Transforming Congregational Education: Lessons Learned and Questions for the Future

Jewish Education Serviceof North America

111 8th Avenue, 11th FloorNew York, NY 10011 USA212.284.6882212.284.6951 faxwww.jesna.org

SD122308

TransformingCongregat ionalEducat ion:Lessons Learned andQuestions for the Future

A Lippman Kanfer Inst i tute Working Paper

ii • A Lippman Kanfer Institute Working Paper

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

Rabbi Robert AbramsonUnited Synagogue for Conservative Judaism

Sandy DashefskyLa’Atid: Synagogues for the Future,Commission on Jewish Education and Leadership,Jewish Federation of Greater Hartford

Macy HartInstitute for Southern Jewish Life

Rabbi Hayim HerringSTAR (Synagogues: Transformation and Renewal)

Rabbi Erin HirshJewish Reconstructionist Federation

Leora IsaacsJESNA

Rabbi Jan KatzewUnion for Reform Judaism

Steven KrausJESNA

Jeffrey LasdayCAJE

Rabbi Marc MargoliusLegacy Heritage Innovation Project

Bill RobinsonBoard of Jewish Education of Greater New York

Robert ShermanBoard of Jewish Education of Greater New York

Jane SlotinPELIE (Partnership for Effective Learning andInnovative Education)

Rachel SternInstitute for Southern Jewish Life

Helene TigayNESS, Auerbach Central Agency for JewishEducation, Philadelphia

Karen TragerLa’Atid: Synagogues for the Future,Commission on Jewish Education and Leadership,Jewish Federation of Greater Hartford

Rabbi Phil WarmflashJewish Outreach Partnership, Philadelphia

Rob WeinbergECE (Experiment in Congregational Education),Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion

Cyd WeissmanRE-IMAGINE Project, ECE

Arnee WinshallChair, Lippman Kanfer Institute Committee,JESNA

Ron WolfsonSynagogue 3000

Jonathan WoocherJESNA

Rabbi Jessica ZimmermanSynagogue 3000

1. Setting the Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Goals: What Are We Trying to Achieve? . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Content: What Must Be Changed?. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. Process: How Do We Make Change? . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5. The Future: What Lies Ahead? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Transforming Congregational Education • iii

TOC

Table of Contents

THE LIPPMAN KANFER INSTITUTE:An Action-Oriented Think Tank for Innovation inJewish Learning and EngagementJewish education is the primary vehicle through which the Jewishcommunity ensures its continuing vitality. Dramatic demographic,sociological, cultural, technological and organizational changes thathave taken place in society and in Jewish life over the past quartercentury call for equally dramatic changes in how Jewish educationis organized, practiced, and delivered in 21st century North America.

In order to achieve such changes — changes that by and large havenot yet been implemented widely and, in some cases, not evenimagined — Jewish education must:

• Identify where innovation is required,

• Capitalize on creative ideas that exist within the field of Jewisheducation,

• Cultivate ideas from fields beyond Jewish education, and

• Systematize the development and dissemination of promisingsolutions.

The Lippman Kanfer Institute: An Action-Oriented Think Tank forInnovation in Jewish Learning and Engagement responds to thisneed. The Lippman Kanfer Institute focuses on infusing innovationinto the Jewish educational system. The Institute identifies and

disseminates new ideas, new thinking, new practices, and neworganizational designs to keep Jewish education relevant andeffective in a changing world.

The Lippman Kanfer Institute brings new thinking to importantproblems like the limited and episodic nature of educationalparticipation among many Jews; the failure to build powerfulsynergies among multiple forms of education; and the untappedpotential of technology, the arts, social action and other media forJewish communication, self-expression and engagement. It maintainsa vigorous connection with front-line practitioners and draws on andseeks to enhance innovative work already underway that promises todramatically improve Jewish education’s reach, impact, andeffectiveness. The Lippman Kanfer Institute pays special attention tolearnings from beyond the field of Jewish education. The LippmanKanfer Institute’s innovative ideas are brought to the field throughvehicles such as conferences and colloquia, print and electronicpublications; interactive media like wikis and blogs; and direct contactwith educators and policy-makers working on the front lines.

