We are justly proud of the education that our children receive in the many day schools in Northern New Jersey. In fact, New Jersey ranks second in the nation for its high percentage of eligible students enrolled in day schools. We take the quality of this education in general and Jewish studies as axiomatic. By what standards is this conjecture made? What metrics are used to determine and validate this assumption of excellence? If parents are satisfied by the yardstick of Ivy League acceptances or entry into elite high schools, that may be sufficient, but it is hardly precise, nor systematic.
In the 1970s, two fine educators, Dr. Alvin Schiff and Dr. Joseph Preil, developed what became known as the BJE (Board of Jewish Education) high school exam. The goal was two-fold: replace each school’s individual entrance exam with one universal exam, and begin to devise an agreed-upon curriculum for the NY-NJ day schools. If every school followed an agreed-upon curriculum, comparisons, evaluations, and data gathering would form the genesis of a measurement tool. The first goal was achieved, the second not so much.
Every day school teaches more or less identical material, but it is not unified, coordinated with other schools, or systematized. The end result is that most schools spend large amounts of time prepping for the exam in the early part of the eighth grade with special texts composed of old BJE exams, much like SAT prep. Valuable learning time is lost in this review. Comparing scores from school to school is inaccurate since one school may spend more time than another on a certain Navi or focus on different skills in the study of Chumash or Mishna or Hebrew language. The same is true for the general studies part of the exam. Each school chooses its own textbooks and is free to shape syllabi on its own.
Standardized testing is also chacun a son go?t. Each school chooses which test to administer and which norms to utilize for comparison. Comparing Jewish day school student scores to national norms that include public schools from many low-performing states and cities will naturally show our students above grade level. Comparing them only to scores from the better private schools may yield a better analysis of strengths and weaknesses.
Within Jewish tradition, an appreciation for the importance of shared measurement tools dates back to Deuteronomy 25:15: “a perfect and honest measure shall you have, so that your days shall be lengthened on the land…” There are many reasons why it is valuable to have and to honor a universal system for measurement. These fundamental tools enable us to describe what we observe, compare like items, and draw conclusions from these comparisons.
In the field of Jewish education, establishing universal measures to assess learning outcomes is particularly challenging. Within the Jewish community, there are differing and often evolving opinions about the goals of Jewish education and the desired outcomes.
Developing and using shared measurement tools is essential to ensuring that outcomes can be compared and analyzed together. We need to initiate a process that will incorporate guidance and input from a very broad group of stakeholders: researchers, academics, leaders of major Jewish organizations, rabbis, educators, funders, and parents. We need to take into account new thinking about how to measure Jewish identity, and Jewish knowledge, while also building from previous tools used by others inside and outside the Jewish world.
Increased interest in collective impact initiatives and lower barriers for collaboration have set the stage for what we see as an unprecedented willingness among funders, practitioners, and community leaders to embark on shared measurement work. Shared measurement tools are most useful when designed with input from representatives of the target audience and with those who are positioned to act on the learnings. Involving stakeholders early builds a sense of shared purposes, develops trust, and ensures broad investment in the process itself.
Like any collaborative effort, the development of shared metrics requires a readiness to commit to a multiphase, iterative process. It also demands that participants be prepared to compromise their individual interests for the sake of the group. A project to develop and implement shared measurement tools requires unique expertise–knowledge of the field, advanced project-management skills, database development, survey design, etc. There are consultants who specialize in these areas who can bring important value to the work.
If we were to ask parents, teachers, and administrators what they think an eighth grader ought to know upon graduation, I suspect that their answers would be within a certain agreed-upon range of similarity. If the goals are similar then it shouldn’t be so hard to agree on how to attain those goals together. We need to be sure that we have the most effective and efficient Jewish education and engagement strategies for our children.
Rabbi Dr. Wallace Greene has had a distinguished career as a Jewish educator. He is currently a consultant to schools, non-profit organizations, and The International March of The Living. He can be reached at [email protected].
By Wallace Greene
