Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Can Communal Change lead to a Better Educational System?- Some thoughts on the movie Unorthodox (Part II)



[This is the second part of a three-part series on the movie “Unorthodox”. In this post, I address ways for institutional coherence to lead to a change in Jewish education. To read part I, where I addressed how Israel schools have changed, please click here.]

Michael (name and details changed) went to a well-known Modern Orthodox high school. When I would run into him at local races, he always came across as a kind, well-behaved, and thoughtful young man (athletic too). He also came across as not particularly excited by religion. In fact, when he graduated from high school, he was one of the few graduating students from his school who did not spend a year studying in Israel. I lost touch with Michael after he went to college at a large Midwestern university. I remember my shock when I next saw him, a number of years later. I was in shul and I saw a young man whose long beard and style of dress clearly marked him as Chabad. He looked familiar, but I couldn’t figure out why. When it finally hit me that this was Michael, I went over to say hi. We talked for a while, and he explained to me that he had connected to Chabad through his campus shaliach, and that he was now learning in a Chabad yeshiva.

I thought about Michael’s for quite a while. How was it that this young man who grew up in a typical Modern orthodox community, and had spent 12 years in its schools, and had graduated without a strong connection, had become so committed to a religious life?

In watching Unorthodox, I again thought of Michael, as well as those who are similar to him and went to Israel, as well as those who went straight to college. Where are we as a community and an educational system failing? I do not ask this question with an assumption that we can reach every child/student. Still, I wonder how many Michaels and Tzipis there are who never discover that religious Judaism is something they could live and love. In this post I will focus on the community, and in the next post I will discuss the school system.

What Unorthodox makes clear is that part of the effectiveness of the year in Israel in leading to stronger religious commitment (permanent or temporary) goes beyond the classroom. May students see communities, both charedi and dati leumi, which they perceive as being more authentically in line with the Torah they’ve learned, than the ones in which they grew up at home. They see serious tefillah, Talmud Torah, and shemiras hamitzvos in ways that they often did not at home or in their communities. While their communities in the States (and elsewhere) often felt “moderately passionate” to borrow a phrase from Rabbi Lamm, in Israel they witness and experience real passion.

Even if one accounts for some degree of over-idealization in the student’s experiences in Israel, it is hard to deny that Har Nof and Alon Shevut are very different from the average Modern orthodox community in Chutz La’aretz. Teenagers, who often notice real or perceived inconsistency and hypocrisy are often left wondering about the differences they perceive.

The question which needs to be addressed is whether change can occur on a communal level, or whether it is only the educational system which can help our students grapple with their inner and religious lives. While in some cases the schools will have to largely work on their own (and I will address this in the next post), I believe that, in some cases, communal change is possible.

While institutional change is hard to bring about, communal change is even more complex. In order for a community to evolve religiously various institutions need to work together and come up with a shared vision. Schools, where students are the focus, have to work with shuls where there are a much wider range of participants. In doing this important work, they allow students to see in their non-school life, reinforce what they are learning about in school. Absent this consonance, students are left wondering why they should live what they are learning at school.

My sense is that there are communities where the school-shul partnership is happening. One such community is in Philadelphia where the Kohelet Foundation is making sure that the various Kohelet schools are working together with the community. They describe their mission as:

The Kohelet Foundation aims to strengthen and preserve the Jewish Day School education model for our next generation of leaders by creating and supporting Jewish communal responsibility for day schools among parents, philanthropists, and the greater Jewish community.

Local educators and sought after speakers not only address the students at school, but also speak to the parents and other community members. This makes it possible for parents to grow along with their children, and to create Jewish lives which are passionate. Communal funders come to see how supporting different organizations, rather than focusing on just one, can be more effective.

While no school can ever force parents to engage with the learning, it is advantageous for this to occur. Many parents grow frustrated when their children get to Israel and “flip out”, especially when their children not only become more religious, but also become more “right wing” philosophically. This approach also addresses the concern that change is too sudden and volatile. Slow, thoughtful growth, done along with one’s family would benefit the community, family, and students. With this approach, Israel yeshivas and seminaries could reinforce what the students already possess, rather than try to get the students to change.

While it would take complex change for this approach to come about, I can’t help but wonder what Michael might be like today if he had witnessed such an integrated approach.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Are MO Students Still "Flipping Out"?- Some thoughts on the movie Unorthodox (Part I)



I can’t stop thinking about the movie “Unorthodox” since I watched it. The movie, which is a documentary, follows the lives of three Modern Orthodox teenagers from the time leading up to their post-high school year in Israel, during the year in Israel, and in subsequent years as well.  It is narrated and directed by Anna Wexler, who also grew up in the Modern Orthodox world, but did not go to Israel, as she had left observance during her high school years.

There is much that can be learned from this film by Modern Orthodox parents, educators, and rabbis, as well as those from other parts of Orthodoxy. I plan to do a series of posts on this movie, as I think there is too much to cover in a single post.

In this post, I’d like to focus on what has changed about the year in Israel since 2005, which is the year when most of the film takes place. Although there will be few surprises in this post, I think it’s important to recognize how much has changed, and why the year in Israel is less effective than it was; both during the year itself, as well as in creating long-term change. In subsequent posts I will address larger communal and educational issues, and where we might go from here.

It is no secret that the year in Israel has become pretty standard for many Modern Orthodox teenagers. In some schools, it is almost like a 13th grade, as virtually all students attend. Even at schools where it is less automatic, I’d assume that 40-50% of graduating students attend. One of the topics which has been explored by many people is the “flipping out” which takes place for some of the students who become significantly more religious than they were coming into the year. Tzipi, one of the main characters in the film, goes through this process herself. She is a very compelling character, and we watch her develop religiously from the beginning to the end of the film. Even as we see that not everyone goes through this process, the movie makes clear why the year can be so transformational.

Although it came as no surprise, I was struck by the reminder that the technology of the time created a situation where all of the students were mostly separated from their former lives, including parents, friends, and girlfriends. It was difficult and somewhat costly to make calls. This isolation gave the students a chance to disconnect from their former lives, and imagine a life which may be different. In a world without Ipads, Ipods, WhatsApp, Netflix and more, the year in Israel allowed for the quiet space to consider how things could be different, as well as a lack of peer pressure from their friends who were not in Israel.

We no longer live in that world. The ubiquity of cell phones and all of the other technology means that current students are much more in touch with their former lives, which includes positive and negative influences. One can virtually “see” their parents or their boyfriend quite easily, sometimes several times a day. While some yeshivas and seminaries try to limit the technology, the reality is that it is very difficult to do so. Free time is now a time when students can watch all sorts of movies and TV shows. Students can binge-watch a popular series long after lights out.

There have been formal studies which confirm what I see anecdotally, which is that all of this contributes to the fact that less “flipping out” is taking place. I would also add that my sense is that even when change does occur, it often does not seem to last in the long-term. I would posit that students are often being pulled in different direction, leading to less change.

Why does any of this matter? If as many suggest, and this is mentioned in the movie, Modern Orthodoxy seems to count on the year in Israel to help produce the next generation of religiously committed adults, it is important that all of those who wish to see the community continue to thrive recognize that other things will have to be done to help bring this about. While good things do happen during that year, we can no longer count on Israeli institutions to do what we do not accomplish in Chutz La’aretz.

Do we want to change, and how we might do so, are things I will address in future posts.