Journal of Curriculum Studies Research
https://curriculumstudies.org
E-ISSN: 2690-2788
Volume: 4 Issue: 2 2022
pp. 89-100
Paideia and Israel Education
Ira Daniel Glassera
a. MA, Department of Educational
Leadership, School of Education and
Human Development, The George
Washington University, Washington
DC, United States.
Email: iraglasser@gmail.com
Article Info
Received: September 5, 2022
Revised: November 13, 2022
Accepted: December 2, 2022
How to cite
Glasser, I. D. (2022). Paideia and Israel
Education. Journal of Curriculum
Studies Research, 4(2), 89-100.
https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2022.15
Copyright license
This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International license (CC BY 4.0).
ABSTRACT
Educative processes must account for content, learners, teachers,
and contexts in order for it have meaning for learners. Seen through
the lens of the reflective practitioner, this paideia considers models
of general education, the relationship between vision and praxis,
and their implications on Israel education. Contained herein are a set
of pedagogic practices and aspirations connected to Israeli and
Jewish history, people, and their expansive canon of text allowing for
the acquisition of values, content, and skills for all learners –
students and teachers alike – to explore what their personal
relationship with Israel entails.
KEYWORDS
Israel education; paideia; educational theory; reflective practice.
10.46303/jcsr.2022.15
https://curriculumstudies.org/
https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2022.15
90
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
INTRODUCTION
The field of Israel education has grown tremendously over the past twenty-plus years.
Foundational to the field of Israel education, a subset within Jewish education, can be found in
Lisa Grant and Ezra Kopelwitz’s landmark work in which they call for a paradigm shift of Israel
education in America (Grant & Kopelwitz, 2012). Bethamie Horowitz defines the primary goal of
Israel education is for learners to “cultivate a [personal] connection to contemporary Israel as
part of [their] self-understanding as a Jew,” further distinguishing the field of Israel education
from Israel studies and advocacy efforts that emerged in the early 2000s (Horowitz, 2012, p.
11). Horowitz continues to identify six other key elements of Israel education, which are further
expounded upon by the iCenter’s Aleph Bet of Israel Education (2015) and Chazan’s Philosophy
of Israel Education (2016). Three of these components - the centrality of the learner, their
relationship to Israel, and connection to Jewish identity - are essential ingredients that continue
to resonate among thought leaders in the field of Israel education today: Anne Lanski describes
Israel education as "the means for people to develop connections, interactions, and shared
language with people, ideas, and Israel itself”, David Bryfman argues that Israel education
“serves the greater purpose of identity development”, and Gil Troy advocates that “Jews use
Zionism, Jewish peoplehood, and the Israel connection as frameworks to chart their own
personal pathways toward finding meaning through community and history” (Bryfman et al.,
2021).
Israel curricula of myriad foci exist, including cultural, historical, and political.
Professional development programs provide Israel educators with opportunities to reflect on
and refine their craft. Furthermore, these curricula and programs provide Diaspora Jewry with
vehicles to foster critical thinking about identity, Jewish peoplehood, connection to the Land of
Israel, and the historic/contemporary significance of the State of Israel. These developments are
a boon and a blessing for Israel education, a “core aspect” of American Jewish education (Zakai,
2022, p. 15). Concurrently, the need for vision has played a significant role in shaping the
landscape of Jewish education. Time and again, academics stressed the need for vision while
others have ambitiously articulated a vision that has shaped Jewish and Israel educational
arenas. (Ackerman, 1969; A Time to Act, 1990; Fox et al., 2003; Gringas, 2006; Isaacs, 2011;
Woocher, 2012; Woocher & Woocher, 2013; Zakai, 2014; The Aleph Bet of Israel Education,
2015; Chazan, 2016; Cohen, 2016; Chazan et al., 2017; Jacobs & Chazan, 2018, 2019).
Curriculum must have, and be connected to, a broader vision. Different theories in
general education assert the necessity of a core vision that can then be translated and applied
to practice. For example, paideia, which claims its roots in ancient Greece, provides one such
central vision. The notion of paideia saw a renaissance in the 20th century due to the significant
works of Warner Jaeger (1967) and out of the University of Chicago under the guise of Mortimer
Adler (1998). Another example of core educational vision and its connection to practice can be
found in Lawrence-Lightfoot’s investigation into what makes good (or “good-enough”) schools
(1983).