The Lippman Kanfer Institute is part of JESNA and contributes to itsmission to improve Jewish education by identifying anddisseminating empirically-based learnings and innovative solutionsto communities, institutions, policy-makers and practitioners. Thework of the Lippman Kanfer Institute is supported by the LippmanKanfer Family Foundation, based in Akron, Ohio.

iv • A Lippman Kanfer Institute Working Paper

1“ ”Our goal is to focus on what isundeniably taking place today:a broad-scale, multi-faceted effortto rethink, re-energize, reform,and re-imagine the educationalwork of synagogues… so as tomake the Jewish learningexperience of children and adultsa positive, engaging, andimpactful one.

Transforming Congregational Education • 1

A quiet revolution has been brewing in Jewisheducation. It began roughly a decade and a half ago, andit has gained momentum steadily ever since. Its aim: tochange the image and the reality of what has often beenseen as the “black sheep” of Jewish education — theprograms of learning for Jewish children, most oftenlocated in synagogues, that have come to be known as“Hebrew” or “religious school.”

Few would argue that these programs do not in factneed change. Condemned by critics as ineffectual orworse, recalled with distaste, if not disdain, by legions ofits alumni, “Hebrew school” has been American Jewry’smost popular and most problematic form of Jewisheducation. It is not our purpose in this paper to rehearsethe history of what is often called “supplementary”Jewish education, a history which has known somesignal successes as well as failures. Rather, our goal is tofocus on what is undeniably taking place today: a broad-scale, multi-faceted effort to rethink, re-energize,reform, and re-imagine the educational work ofsynagogues (and in some cases other providers) so as tomake the Jewish learning experience of children andadults a positive, engaging, and impactful one.

JESNA’s Lippman Kanfer Institute, an action-orientedthink tank for innovation in Jewish learning andengagement, has articulated a vision for 21st centuryJewish education as learner-focused, relationship-infused, and life-centered. In this vision, Jewish learnersof all ages are involved in meaningful educationalexperiences as active, rather than passive, participants.These experiences are connected to one another to forma continuum of learning, with multiple attractive optionsthat encourage Jews to make Jewish education a lifelongendeavor. And, these experiences both draw upon and

give shape and meaning to the totality of learners’ livesand relationships.

The synagogue is in principle, if not yet in practice, anideal setting in which this kind of Jewish education cantake root and flourish. For more individuals and familiesthan any other single Jewish institution, the synagogueis the embodiment of Jewish community. It is also, atleast potentially, a gateway into the full variety andrichness of Jewish life, not only within its own walls, butin the larger Jewish community as well of which it is (orshould be) an integral part. It is difficult to imagine athriving North American Jewry in the 21st centurywithout synagogues that fulfill well both theirtraditional educational mission — inducting successivegenerations of young Jews into enthusiastic andknowledgeable participation in Jewish life — and thelarger vision of serving as centers and platforms forlifelong Jewish learning.

Those most deeply engaged in the work ofcongregational educational improvement andtransformation recognize that there is still a long way togo before synagogues in substantial number realize theirfull Jewish educational potential. But a solid beginninghas been made. We have the opportunity, therefore, toexamine what has occurred over the past decade and ahalf in order to seek guidance for the work yet to bedone. Over this 15-year period, numerous organizations,initiatives, and individual synagogues have undertakenefforts to try to improve and renew congregationaleducation. Of these, 11 organizations and projects standout by virtue of the scope, seriousness, longevity and/orpotential impact of their endeavors. These constitute theprimary “learning pool” for this paper. These 11initiatives and organizations are:

1

Sett ing the Stage

continued >

Experiment in Congregational Education(ECE), including the RE-IMAGINE Project

www.eceonline.org

ECE’s mission is to strengthen synagogues as criticalcenters of Jewish life in North America by helpingthem to become Congregations of Learners and Self-Renewing Congregations. ECE works primarily withcohorts of congregations — often in partnership withlocal central agencies — supporting congregationsthroughout the process of transformation. The ECE’sRE-IMAGINE Project aims to help synagoguesrethink their approaches to religious education forchildren in K–7 age groups and their families (unlikeother ECE projects that encompass lifelong Jewishlearning). An ECE Consultant guides teams ofleaders from each of the participating synagoguesthrough a process to examine their community'svalues, dreams, and goals. After experiencing uniqueInternet-based virtual visits to innovative educationalprograms across the country, synagogue teams adaptaspects of those programs — or invent their own newmodels — to fit their own communities’ visions forJewish learning. Other focused ECE projects targetsystemic change in particular areas of congregationaleducation such as teacher recruitment andprofessional learning.

