) incorporated into their training as educators, and their training alongside non-rabbinic Jewish educators. Clergy Training and its Implications for Training Rabbis as Teachers Training for clergy can be understood in terms of the three professional apprenticeships studied by the Carnegie Foundation. Foster et al. (2006) found four broad strategies or “pedagogic frameworks” that were consistently employed throughout their study of clergy education, although individual professors varied in their specific application. Pedagogies of interpretation enable students to develop skills for critical reading, analysis and reflection on texts, and to explore their meaning and significance to a contemporary population – often with a homiletic end goal of employing these texts in sermons. The methodologies employed in rabbinic training were similar to those of other Jewish settings, such as chavruta study. Pedagogies of contextualization help students to understand the milieu in which they will work and to be simultaneously “faithful to the truths embedded in their sacred texts and religious traditions” while making them “relevant to the contemporary experience of the religious communities they will be serving.” Various techniques are employed to foster cultural awareness and sensitivity; for example, generating dialogue Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 47 of 60 about taken-for-granted assumptions (the hidden curriculum) within a diverse student body could itself be used as a vehicle for developing empathy and appreciation for those with differing religious perspectives. Pedagogies of performance train clergy in the skills needed primarily for preaching and leading prayer and ritual, but also more generally to respond to the public nature of clergy work – for example, by acquiring the ability to think on ones feet. Modeling, rehearsal, and learning the craft involved in public speaking are key aspects of this training. Pedagogies of formation cultivate the “dispositions, habits, knowledge and skills that cohere in professional identity and practice, commitments and integrity,” helping a student to embody their values in concrete behaviors and “bring God into the room.” In a classroom setting, this might take the form of, for example, guiding a student to move “from studying a text to praying it.” In many cases – and certainly, Foster et al. see this as the ideal - these four pedagogies are implemented in an integrated fashion. For example, the study of classical Jewish texts incorporates pedagogies of interpretation (developing fluency in reading and translating texts in Hebrew and Aramaic, and learning the particular methodologies for their study), contextualization (learning to relate texts to things people experience or to apply them to specific situations, such as when conducting a wedding) and formation (being transformed in one’s sense of self through the encounter with the existential questions and enduring truths presented in the text) (Rosov 2001). Although the rabbi-educators studied by Grant and Muszkat-Barkan (2011) often referred to the role that pedagogies of contextualization and formation played in shaping their work, they did so less frequently regarding pedagogies of interpretation and performance, a finding that surprises me. While pedagogies of interpretation shouldn’t intrinsically distinguish clergy from others developing expertise in religious texts, the extensive coursework required of rabbinical students should provide a heightened facility in their employment in such educational contexts as Bible study. I am left wondering if these students learned skills to interpret texts without developing the pedagogic content knowledge appropriate for teaching Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 48 of 60 them, or if the pedagogies they saw modeled were not appropriate for non-Seminary settings. Similarly, the classroom is often depicted as analogous to the theater due to the many performative aspects of the work of teaching – from a teacher’s employment of tone of voice, dramatic tension and timing to their attention to the classroom environment (the “set”) to how they dress (their “wardrobe”) (Emdin, Hattie and Yates, Sarason). I would think this would be an especially relevant aspect of training for rabbis, who may make pedagogically based decisions about (for example) wearing robes or yarmulkes, training a bar or bat mitzvah student in a sanctuary, or making use of the “comforting singsong” of “rabbi voice” (Cohen, R. 2018).40 Cognitive Apprenticeship Because of their expected proficiency in text and specialized ability to make religious canon relevant to a contemporary audience, and because students are not likely to enter the seminary with a high level of textual literacy, rabbinic training in Jewish texts is more extensive than it is for most other