91
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
Just as curriculum needs grounding in vision, both need to account for practical
implications and application. The development of curriculum is more than the writing of
enduring understandings, essential questions, big ideas, and lesson plans. It is a process that
must include consideration for and discussion about subject matter, learners, teachers, and
contexts in order for it have meaning for learners and to be successful (Schwab, 1969, 1973).
Pedagogues, learners, and subject matter are dynamic forces within a given educational setting
and therefore a curriculum needs to be flexible in order to meet the needs of the given contexts
(Schwab, 1969, 1973). Therefore, it is essential that one considers the ways vision and
curriculum interact with teachers, students, and educational settings. This is true for general
education and also Jewish and Israel education.
There is a need for a new way to draw upon the best ways of thinking and practice in
education. Just as a multitude of Israel curricula and visions have shaped the landscape of Israel
education, so too has its politicization. Israel education must instead be considered within a
broader context; a theory of Israel education that is reflective of broader Jewish education,
which is grounded in good educational theory and practices. The Israel education enterprise is
missing a “model of approaching Israel Education that is rooted in the integration of thoughtful
vision and creative practice” and centered around “core principles of being human, Israel and
Judaism, and educational practice”, or a paideia (Chazan, 2019, p.1). Even the framework to
create this model needed to be modified to consider and account for lived experience of the
educator.
This article aims to recenter the conversation about Israel education to the learner,
which in turn, will lead to better teaching. It came about through deliberations on general
education, its implications on Israel education, and the dynamic between vision and praxis. It is
applicable to a multitude of educational venues (e.g., formal and informal) as well as ages (early
childhood through adult education). It frames a set of core principles and ideas about pedagogic
practices and aspirations that connect to Israeli and Jewish history, people, and their expansive
canon of text allowing for the acquisition of values, content, and skills for all learners – students
and teachers alike – to explore what their personal relationship with Israel entails.
On the surface, it may appear to be a normative approach to Israel education, however
it is the recalibration that Israel education needs. Prior models for Israel education, including
those proposed by Isaacs (2011) and Chazan (2019) are limited and need adaptation to reflect
the lived experience of educators in the field. Further, it answers the calls for a blueprint for
Israel education by Zakai (2014), Chazan (2016), Bryfman & Pitkowsky (2017), and Bryfman
(2021) and aims to inspire further conversation. Above all, it harnesses the work of prior Jewish
and Israel educational visionaries and enriches the conversation by speaking the language of
practice from a vantage point that until now has been missing: the reflective practitioner.
In schools, for example, the primary learners are the students. However, all the
stakeholders – including faculty and staff, parents, and boards – are also learners. Each must
embrace their role as a component of the learning institution for a school to be successful. How
92
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
can a school, or any educational organization for that matter, carry out its mission if the content
and skills are not embraced and modeled by all stakeholders?
There is a distinction between “knowing” and “understanding,” and therefore a
distinction between “learning to know” and “learning to understand”. The former is the
ingathering of information and the latter is how that information is internalised and connected
to the learner. Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy for learning (knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation/creation) creates a hierarchy and process on how we
build upon “knowledge” (i.e., the who, what, where, when) toward understanding through
questioning what information/forces lay behind those facts (i.e., the how and why), applying
that knowledge to new scenarios, and then creating something novel with that information.
The learning process is multifaceted and comes in a variety of modalities and styles (e.g.,
auditory, visual, kinaesthetic). Similarly, Howard Gardner’s work on multiple intelligences
provides insight into the different intellectual faculties. As with modalities of learning, learners
may lean toward one (or a few) style(s) and intelligence(s) over others.
Teaching is the ability to create a framework and system in which learning can occur. In
many respects, teaching is about facilitation and questioning. And, just as there are different
modalities for learning and multiple intelligences, there are different teaching styles and
pedagogic methods.
Israel education needs distinctions of its own. Broadly speaking when referring to “Israel
education” one may be referring to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz
Yisrael (Land of Israel) and its relationship with the modern Medinat Yisrael (the State of Israel).
That said, Israel education that focuses on the contemporary State of Israel must not begin in
1948. It would behoove the educator to allow learners to understand where and how Medinat
Yisrael fits within the broader scope of Jewish history; that Medinat Yisrael is the late-19th and
20th century manifestation of what Eretz Yisrael has meant and continues to mean to the Jewish
people. One cannot fully appreciate or understand the modern State of Israel without having a
foundational understanding of the ideas, people, and events that preceded it. Similarly, one
would not gain a deep understanding of American history, if they began on July 4, 1776 or in
1789 without considering the ideas and events that influenced and caused the writing of the
Declaration of Independence of US Constitution, respectively.