Goldring/Woldenberg Institute of SouthernJewish Life (ISJL) Education Program

www.isjl.org/education/index.html

Believing that every Jewish child deserves an excellentJewish education regardless of where they live or thesize of their religious school, the ISJL educationprogram serves its 13-state Southern region with:

1. A comprehensive curriculum, for grades pre-K–10 isdesigned to create a meaningful Jewish experienceand to link the Jewish children in our regionthrough a common body of Jewish knowledge.

2. A unique delivery system where each school is visited

by a traveling Education Fellow three times per yearto provide face to face programming and support.

3. The annual “Go and Teach” Education Conference,which brings our community of teachers togetherfor networking opportunities, learning from world-class Jewish educators, and providing a variety ofeducation program resources.

Jewish Reconstructionist Federation(“Next Generation” initiative)

www.jrf.org

The “Next Generation” initiative seeks to enhance thequality of and build connections and synergies amongthe full range of educational settings serving members ofReconstructionist congregations, including thesynagogues themselves and the movement's camp,youth, and Israel programs.

La’atid: Synagogues for the Future —Hartford

hartfordct.ujcfedweb.org/local_includes/downloads/26890.pdf

La’atid’s goal is to revitalize congregations/schools byengaging them in individual organizational changeprocesses which respond to each congregation’seducational vision, culture, and needs. Consultants, on-site, assist each congregation to advance toward itsspecific goals including integrating Jewish learning andengagement, supporting innovative, community-building experiences and creating meaningfuleducational and spiritual opportunities for children andadults. La’atid brings together a broad base ofprofessional and lay leadership to design and implementvisionary, experimental action plans by listening to needsand focusing on Torah study and leadershipdevelopment, both on-site and through communitycourses. Finally, La’atid also emphasizes school renewal,developing site-based professional learning communitiessteeped in relevant Jewish study and innovative teachingtechniques.

4

2

1

3

2 • A Lippman Kanfer Institute Working Paper

Legacy Heritage Innovation Projectwww.legacyheritage.org

The Legacy Heritage Innovation Project is a non-denominational initiative to support synagogues which arecreating new paradigms for congregational education,introducing systemic change through an integrated,family-based approach. It prioritizes projects which embedlearning in the rhythm of Jewish living on Shabbat andchagim, engage parents and children in consistent learningand practice, link the different dimensions of Jewish living(Torah, avodah, gemilut hasadim), and foster collaborationand synergy within congregational life.

Nurturing Excellence in SynagogueSchools (NESS) — Philadelphia

www.acaje.org/content/ness/NESSInitiative.shtml

The NESS Initiative combines a standardizedassessment of a school’s assets and limitations, teachertraining, leadership training for school directors, andtraining for lay leaders so that they can provide supportfor the schools’ needs. Teachers learn innovativeteaching strategies and meaningful Jewish content, aswell as techniques for integrating them in ways that willcapture the interest of today’s students. NESS alsoincorporates opportunities for teachers to practice thesenewly acquired strategies and skills under thesupervision of their trained school directors. In addition,two other components, curriculum development andparenting and family engagement, are developedthrough collaborative efforts of the lay leaders, theschool director, and the teachers.

Partnership for Effective Learning andInnovative Education (PELIE)www.pelie.org (under construction)

PELIE’s mission is to substantially improvecomplementary Jewish education in North America andto thereby transform the perception and funding of the

field. PELIE is doing this by identifying and supportingthe replication and adaptation of innovative models ofcomplementary education and educational changeinitiatives.

STAR (Synagogues:Transformation and Renewal)

www.starsynagogue.org

STAR works with synagogues to bridge the chasmbetween the American Jewish community and thesynagogue. Through philanthropic partnerships with thecountry’s leading Jewish foundations and federations,STAR designs and delivers synagogue-based initiatives,continuing educational opportunities for rabbis andregularly publishes its worldview on the compellingquestions facing American synagogues in the 21stcentury. Its commitment is to help find answers to 21stcentury challenges through innovative, research-based,well executed programming which respects tradition andvalues the freedom that people have to direct their ownJewish lives.