Jewish educators (Davidson and Wertheimer 1987, Rosov 2001). As for Jewish educators, there are particular questions and dilemmas that arise during the training of clergy, such as navigating the tension between tradition and reason as the source of truth (Foster et al. 2006). Rabbinic training is most likely distinguishable from literacy training for Jewish teachers in terms of the different outcomes expected for the learners: For example, to incorporate Jewish texts into sermons rather than lesson plans. Practical Apprenticeship Foster et al. (2006) did not explicitly explore student teaching or other clinical work relating to education in their investigation of the interplay between coursework and clinical practice.41 Clinical practice is always a central component of the training of clergy, but the degree to which it is integrated into the totality of a course of study varies widely among seminaries, as does the academic standing, status, training, and 40 Similarly, Mister Rogers, who was ordained as a Presbyterian minister, integrated into his television show skills learned in Seminary of contextualization (leading to the use of television to meet people where they are), performance (through careful focus on craft and artistry) and formation (both in his own pastoral identity and in his choice of difficult topics, such as “war, divorce or death”) (Laskas 2019). 41 Rosov (2001) did not examine clinical practice at all. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 49 of 60 previous experience of the supervisors of the clinical experience (Foster et al. 2006). Only when the clinical supervisors and mentors are themselves concerned with questions of teaching and learning can we expect that students will develop related knowledge, skills, and dispositions through reflective practice. I would highlight clinical pastoral education (CPE), which is often an integral part of rabbinic field work, as a potentially fruitful area for further investigation, as it offers a paradigm for goal-setting, reflection and interpersonal interactions that may have analogies to the methods used in effective teaching (Ward 2012). Normative Apprenticeship Foster et al. (2006) and Rosov (2001) found that professors were concerned with rabbinic formation both inside and outside of the classroom, whether in communal worship, small group meetings (such as those in a Beit Midrash), or through one-on-one mentoring. They saw it as their goal to enable students to develop a personal theology and relationship with God, to cultivate a life of prayer and observance, and to embody religious values in their actions. For students who did not originally envision careers as clergy or experience a sense of “calling,” preservice training played an especially formative role in shaping their identity and feelings of agency. While many of the particular methods employed are similar to those described for teacher-training, such as journaling, there are a few ways in which clergy education stands out from other types of professional development: Reflective deliberation: Most seminaries had some form of “community time” or “practicum,” a nonacademic part of the day that gives students “an opportunity to talk about the aspects of their religious and spiritual lives that are the most daunting and confusing for them” (Rosov 2001). Discipling: Faculty often played the role of counselor or mentor, formally and informally, deliberately modeling the behaviors and dispositions that they sought to develop in the students. Creating Community: Students and professors joined together for holiday celebrations, life-cycle events, and meals. They often shared responsibility for their creation, thereby putting training into practice in the context of authentic, lived experiences. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 50 of 60 All three of these methods could be valuable means of developing clergy as teachers, under the right conditions. For example, professors could raise questions of teaching and learning in community time or in their one-on-one work with students, or could model expert teaching approaches or raise questions of effective learning when collaborating to create communal events. Excellent Rabbinic Teacher Training It is impossible to draw conclusions from the existing literature on the training of rabbis to their development of expertise in teaching. In the sole study of rabbi-educators, while those surveyed acknowledged that the additional degree in education helped them be better rabbis, they highlighted the courses in leadership, supervision and organizational dynamics as the most useful in their work – not courses in teaching and learning (Grant and Muszkat-Barkan 2011).42 We can, however, make reasonable claims about why such training would be beneficial, based on the findings about pre-service training for all