Thus, the following objectives may be necessary to help frame “Israel education”:
• Learners will explore the notion of “homeland” as the connection between Eretz Yisrael
and the Jewish people.
• Learners will learn the progression of Zionist and Israeli history, including pivotal events
and people.
• Learners will engage with the diversity that comprises the fabric of Israeli society
including the various Jewish and non-Jewish groups (e.g., Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, and
Sephardim; Druze, Armenians, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Christian Arab, Muslims,
Palestinians, Bedouin, respectively).
93
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
• Learners will become familiar with social complexities by examining how Israeli culture
illustrates social, political, and historical ideas and issues.
• Understand that there are (and have historically been) a wide range of relationships
between the land, people, and contemporary State of Israel.
• Engage with questions about the relationship of Diaspora Jewry to the contemporary
State of Israel
• Learners will reflect on the ways in which they derive personal meaning and articulate
for themselves what their relationship with Israel looks like and how they feel about
Israel.
If there is an Israel experience as a piece of this education, it would also befit the
educator to ground students with foundational knowledge history and culture, upon which will
be built by participating in the Israel experience. Additional objectives for this experience could
be for learners to encounter Israel as a thriving, Hebrew speaking, Jewish state, experience
Israeli culture, society, and history, and appreciate the diversity of Israel and its citizenry.
Ahad Ha’Am famously said that more than the Jews have kept Shabbat, Shabbat has kept
the Jewish people. The same can be said of Eretz Yisrael. Regardless of the Diaspora community
– for example, Spain, Algeria, Germany, Iran, Afghanistan, Australia, the United States,
Argentina – religious and cultural references to Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael can found in the
treasure trove of liturgy. It is imperative that Jews in the 21st Century not only continue this
chain of tradition, but also understand the uniqueness of the time in which they are living.
Relationships, ideas, and connections are constantly evolving. By using the
aforementioned set of objectives, it is the hope that learners will not only begin to understand
the rich history and present that is both as Eretz and Medina Yisrael, and also that its history,
present, and future is laden with complexities. Considering that education is about deriving
personal meaning from what one learns, the hope is that students will be able to articulate for
themselves what their relationship with Israel looks like, why Israel matters, or does not matter,
to them. What is of utmost importance, is that students are given opportunities to explore and
come to terms for themselves what place Israel has in their lives. Zakai’s recent work (2021,
2022) demonstrates that a child’s relationship with Israel changes as they enter adolescence
and gain a more nuanced understanding of the world around them. In that vein, learners should
be given an opportunity to reflect on how that relationship has evolved over time. At the end of
the day, the goal is for students to not only care about Israel, but more importantly to know why
they care and develop a dynamic lifelong relationship.
CORE THEMES AND TEXTS
Israel education and the aspirations stated above are underpinned by a set of core values and
themes. First and foremost, among those themes is taking one’s destiny into their own hands.
As seen with what started as a relatively small movement, Zionists and the early halutzim were
ideologically determined to create (or recreate) a modern and self-sufficient Jewish state. In
94
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
order for this change to occur, the thinkers and the doers understood the status quo for Jews
living in modern European nation-states which were based either on the idea of the
emancipated citizen of Western Europe and/or the ethnolinguistic states of Eastern Europe. It
would be worthwhile to introduce source material that illustrates the connection to the Land of
Israel of non-European Jewish communities.
The study of Israel should be grounded in the following three concepts, which are found
within the canon of Jewish teachings: that wisdom is found all around us (Pirkei Avot, (n.d.), 4:1),
that all the Jewish people are responsible for one another (The Babylonian Talmud, (n.d.),
Shevuot 39a), and that we must take individual and collective responsibility and accountability
(Pirkei Avot, (n.d.), 1:14). A necessary component to coalesce these three concepts is the
development, evolution, and articulation of personal meaning.
