“Knowledge must cont<strong>in</strong>ually be renewedby ceaseless ef<strong>for</strong>t if it is not to be lost.”Albert E<strong>in</strong>ste<strong>in</strong>GLS International congratulates you on thepublication <strong>of</strong> your <strong>in</strong>augural magaz<strong>in</strong>e.GLS InternationalHigh-technology Management Consult<strong>in</strong>g26 Welk<strong>in</strong> Crescent Ottawa, ON K2E 5M5 (613) 228-2634compliments <strong>of</strong>P A G E 18 • C O N T I N U I T Y M A G A Z I N E
Steven M. Cohen, is Research Pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong><strong>Jewish</strong> Social Policy Hebrew Union College–<strong>Jewish</strong> Institute <strong>of</strong> Religion, New York.This study was published <strong>in</strong> the fall <strong>of</strong> 2006by the <strong>Jewish</strong> Life Network / Ste<strong>in</strong>hardtFoundation.Repr<strong>in</strong>ted with author’s permission.Extract from:A TALE OF TWO JEWRIES: “THE INCONVENIENTSteven M. Cohen TRUTH” FOR AMERICAN JEWSA P U B L I C A T I O N O F Y I T Z H A K R A B I N H I G H S C H O O LJEWISH EDUCATION WORKSThe results are <strong>in</strong>: <strong>Jewish</strong> education works. Studies <strong>of</strong> specificexperiences (e.g., camps, or day schools, or Israel experiences) aswell as studies <strong>of</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ations <strong>of</strong> experiences document the impact<strong>of</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> education <strong>in</strong> almost all its varieties. The same may be said<strong>for</strong> studies <strong>of</strong> short-term impact, as measured by subjective assertions<strong>of</strong> change, as well as studies <strong>of</strong> impact over time, stretch<strong>in</strong>gfrom education <strong>in</strong> childhood to engagement <strong>in</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> life <strong>in</strong> adulthood20, 30, 40, or even more years later. Evidence <strong>of</strong> impact rangesover a wide variety <strong>of</strong> outcomes, embrac<strong>in</strong>g ritual observance, communalaffiliation, beliefs and attitudes, social networks, and, <strong>of</strong>course, <strong>in</strong>termarriage — the most important s<strong>in</strong>gle predictor <strong>of</strong> allother <strong>for</strong>ms <strong>of</strong> adult <strong>Jewish</strong> engagement.Us<strong>in</strong>g data sets collected <strong>in</strong> different places at different po<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong>time with different sampl<strong>in</strong>g techniques, numerous studies arriveat quite similar conclusions. They all control <strong>for</strong> the correlative impact<strong>of</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> upbr<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g and parental <strong>Jewish</strong> engagement, tak<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>to account observance, the <strong>Jewish</strong>ness <strong>of</strong> one’s childhood friendshipcircles, and <strong>in</strong>-marriage/mixed marriage <strong>of</strong> one’s parents. Andthey all f<strong>in</strong>d that almost all <strong>for</strong>ms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> education dim<strong>in</strong>ish thefrequency <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>termarriage and elevate adult <strong>Jewish</strong> engagement,albeit with significant variations <strong>in</strong> magnitude <strong>of</strong> impact, with dayschools uni<strong>for</strong>mly lead<strong>in</strong>g the list.Most recently, <strong>in</strong> a study <strong>of</strong> Jews born <strong>in</strong> America after 1945, a subsetextracted from the 2000-01 NJPS, I estimated the impact <strong>of</strong> several<strong>Jewish</strong> educational experiences <strong>in</strong> childhood upon the chances<strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>termarriage some 20 to 40 years hence (see table). This studyestimated that net <strong>of</strong> all other <strong>for</strong>ms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> education and <strong>of</strong>parental observance, day school attendance reduces <strong>in</strong>termarriageby 14 percentage po<strong>in</strong>ts. The impact <strong>of</strong> attendance at supplementaryschool more than once a week is 2 po<strong>in</strong>ts if cont<strong>in</strong>ued <strong>for</strong> more than6 years; each <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mal education experience (camp<strong>in</strong>g, youthgroups, or Israel travel <strong>in</strong> one’s youth) reduces <strong>in</strong>termarriage by 4percentage po<strong>in</strong>ts. All <strong>of</strong> these estimates refer to cumulative impact;the more <strong>Jewish</strong> educational experiences, the lower one’schances <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>termarriage. For example, someone who went to asupplementary school that met twice a week <strong>in</strong>to adolescence, wentto Israel, and attended a <strong>Jewish</strong> camp can be compared with someonewith the same background with no such experiences. Thechances that the <strong>for</strong>mer would marry a <strong>Jewish</strong> spouse would <strong>in</strong>creaseby 14 percentage po<strong>in</strong>ts (comparable to reduc<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>termarriagerate from 47% to 33%).Only one <strong>for</strong>m <strong>of</strong> <strong>Jewish</strong> education actually generates more <strong>in</strong>termarriage:Sunday school (or, <strong>in</strong> general, one-day-a-week supplementaryschool, generally associated with Re<strong>for</strong>m congregations). All otherth<strong>in</strong>gs be<strong>in</strong>g equal, those who report go<strong>in</strong>g to a <strong>Jewish</strong> school onlyonce a week (e.g., “Sunday School”) <strong>for</strong> 1-6 years experienced an<strong>in</strong>creased likelihood <strong>of</strong> marry<strong>in</strong>g non-Jews by 8 percentage po<strong>in</strong>ts, ascontrasted with those who never went to a <strong>Jewish</strong> school.One might attribute the effect to bad teach<strong>in</strong>g or bad curriculum.But, the differences <strong>in</strong> the impact on <strong>in</strong>termarriage between oneday-a-weekand two/three-day-a-week supplementary school <strong>in</strong>quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>struction are too large to be expla<strong>in</strong>ed by the small (ifany) differences <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>structional quality and curriculum. Pedagogicdifferences alone simply cannot be at the root <strong>of</strong> Sunday school’scounter<strong>in</strong>tuitive and counter-productive results. Rather, we need tolook not at the experience <strong>of</strong> Sunday school per se, but at its students,or more appropriately, their families. Those who attend Sundayschools come disproportionately from <strong>in</strong>termarried homes.“ A L i f e t i m e o f L e a r n i n g ” • P A G E 19
Change language