teachers. While in most cases these would not distinguish the training of rabbis from other Jewish educators, two areas are particularly relevant: First, novice rabbinical students may have idealized beliefs about Jewish education, or by contrast, negative memories from their own previous experiences; a training program can respond to their assumptions and misconceptions about Jewish learners and learning. Second, a focus on developing teacher dispositions may be especially important for rabbis, because of the expectation that they will embody in practice the behaviors and values they espouse. Similarly, they may particularly benefit from learning to teach for spiritual outcomes, as they have opportunities to serve as spiritual guides (Grant and Muszkat-Barkan 2011). Conclusions and Open Questions for Further Research If the teacher is indeed the most important factor in student learning, and teacher training positively impacts teacher excellence, it seems obvious that Jewish settings would benefit from pre-service education for teachers. Yet, many of those who work as teachers in Jewish settings, including day school educators, 42 The rabbi-educators identified pastoral care, counseling and text skills as the most important parts of their training, all of which are part of the rabbinic ordination and not of the education degree. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 51 of 60 have no formal training in education, whether general or Jewish (Bryfman 2011, Isaacs 2011). This is even truer for rabbis serving in educational roles, whose training may consist of a single course in education and whose beliefs about teaching may be shaped by the twin fallacies that teaching is an innate ability or that it requires only subject-area knowledge. Further, we know that rabbinical students feel unprepared with the practical aspects of their work (Foster et al. 2006), which may include teaching responsibilities. Pre-service training of rabbis as teachers must respond to the distinct characteristics of their specialized and unique career path, understanding the degree to which the work of clergy diverges and overlaps with that of other kinds of Jewish educators. Yet, there is no contemporary research on how much of their time rabbis act as teachers or how much of their work incorporates teaching skills. We have no evidence that such areas of teacher expertise as classroom management or facilitating discussions are directly applicable to the bulk of the work of rabbis. Nevertheless, Tauber asserts that her “research suggests that rabbinical students … would benefit by opportunities for more comprehensive exploration of their own identities as teachers, and of the practice of educating adults, while attending seminary” (Tauber 2015). Some of the questions that require additional investigation include:  What are the areas of their work that rabbis understand as educational, and to what degree would additional training in teaching and learning be of benefit?  Do rabbis – especially novice rabbis – indeed primarily function as teachers of as adults, or of children, teens (especially through Confirmation class and in bnai mitzvah training), young adults, and families?  How might clinical practice best support rabbinic training as teachers?  To what degree can pedagogic content knowledge be incorporated into the existing coursework of rabbinical students? Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 52 of 60 Amidst the many pressures to prepare rabbis for multiple roles and responsibilities, Seminaries need a coherent and inspirational vision for training rabbis as teachers. This vision must incorporate the particular expertise that rabbis can bring to the table due to their prestige, influence, and ability to model spiritual integrity and growth, and must be expressed in the cognitive, practical, and normative apprenticeships characteristic of all professional training programs. I hope this review of the literature on developing teacher excellence, and of the specific pedagogies characteristic of Jewish education, will support Seminary leadership and faculty in reflecting on their existing visions and developing them further. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 53 of 60 Works Cited                        Arends, Richard. (2014). Learning to Teach, 10th edition. New York: McGraw Hill Education. Arendt, Hannah. (1961). Between Past and Future. USA: Penguin. Aron, Isa. (1986) “To Create a Liberal Philosophy of Jewish Education.” Religious Education. Vol. 81 No. 4 Fall 1986. 545-567. Aron, Isa. (1989). “The Malaise of Jewish Education.” Tikkun, Vol 4., No. 3, May/June 1989 Avnon, Dan. (1998). Martin Buber: the hidden dialogue. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Backenroth, O. and Sinclair, A. (2014). “Vision, Curriculum, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the Preparation of Israel Educators.” Journal of Jewish Education. Vol. 80:2. Baecher, Laura and Shiao-Chuan Kung. (2014). “Collaborative Video Inquiry as Teacher Educator Professional Development.” Issues in Teacher Education. Vol. 22, No. 2 Fall 2014. 93-115. Ball, Deborah Loewenberg and Francesca M. Forzani. (2009). “The Work of Teaching and the Challenge for Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education. 60(5) 497–511 Ball, Deborah Loewenberg. (2012). “Afterword: Using and designing resources for practice.” In G. Gueudet, B. Pepin & L. Trouche (Eds.). From text to 'lived' resources: Mathematics curriculum materials and teacher development. Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer. Barenblat, Rachel. (2004) “Talmud Torah.” Velveteen Rabbi. January 23, 2004. [Retrieved from https://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2004/01/talmud_torah.html] Bell, Missy and Beth Young. (2019). “The Importance of Being Excellent.” eJewishPhilanthropy. December 10, 2019. Ben David, Aryeh. (2016). Becoming a Soulful Educator: How to Bring Jewish Learning from Our Minds, to Our Hearts, to Our Souls – and into Our Lives. Jewish Lights Publishing Berkman, Jethro. (2019). “Day School Education for Student Thriving.” eJewishPhilanthropy. November 13, 2019. Bialka, Christa. (2016). Beyond Knowledge and Skills: Best Practices for Attending to Dispositions in Teacher Education Programs. Issues in Teacher Education, Fall 2016 Binford, Arthur Leigh. Teaching the Adjunct Experience. Radical Teacher: A Socialist, Feminist, and antiRacist Journal on the Theory and Practice of Teaching. No. 108 (Spring 2017) Bloom, Jack H. (2002). The Rabbi as Symbolic Exemplar: By the Power Vested in Me. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Bowers, C.A. and David J. Flinders. (1990). Responsive Teaching: An Ecological Approach to Classroom Patterns of Language, Culture, and Thought. New York: Teachers College Press. Brookfield, Stephen D. (2005). Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms (2nd Edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brown, Erica. (2008). Jewish Leadership: Practical Approaches to Building Strong Communities. Jewish Lights Publishing. Brown, Erica. (2018). “Reflecting and Celebrating: Conversations on Jewish Education.” eJewishPhilanthropy. March 5, 2018. Bryfman, David. (2011). “Experiential Jewish Education: Reaching the Tipping Point.” H. Miller et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Jewish Education. International Handbooks of Religion and Education 5. Springer Science+Business Media. Bryfman, David (2016). “When You’re Happy and You Know It – The True Purpose of Jewish Education.” eJewishPhilanthropy. November 28, 2016. Carey, Benedict. (2015). How We Learn: The Surprising Truth About When, Where and Why It Happens. New York: Random House. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 54 of 60                       Chazan, Barry. (2003). “The Philosophy of Informal Jewish Education.” the encyclopedia of informal education. [http://infed.org/mobi/the-philosophy-of-informal-jewish-education/. Retrieved: January 3, 2017]. Chazan, Barry, Robert Chazan and Benjamin M. Jacobs. (2017). Cultures and Contexts of Jewish Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Cochran-Smith, Marilyn. (2004). “The Problem of Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 55(4), 295-299. Cohen, Jonathan. (1999) “Deliberation, Tradition, and the Problem of Incommensurability: Philosophical Reflections on Curriculum Decision Making,” Educational Theory 49, no. 1: 74. Cohen, Rich. (2018). “Where Does Rabbi Voice Come From?” The New York Times. Sept 8. 2018. Cohen, Steven M., Jeffrey S. Kress, and Aryeh Davidson. (2003). “Rating Rabbinic Roles: A Survey of Conservative Congregational Rabbis and Lay Leaders.” Conservative Judaism vol 56 #1 Fall 2003 Cox, Daniel and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux. (2019). “Millennials Are Leaving Religion And Not Coming Back.” FiveThirtyEight. December 12, 2019. [Retrieved from https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/millennials-are-leaving-religion-and-not-coming-back/] Darling Hammond, Linda, et al. (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Stanford, CA: National Staff Development Council. Davidson, A., & Wertheimer, J. (1987). The Next Generation of Conservative Rabbis: An Empirical Study of Today's Rabbinical Students. In N. B. Cardin & D. W. Silverman (Eds.), The Seminary at 100: Reflections on the Jewish Theological Seminary and the Conservative Movement. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Deninger, Fritz and Orbelina Eguizabal. (2017). Leadership in Theological Education. Carlisle, Cumbria: Langham Global Library. Dershowitz, Alan. (1997). The Vanishing American Jew: In Search of Jewish Identity for the Next Century. New York: Simon & Schuster. Diamant, Anita and Howard Cooper. (2007). Living a Jewish Life: Jewish Traditions, Customs, and Values for Today’s Families (Updated and Revised Edition). New York: HarperCollins. Dinham, Steve and Catherine Scott. (2003). “Benefits to Teachers of the Professional Learning Portfolio: a case study.” Teacher Development. Vol 7., No. 2, 2003. Dorph, Gail Z. (2011). “Professional Development of Teachers in Jewish Education.” H. Miller et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Jewish Education. International Handbooks of Religion and Education 5. Springer Science+Business Media. Douglas, Scott. (2015). “What Skill Set does a Pastor Need to be Effective?” Facts & Trends, August 19, 2015. [https://factsandtrends.net/2015/08/19/what-skill-set-does-a-pastor-need-to-be-effective Retrieved October 25, 2017] Egan, Kieran. (1997). The Educated Mind: How Cognitive Tools Shape our Understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ellis, Arthur. (2004). Exemplars of Curriculum Theory. New York: Routledge Emdin, Christopher. (2017). For White Folks Who Teach in the Hood... and the Rest of Y'all Too: Reality Pedagogy and Urban Education. Beacon Press Epstein, Robert. (2016). “The Empty Brain: Your Brain Does Not Process Information and it is Not a Computer.” Aeon. May 18, 2016. Epstein, Shira D. (2018). “’Hidden Curriculum’ and Power-Talk: Responding to #Metoo in Jewish Education.” eJewishPhilanthropy. February 26, 2018. Epstein, Shira D. and Jeffrey S. Kress. (2011). “Not Just Fun and Games: Preparing Teachers for Meaningful, Constructivist, Experiential Education.” HaYidion: The RAVSAK Journal. Winter 2011. Epstein, Shira D. and Naomi Less. (2009). Addressing Evaded Issues in Jewish Education. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 55 of 60                       Feiman-Nemser, Sharon. (2007). “Learning to teach.” P. Flexner, R. L. Goodman, & L. D. Bloomberg (eds.), What We Now Know about Jewish Education: Perspectives on Research for Practice. Los Angeles: Torah Aura Publications. Feiman-Nemser, Sharon. (2011). “Preparing Teachers for Jewish Schools: Enduring Issues in Changing Contexts.” H. Miller et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Jewish Education. International Handbooks of Religion and Education 5. Springer Science+Business Media. Feiman-Nemser, Sharon and Helen Featherstone (eds.). (1992). Exploring Teaching: Reinventing an Introductory Course. New York: Teachers College Press. Feiman-Nemser, Sharon, Eran Tamir and Karen Hammerness. (2013). Inspiring Teaching: Preparing Teachers to Succeed in Mission-Driven Schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Foster, Charles et al. (2006). Educating Clergy: Teaching Practices and Pastoral Imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fox, Seymour. (2003) “The Art of Translation.” Fox, S., I. Scheffler and D. Marom, eds. Visions of Jewish Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frankel, Batsheva. (2017). The Jewish Educator’s Companion. Springfield, NJ: Behrman House. Fried, Robert L. (2003). The Skeptical Visionary: A Seymour Sarason Educational Reader. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Gibbs, Graham and Martin Coffee. (2000). “Training to teach in higher education: a research agenda.” Teacher Development 4:1, 31-44 Glaser, Jennifer. (2005). “Contemporary Sensibilities and their Implications for Jewish Education.” Mordechai Nisan and Oded Schremer, eds. Educational Deliberations: Studies in Education Dedicated to Shlomo (Seymour) Fox. Jerusalem: Keter Press. 373-403. Glaser, Jennifer. (2008). “Authenticity and Integrity in Jewish Education.” In J. Cohen and E. Holzer, eds. Modes of Educational Translation. Jerusalem: Magnes. 147-204. Goodwin, A. Lin and Claire Kosnik (2013) Quality teacher educators = quality teachers? Conceptualizing essential domains of knowledge for those who teach teachers. Teacher Development 17:3, 334-346. Gootman, Marilyn A. (2003). “Building a Classroom Community through Thoughtful Classroom Management.” In Nachama Skolnik Moskowitz, ed. The Ultimate Jewish Teacher’s Handbook. Denver: A.R.E. Publishing. 215-226. Grant, Lisa D. and Michal Muszkat-Barkan. (2011). “Rabbis as Educators: Their Professional Training and Identity Formation.” H. Miller et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Jewish Education. International Handbooks of Religion and Education 5. Springer Science+Business Media. Green, Elizabeth. (2014). Building a Better Teacher: How Teaching Works (and How to Teach It to Everyone). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Grossman, Pamela L. (1990). Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge & Teacher Education. NY: Teachers College Press Grossman, Pamela, Karen Hammerness and Morva McDonald. (2009). “Redefining teaching, reimagining teacher education.” Teachers and Teaching. 