As with any subject matter, Israel Education requires a set of indispensable primary texts
and sources. Among those sources include, but are not limited to: The Zionist Idea (1997) by
Arthur Hertzberg, which includes the writings and backgrounds of a number of Zionist thinkers
and other selected primary source material. In addition, David Engel’s Zionism (2009) and Gil
Troy’s Zionist Ideas: Then and Now (2018) provide concise yet thorough reads of Zionist history
and present. Additional primary source anthologies such as Kurtzer & Sufrin’s The New Jewish
Canon (2020) include pertinent pieces on the place of Israel in modern and contemporary Jewish
thought; Itamar Rabinovich & Jehuda Reinharz’s Israel and The Middle East (2007) provides
essential primary source documents of Israeli history and domestic and foreign relations; and
Paul Mendes-Flohr & Jehuda Reinharz’s The Jew in the Modern World (2010) put Zionism and
Israel in the broader context of modern Jewish history and thought. Other historic essential texts
include Leo Pinsker’s Auto-Emancipation, essays by Ahad Ha’am, works by Theodor Herzl, and
poems and writings by Rahel the Poetess, Haim Nahman Bialyk, and S.Y. Agnon. In addition,
learners should be encouraged to analyze and reflect on crucial political documents such as the
Balfour Declaration, UNGA Resolution 181 (and other UN resolutions including 242, 3379, and
46/86), and the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. Works of prominent
writers, poets, and thinkers, as well as works of art including visual art, music, film, and
television help learners illuminate Israeli social and political zeitgeist as learners explore various
time periods of Israeli history (e.g., Prestate to 1948, Early State 1948-1967, From Six Days to
Oslo 1967-1995, and the Contemporary State 1995-Present).
PEDAGOGY
“Good Israel education” is rooted in “good education” (Bryfman, 2018). Therefore, it is
worthwhile to turn to the methodologies utilised in general studies classrooms to best
understand what is “good pedagogy”. First and foremost, educators must do some form of
backwards planning – such as curricular planning found in Understanding by Design by Grant
Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2005).
95
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
It is worth noting that Understanding by Design uses learning standards and benchmarks
as foundation for clarifying learning objectives, Enduring Understandings, Big Ideas, and
Essential Questions. Such standards are not uniformly found in the realm of Jewish education
and may be a worthwhile enterprise developing. For examples of such standards that are used
in the Jewish educational settings, one can turn to Standards and Benchmarks for Tanakh and
Rabbinics (William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish Education, n.d.), Standards for Fluency
in Jewish Text & Practice (Mechon Hadar & Beit Rabban, 2016), or the 18x18 Framework (Jacobs
& Chazan, 2019).
To begin with, what are the goals and objectives of said courses, units, lessons,
programming pertaining to Israel education? What are desirable outcomes for learners to be
able to do and to know by the end of the program, lesson, unit, course? Upon clarifying these
objectives, educators need to articulate Enduring Understandings (EU), Big Ideas (BI), and/or
Essential Questions (EQ) for what they will be teaching. That is, what does learning about Israel
teach learners that is broader and bigger than Israel? Once these are clarified then the work to
develop lessons, units, etc., that are aligned with the knowledge and skillset, as well as the
EU/BI/EQ’s.
A good pedagogue utilises a number of methods in order to teach. This ranges from
large-group to small-group discussion; learning in partnership, examining a variety of source
materials (from close reading to gallery walks), giving learners opportunities for simulations or
to create skits, or engaging in debates, to name a few. If one were to observe an educational
setting over multiple sessions, the observer will hopefully witness a number of pedagogical
methods and tools utilised. Regardless of teaching “method” a good pedagogue should be able
to use a variety of teaching methods and styles with facility and seamlessly. It may be advisable
for the Israel educational enterprise to take note of the different methodologies utilised in
general education.
PEDAGOGUES
As with any subject matter, the professional most appropriate for Israel education is one who
has a passion for the subject matter, guides students toward creating personal meaning, and
fosters authentic and meaningful relationships with learners. This requires the educator to put
the learner and their intellectual, cognitive, and emotional growth first. The professional should
have a background, either by way of undergraduate degree or interest and experience, to teach
Israel education. Furthermore, Israel educators, like good educators, should be reflective
practitioners with an eye toward professional growth, including accepting that one can, and
should, always be learning.
It is understood that this may limit the pool of interested and qualified and candidates.