15:2, 273-289. Guilherme, Alex and W. John Morgan. (2009) “Martin Buber’s Philosophy of Education and its Implications for Adult Non-Formal Education.” International Journal of Lifelong Education. 28:5, 565-581. Hammerness, Karen. (2006). Seeing Through Teachers' Eyes: Professional Ideals and Classroom Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Hammond, Zaretta. (2015). Culturally Responsive Teaching & The Brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Hansen, David T. (1995). The Call To Teach. New York: Teachers College Press. Hattie, John and Gregory Yates. (2014). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. New York: Routledge. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 56 of 60                     Holtz, Barry. (2003). Textual Knowledge: Teaching the Bible in Theory and Practice. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Holzer, Elie. (2016). Attuned Learning: Rabbinic Texts on Habits of the Heart in Learning Interactions. Academic Studies Press. Holzer, E. and Orit Kent. (2014). A Philosophy of Havruta: Understanding and Teaching The Art of Text Study in Pairs. Academic Studies Press. Horowitz, Bethamie. (2019). “A Critical Eye on a Prize: Unpacking the Meaning of ‘Applied Jewish Wisdom.’ Journal of Jewish Education, 85:4, 362-387, DOI: 10.1080/15244113.2019.1689729 Ingall, Carol. K. (2006). Down the Up Staircase: Tales of Teaching in Jewish Day Schools. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Isaacs, Leora, Kate O’Brien, and Shira Rosenblatt. (2011). “Teacher Education: Ensuring a Cadre of Well-Qualified Educational Personnel for Jewish Schools.” H. Miller et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Jewish Education. International Handbooks of Religion and Education 5. Springer Science+Business Media. Kadden, Barbara and Bruce Kadden. (2003). Teaching Mitzvot: Concepts, Values and Activities. Denver, Colorado: A.R.E. Publishing. Kaiserman, Saul. (2007). “A New Kind of Diversity: Jewish Education in a Pluralistic Society.” Jewish Education News, Fall 2007 Kaiserman, Saul. (2011). “Jewish Education is About Living Jewish Values.” Temple Emanu-El Bulletin, Vol. 84, No. 2. October 2011. Kallen, Horace M. (1964). “Jewish Education and Jewish Survival.” Jewish Education, 34:4, 223-229, DOI: 10.1080/0021642640340403 Kay, Jo. (2003) “Family Education.” In Nachama Skolnik Moskowitz, ed. The Ultimate Jewish Teacher’s Handbook. Denver: A.R.E. Publishing. Kelman, Ari Y., Marva Shalev Marom & Benjamin Keep. (2019). “What We Talk About When We Talk About Research in Jewish Education: How References Produce a Field.” Journal of Jewish Education, 85:3, 240-267, DOI: 10.1080/15244113.2019.1639115 Kelman, Ari, Aaron Hahn Tapper, Izabel Fonseca, and Aliya Saperstein. (2019). Counting Inconsistencies: An Analysis of American Jewish Population Studies, with a Focus on Jews of Color. Jews of Color Field Building Initiative. Kessler, Rachael. (2000). “The Teaching Presence” (unpublished manuscript) – a slightly different version appears in Virginia Journal of Education, November 2000, Volume 94, Number 2. Korthagen, Fred. (2010). “How Teacher Education can Make a Difference.” Journal of Education for Teaching, 36:4, 407-423. Korthagen, Fred. (2017). “Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: towards professional development 3.0” Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 23:4, 387–405 Kress, Jeffrey S. (2011). “Parents and Jewish Educational Settings.” H. Miller et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Jewish Education. International Handbooks of Religion and Education 5. Springer Science+Business Media. Kress, Jeffrey S. (2012). “So, You Want Your School to be More Like Camp?” The New York Jewish Week, March 20, 2012. Kress, Jeffrey S. (2014). “Experiential Jewish Education Has Arrived! Now What?” Journal of Jewish Education, 80:3, 319-342, DOI: 10.1080/15244113.2014.937202 Kress, Jeffrey S. (2017) “Learning From a Mussar-Based Initiative in a Community Day School.” Journal of Jewish Education, 83:2, 133-150, DOI: 10.1080/15244113.2017.1307053 Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 57 of 60                         Kress, Jeffrey S. and Evie Rotstein. (2018). “Promoting Social, Emotional, and Spiritual Learning in Congregational, and Day Schools.” Journal of Jewish Education, 84:3, 266-283, DOI: 10.1080/15244113.2018.1478530 Kushner, Harold S. (1994) To Life: A Celebration of Jewish Being and Thinking. New York: Warner Books. Laskas, Jeanne Marie. (2019). “The Mister Rogers No One Saw.” The New York Times. November 24, 2019. Lemov, Doug. (2015). Teach Like a Champion 2.0: 62 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Levine, Mel. (2002). A Mind at a Time. New York: Simon & Schuster. Levine, Darren. (2017) “Positive Judaism: A First Look for Clergy and Jewish Leaders.” CCAR Journal, Summer 2017. Levisohn, Jon. (2012). Teaching vision: Cultivating a philosophical disposition about Jewish educational practice. Journal of Jewish Education, 78, 135–169. Levisohn, Jon. (2017) “Theories of Transformative Learning in Jewish Education.” Journal of Jewish Education, Vol. 83. No. 3 Loeb, Sorel Goldberg and Barbara Kadden. (1997). Teaching Torah: A Treasury of Insights and Activities. Denver, Colorado: A.R.E. Publishing. Macleod, Flora and Michael Golby. (2003). “Theories of Learning and Pedagogy: issues for teacher development.” Teacher Development. Vol. 7, Number 3. Marcos, J. M, Emilio Sanchez and Harm. H. Tillema. (2011). Promoting teacher reflection: what is said to be done. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37:1, 21-36, DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2011.538269 Marsh, Brian and Nick Mitchell. (2014) The role of video in teacher professional development, Teacher Development, 18:3, 403-417, DOI: 10.1080/13664530.2014.938106 Marzano, Robert J. (2007). The Art and Science of Teaching: A Comprehensive Framework for Effective Instruction. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Meier, Deborah. (1995). The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons For America from a Small School in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Mennies, Rachel. (2019). “On Engaging with Judaism Through Poetry: A Roundtable.” Literary Hub. December 2, 2019. Meyer, Anne, David H. Rose and David Gordon. (2014). Universal Design for Learning: theory and practice. Wakefield MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Nisan, Mordecai with Daniel Pekarsky. (2012). Educational Identity as a Major Factor in the Development of Educational Leadership. (Third Edition). Monograph, Mandel Leadership Institute and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Oakes, Jeannie and Martin Lipton. (1999). Teaching to Change the World. McGraw Hill College Ochs, Vanessa L. (2003). “Ten Jewish sensibilities.” Sh’ma, December 2003. [Retrieved from http://shma.com/2003/12/ten-jewish-sensibilities/] Ochs, Vanessa L. (2019). “Prescribing Jewish Sensibilities Off-Label: A Reflective Essay.” Journal of Jewish Education, 85:4, 398-407, DOI: 10.1080/15244113.2019.1688544 Orlow, Avi Katz. (2019). “The ‘Job’ of Jewish Education: Making Mensches at Camp and Beyond.” Journal of Jewish Education, 85:4, 388-397, DOI: 10.1080/15244113.2019.1682903 Ott, Bernhard. (2016). Understanding and Developing Theological Education. Carlisle, Cumbria: Langham Global Library. Palmer, Parker J. (1998). The Courage To Teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 9–33. Pardales, Michael J. and Girod, Mark. (2006). “Community of Inquiry: Its past and present future.” Educational Philosophy and Theory. Vol. 38, No. 3. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 58 of 60                       Parkes, Nancy. (2018). “The Need for Social Emotional Learning in Jewish Education.” eJewishPhilanthropy. August 28, 2018. Pekarsky, Daniel (2007). “Vision in Education: Arguments, Counter-arguments, Rejoinders.” American Journal of Education 113, May 2007. Pekarsky, Daniel. (2006). Vision at Work: The Theory and Practice of Beit Rabban. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Raider-Roth, Miriam and Elie Holzer. (2009). “Learning to be Present: How Hevruta Learning Can Activate Teachers’ Relationships to Self, Other and Text.” Journal of Jewish Education, 75: 3, 216-239. Network for Research in Jewish Education. Ripley, Amanda. (2013). The Smartest Kids in the World and How they Got That Way. NY: Simon & Schuster. Robinson, Bill. (2018). “Thriving, Flourishing, Covenantal Community, Intentional Spiritual Communities, and Positive Judaism: How To Lead In An Emergent Movement?” eJewishPhilanthropy, January 9, 2018. Robinson, Ken. (2015). Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That’s Transforming Education. New York: Penguin Random House. Rocha, Samuel D. (2014). A Primer for Philosophy & Education. Cascade Books. Rodgers, Carol and M. Raider-Roth. (2006). “Presence in Teaching.” Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, Vol. 12, No. 3, June 2006. 265–287 Rosenak, Michael. (2011). “Philosophy of Jewish Education: Some Thoughts.” H. Miller et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Jewish Education. International Handbooks of Religion and Education 5. Springer Science+Business Media. Rosov, Wendy J. (2001) Practicing the Presence of God: Spiritual Formation in an American Rabbinical School (dissertation): UMI, 2001. X, 214 P. [1222817] Rosov Consulting. (2019) On the Journey: Concepts That Support a Study of the Professional Trajectories of Jewish Educators. Consortium for Applied Studies in Jewish Education (CASJE) Rose, Daniel. (2007). “The Passover Seder Service as a paradigm for informal Jewish education” the encyclopaedia of informal education. [Retrieved from http://infed.org/mobi/the-passover-seder-service-asa-paradigm-for-informal-jewish-education/]. www.infed.org/informaljewisheducation/passover_seder_service.htm. Rossel, Seymour. (1998). Managing the Jewish Classroom: How to Transform Yourself into a Master Teacher. Los Angeles: Torah Aura Productions. Rust, Frances. (2017). Making teacher education matter, Teachers and Teaching, 23:4, 383-386 Sacks, Jonathan. (1994). Will We Have Jewish Grandchildren? Ilford: Vallentine Mitchell. Saphier, Jon, Mary Ann Haley-Speca and Robert Gower. (2017). The Skillful Teacher: The Comprehensive Resource for Improving Teaching and Learning (7th Edition). Acton, MA: Research for Better Teaching. Savage, Nigel. (2018). “Jewish Tradition and the Crises of Environmental Sustainability: a Unique Challenge and a Unique Opportunity.” eJewishPhilanthropy. May 5, 2018. Schein, J. (1988). “Rabbi as teacher: The process of formulating educational goals for Jewish leadership”. Jewish Education, 56(2), 15–17. Shaw, Perry. (2014). Transforming Theological Education: A Practical Handbook for Integrative Learning. Carlisle, Cumbria: Langham Global Library. Sheninger, Eric. C. (2016). Uncommon Learning: Creating Schools that Work for Kids. Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin. Shulman, Lee S. (1986). “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching.” Educational Researcher. 15:2 (Feb. 1986), 4-14. Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 59 of 60                    Shulman, Lee. (2000). “From Minsk To Pinsk: Why a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning?” The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL), Vol 1. No. 1. Sigel, Irving E., Jeffrey S. Kress & Maurice J. Elias. (2007). “Beyond Questioning: Inquiry Strategies and Cognitive and Affective Elements of Jewish Education.” Journal of Jewish Education, 73:1, 51-66, DOI: 10.1080/15244110601175178 Sinclair, Alex. (2011). “Practitioner Enquiry and Its Role in Jewish Education.” H. Miller et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Jewish Education. International Handbooks of Religion and Education 5. Springer Science+Business Media. Stern, Miriam Heller. (2019). “Jewish Creative Sensibilities: Framing a New Aspiration for Jewish Education.” Journal of Jewish Education, 85:4, 429-446, DOI: 10.1080/15244113.2019.1686336 Stodolsky, Susan S., Gail Zaiman Dorph & Sharon Feiman Nemser. (2006). “Professional Culture and Professional Development in Jewish Schools: Teachers' Perceptions and Experiences.” Journal of Jewish Education, 72:2, 91-108, DOI: 10.1080/00216240600561866 Stronge, James H., Thomas J. Ward and Leslie W. Grant (2011) What Makes Good Teachers Good? A Cross-Case Analysis of the Connection Between Teacher Effectiveness and Student Achievement. Journal of Teacher Education 62(4), 339-355. Sullivan, William M. et al. (2007). Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law. Indianapolis: Jossey-Bass. Tauber, Sarah M. (2012). “An Introductory Course in Jewish Education." Religious Education, 107:5, 455-475. Routledge. Tauber, Sarah M. (2015). Open Minds, Devoted Hearts: Portraits of Adult Religious Educators. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. Tauber. Sarah M. (2010) Facilitator, Co-Learner, Community Builder: The Congregational Rabbi as a Teacher of Adults in Liberal Synagogues (dissertation) Telushkin, Joseph. (2008). Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People and Its History (Revised Edition). New York: HarperCollins. ter Kuile, Casper. (2019). “The Purpose of Jewish Education is to Help us Become.” eJewishPhilanthropy, February 8, 2019 The Teacher Leadership Competencies. (2014). Center for Teaching Quality, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and the National Education Association. [https://www.nbpts.org/wpcontent/uploads/teacher_leadership_competencies_final.pdf Retrieved December 1, 2019] Tomlinson, Carol A. and Marcia B. Imbeau. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Ward, Frances. (2012). Lifelong Learning: Theological Reflection and Supervision. United Kingdom: SCM Press. Wenger, Etienne. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wertheimer, Jack. (2007). Recent Trends in Supplementary Jewish Education. New York: The Avi Chai Foundation. Woocher, Jonathan. (2012). “Reinventing Jewish education for the 21st century.” Journal of Jewish Education, 78(3), 182–226. doi:10.1080/15244113.2012.700636 Yanklowitz, Shmuly. (2017). “Strengthening character development: Resetting priorities in Jewish education.” Jeducation World, July 2017. [Retrieved from http://jeducationworld.com/2017/07/strengthening-character-development-resetting-priorities-injewish-education/] Saul Kaiserman – Qualifying Paper – December 30, 2019 - Page 60 of 60