However, with the correct support and structures in place Israel can be integrated and taught
in other disciplines and by teachers who may not have the content background on Israel. A
number of professional development programs currently exist that aim to train teachers about
the teaching of Israel. This could range from an outside mentor or consultant supporting an
96
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
institution’s or individual’s teaching of Israel (such as the iCenter’s iNfuse, The Jewish Education
Project and Makom’s Qushiyot, or Shalom Hartman Institute’s iEngage programs). It also
requires educational institutions identify and recognise the talent they have laden in their staff
and empower these individuals to work with their colleagues about Israel. Teacher training also
includes multi-day workshops, seminars, or institutes focused on the teaching of Israel (such as
the Center for Israel Education).
GROWTH AND ASSESSMENT
As mentioned above, education is about deriving personal meaning from newly gained
understandings and insights. An Israel educational enterprise must strive to do both. On the one
hand, Israel education is about furthering one’s knowledge about different facets of Israel,
depending on the specific learning objective. That said, it would be short-sighted to stop there.
Knowledge must have some sort of personal meaning in order for it to have an impact. A short-
term intention would be to develop a foundation for a peer Israel trip experience, on which
learners will be emotionally and cognitively transformed, say for example, a capstone or
graduation trip. A goal is for learners to leave said Israel experience with more questions, seeing
themselves as part of a long chain of tradition, and caring about Israel in way that they did not
before. These germinated seeds will hopefully continue to be nurtured as those learners will see
their Israel education as valuable and something worthwhile pursuing.
In order to accurately and objectively evaluate the success of such a pedagogical
program, ongoing formative assessment is necessary. For starters, it is worthwhile establishing
learners’ prior knowledge, feelings, and relationship vis a vis Am Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael, and
Medinat Yisrael. That is, what do learners enter the learning environment already “knowing”
and “feeling”? There are a number pedagogical tools that an educator can use to determine
this. It could range from a “K-W-L” chart, qualitative surveys, a short introductory question, such
as “What do you know about…?” or an open-ended reflection on what “Israel means to the
learners”, thereby allowing prior knowledge, feeling, emotions, and relationship to come to the
forefront, or even an anticipatory question/hook to bring learners into the learning
environment. It would also behoove the educator to articulate the overarching learning
objectives at the outset so learner can, on an abstract level, cognitively anticipate what they will
encounter. That said, there is no preparation for the learner to fully anticipate what they will
engage with, learn, or be challenged by in an Israel curriculum, regardless of how clear the
learning objectives are stated. Similarly, to anticipatory sets and “pre-reflection”, ongoing
formative assessments is another tool used by educators to gauge the immediate and short-
term successes of learning objectives. It requires “checking-in” with learners to ensure they are
or have met the learning objectives. Oftentimes, formative assessments are helpful to gauge if
any educational approaches need to be tweaked to ensure learners are meeting, or have met,
the learning objectives. Formative assessments can be completed in the midst of an educational
program, as well as at the end (especially if there is more than one “lesson”). Finally, upon
97
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
completion of the educational program, a summative reflection and survey is necessary. Ideally,
this should mirror a qualitative survey or questionnaire from the beginning of the program.
An additional method for assessment is for the learners to articulate for themselves, in
a medium that suits them, what their personal relationship to Israel means, or does not mean,
and why. The different media would allow for learners to select a vehicle for communicating
their beliefs and relationship in an authentic way and allowing for the expression of
differentiated learning styles to take place. There is an additional opportunity for learners to
express what has surprised and challenged their thinking as well as further questions they would
like to explore, regardless of their personal and emotional relationship. Thus, learners are tasked
with not only reflecting on their personal relationship, but also articulate the ways in which they
as individuals have, or have not changed, and laid the foundation for future learning and
exploration to take place as a result of their learning.
CONCLUSION
The growth of Israel educational programs and curricula has been a promising advancement for
Jewish education. An educator or organization can choose from a number of curricula or
synthesis components from various curricula to create an Israel curriculum that meets their
particular goals and objectives. At the same time, Jewish educators and academics have laid out
educational visions, playing a significant role in shaping the field to meet the needs of an
evolving Jewish community in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
With all due respect to those who called the need for and articulated a vision for Jewish
and Israel education, they need to consider the perspective and voice of the reflective
practitioner, who adapts vision to meet the needs of their learners and considers the given
educational context. Education is the meeting ground between idea and practice and a dynamic
process that involves (but is not limited to) learners, pedagogues, and contexts. It is this
confluence that inspired works that shaped the field of general education, including the work of
Schwab and Lawrence-Lightfoot. This meeting ground of praxis and theory needs to be applied
to Israel education. As Chazan asserts in A Philosophy of Israel Education, “the more an
educational system can establish coordination between vision, educational theory, and practice,
the greater the possibilities of impact” on learners – the subject of Israel education (2016, p.
10). This paper answers the call for a blueprint to shape the Israel educational landscape and
proposes a new approach to dealing with vision up until now: a theory to practice that harness
and builds upon the work of prior thinkers while speaking the language of practice.
When taken together, each of these components comprise a paideia for Israel education.
Most of the aforementioned components, such as Pedagogues, Pedagogies, Growth and
Assessment, Learners and Learning are universalist educational aims, beliefs, and practices that
would characterize good education, not specifically Israel or Jewish education. Afterall as the
previously mentioned truism goes, “good Israel education…is good education”.
98
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
A paideia for Israel education brings together the emotional, relational, and cognitive
spheres, which Zakai (2014) calls for as a necessary next step for Israel education scholarship. It
creates avenues for learners – and pedagogues alike – to develop and reflect on their own
understanding of core values and ideas together with organized knowledge, and intellectual
skills, Israel curriculum and educational programs offer opportunities for learners to gain these
aforementioned skills. From here, curricula and educational programs can be designed to be a
place to discover and challenge, and articulate and raise big questions about Israel. Just as the
18 X 18 Framework (Jacobs & Chazan, 2019) establishes benchmarks for Jewish education
grounded in knowledge and skills, a next step would be to establish similar benchmarks for Israel
education that connect the head (organized knowledge), heart (understanding of ideas and
values) and hand (skills). Israel education allows learners to explore and reflect on big questions
about the nature of humanity and being, about one’s identity and Judaism, and will ultimately
have a profound benefit and impact on all learners and the Jewish community. The field of Israel
education demands no less.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Barry Chazan for providing guidance and support with this project. I am
grateful to the iCenter for Israel Education for inviting me to present this work at their Pro
Seminar series. I would like to acknowledge the iCenter, the Jim Joseph Foundation, the Marcus
Foundation, and Rodeph Sholom School, New York, for supporting my pursuit of the Master of
Arts in Israel Education at the George Washington University.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, W. (1969). Jewish education for what? American Jewish Yearbook (Vol. 70).
American Jewish Committee.
Adler, M. J. (1998). Paideia proposal. Touchstone.
Babylonian Talmud: The William Davidson Digital Edition. (Steinsaltz, A. E-I., Trans.). (n.d.).
Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Shevuot.39a.22?lang=bi
Bryfman, D. (2018, Nov. 1). Good Israel education is good education. The Times of Israel.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/good-israel-education-is-good-education/
Bryfman, D., Hirschhorn, S. Y., Lanski, A., Sinclair A., Troy, G. & Zakai, S.
(2021, Spring). “Teaching Israel and the pandemic”. Sources: A Journal of Jewish Ideas.
Shalom Hartman Institute of North America.
https://www.sourcesjournal.org/articles/teaching-israel-and-the-pandemic
Bryfman, D. & Pitkowsky, A. (2017, December 15). Why Israel education
matters. Jewish Education Project. https://www.jewishedproject.org/news/why-israel-
education-matters
Chazan, B. (2016). A philosophy of Israel education: A relational approach.
Palgrave Macmillan.
https://www.jewishedproject.org/news/why-israel-education-matters
https://www.jewishedproject.org/news/why-israel-education-matters
99
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
Chazan, B. (Fall/2019). Paideia and Jewish education [Syllabus]. Department of
Educational Leadership. The George Washington University.
Chazan, B., Chazan, R., & Jacobs, B. M. (2017). Cultures and contexts of Jewish education.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, J. (Ed.). (2016). Visions in action: Selected writings of Seymour Fox. Mandel Foundation.
The Commission on Jewish Education in North America. A time to act: The report of the
commission on Jewish education in North America. (1990, November). University Press
of America.
Engel, D. (2009). Zionism: A short history of a big idea. Taylor and Francis.
Fox, S., Scheffler, I., & Marom, D. (Eds.). (2003). Visions of Jewish education.
Cambridge University Press.
Grant, L. D., & Kopelowitz, E. M. (2012). Israel education matters: A 21st century
paradigm for Jewish education. Center for Jewish Peoplehood Education.
Gringas, R. (2011, November 15). “Wrestling and hugging: Alternative paradigms
for the Diaspora-Israel relationship”. Makom. https://makomisrael.org/hugging-and-
wrestling-2/
Hertzberg, A. (Ed.). (1997). The Zionist idea: A historical analysis and reader (2nd
ed.). Jewish Publication Society.
Horowitz, B. (2012). Defining Israel education. The iCenter.
The iCenter. The aleph bet of Israel education (2nd edition). (2015). The iCenter for Israel
Education.
Isaacs, A. (2011). Israel education: Purposes and practices. In H. Miller, L. Grant, & A. Pomson
(Eds.), International Handbook of Jewish Education (pp. 479-496). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0354-4_28
Jacobs, B. M., & Chazan, B. (2018). The Jewish paideia project: Criteria, frameworks, and
standards for American Jewish education in the twenty-first century. Jewish Applied
Research Center.
Jacobs, B. M., & Chazan, B. (2019). 18x18 framework: 18 Jewish things a young Jew should
know, care about, and be able to do by age 18. NYU Applied Research Collective for
American Jewry.
Jaeger, W. (1967). Paideia: The ideals of Greek culture: Volume I. Archaic Greece:
The mind of Athens. (2nd ed.). (Highet, G., Trans.) Oxford University Press. (Original work
published 1939)
Kurtzer, Y. & Sufrin, C. E. (Eds.). (2020) The new Jewish canon: Ideas and debates 1980-2015.
Academic Studies Press.
Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of character and culture. Basic
Books.
Mechon Hadar & Beit Rabban. (Exler, L., Ed.). (2016). Standards for fluency in Jewish text &
practice. Hadar Press.
https://makomisrael.org/hugging-and-wrestling-2/
https://makomisrael.org/hugging-and-wrestling-2/
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0354-4_28
100
JCSR 2022, 4(2): 89-100
Mendes-Flohr, P., & Reinharz, J. (Eds.). (2010). The Jew in the Modern World (3rd ed.). Oxford
University Press.
Pirkei Avot (Kulp, J. Trans.). (n.d.). Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot
Rabbinics Standards and Benchmarks. (n.d.). William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish
Education. The Jewish Theological Seminary.
http://lhili.jtsa.edu/uploads/1/2/0/9/120971506/rabbinic_standards_and_benchmarks
_.pdf
Rabinovich, I., & Reinharz, J. (Eds.). (2007). Israel and the Middle East: Documents and
readings on society, politics, and foreign relations, pre-1948 to the present (2nd ed.).
Brandeis University Press.
Schwab, J. J. (1969). The Practical: A Language for Curriculum. The School Review 78(1), 1-23.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084049
Schwab, J. (1973). The Practical 3: Translation into Curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501-522.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084423
Tanakh Standards and Benchmarks. (n.d.). William Davidson Graduate School of Jewish
Education. The Jewish Theological Seminary.
http://lhili.jtsa.edu/uploads/1/2/0/9/120971506/standards_and_benchmarks_docume
nt.pdf
Troy, G (Ed). (2018) Zionist ideas: Visions for Jewish homeland – then, now, tomorrow. Jewish
Publication Society.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Woocher, J. (2012). Reinventing Jewish education for the 21st century. Journal of Jewish
Education, 78(3), 182-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2012.700636
Woocher, J. and Woocher, M. (2013). “Jewish education in a new century: An ecosystem in
Transition.” In Dashefsky, A., & Sheskin, I. (Eds.), American Jewish Yearbook 2013: The
Annual Record of the North American Jewish Communities (Vol 113). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01658-0_1
Zakai, S. (2014). “My Heart Is in the East and I Am in the West”: Enduring questions of Israel
education in North America. Journal of Jewish Education 80(3), 287-318.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2014.937192
Zakai, S. (2021). “It Makes Me Feel Many Different Things”: A Child’s Relationship to Israel over
Time. Journal of Jewish Education. 87(2), 120-143.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2021.1926375
Zakai, S. (2022). My second-favorite country: How American Jewish children think about Israel.
New York University Press.
https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot
http://lhili.jtsa.edu/uploads/1/2/0/9/120971506/standards_and_benchmarks_document.pdf
http://lhili.jtsa.edu/uploads/1/2/0/9/120971506/standards_and_benchmarks_document.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2014.937192
https://doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2021.1926375