Synagogue 2000/3000www.synagogue3000.org

Synagogue 3000 seeks to make synagogues compellingmoral and spiritual centers for the 21st century. It hastwo main venues for its work: a leadership network anda synagogue studies research initiative. S3K LeadershipNetwork is a trailblazing group of synagogue innovatorson the cutting edge of congregational life. These arerabbis, cantors and artists across the spectrum of Jewishlife, including challenging and promising alternatives totraditional synagogue structures. The synagogue studiesresearch initiative supports the work with synagoguesby linking scholarship to the work in the field. S3Kconvenes consultations and collaborates withcongregational studies colleagues in other religioustraditions; and then disseminates the lessons learned soas to continue “raising the bar” for synagogueexcellence.

9

8

7

6

5


continued >

Union for Reform Judaism (Chai)urj.org/chai

The URJ CHAI Curriculum is designed to facilitatelifelong Jewish learning; it is intended for ReligiousSchool students grades 2-7, Religious School teachers,Education Committees, congregational Boards ofDirectors, parents of children ages 3-14, and familieswith children ages 7-14. CHAI responds to the needfor a dynamic balance between Torah ( Jewish literacy),avodah (competency), and g’milut chasadim (acts ofcaring and social justice) within congregationalschools.

United Synagogue of ConservativeJudaism (Framework for Excellence

and Project Etgar)uscj.org/Framework_for_Excell6432.html

uscj.org/Project_Etgar7134.html

The Framework for Excellence provides benchmarks tothe congregation including family education, activerabbinic and cantorial participation, and ongoingprofessional development for teachers and principals. Itworks to integrate elements of informal education andsystematically engage in family education. TheFramework schools start early, continue throughadolescence, and ultimately expand formal education tostudents through high school.

Project Etgar is a curriculum created especially for middleschool students (Grades 6-8) in Conservative synagoguesettings, builds on students’ prior knowledge andexperiences while promoting new learning. It empowersthem to articulate positive Jewish identities with pride,while adding breadth and depth to their understandingand observance of Judaism.

• • •Collectively, these organizations have worked withhundreds of congregations throughout North America.They have brought to bear a range of approaches todefining the goals, content, and processes for synagogueeducational change. By studying and synthesizing theirexperiences we can gain unique insight into theopportunities and challenges that await in the nextstages of the work of congregational educational change.This paper attempts to build such a bridge betweenwhat has been and what will be, what we have learnedand what may lie ahead.*

The content of the paper is derived from two sources:

1. a review of extensive material (published andunpublished) describing and in some cases assessingthe thinking and work of the organizations andinitiatives, much of it made available or suggested bythe initiatives themselves; and

2. interviews with principals of all of the projects usinga protocol aimed at eliciting their reflections on andlessons learned from their activity.

11

10


* In addition to the programs that serve as the basis for this paper, a number of other initiatives have been launched in the past several years that also seek to promotesynagogue educational change. Because they were not studied as part of this research, learnings from these programs are not included in the analysis that follows.However, these programs clearly represent important additional sources of insight into the goals, contents, and processes of congregational educational change thatshould be added to future learning endeavors. Two of the most important of the projects currently operating are:

Jewish Outreach Partnership (JOP)Jewish Outreach Partnership is a trans-denominational Philadelphia-based agency whose mission is to strengthen synagogues as vibrant, dynamic centers of Jewishlife. Through facilitated conversations, consultation, workshops, and educational resources, JOP provides multiple entry points for synagogue lay and professionalleaders to imagine and implement new strategies that promote systemic growth within their congregation. Current JOP initiatives include Reshet Networks forSynagogue Strength, Synaplex™ Philadelphia, the Tuttleman Leadership Institute, the Synagogue Mentorship Program, Making Connections Home Study Guides andOne Book One Jewish Community.

The Leadership Institute for Congregational School Educators (LICSE)A joint project of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion and the Jewish Theological Seminary, and funded by the UJA-Federation of New York, LICSEprepares a cohort of professional educational leaders of synagogues to lead vision-driven change in their congregational schools. The program uses a variety of learningactivities, including seminars, individual projects, peer learning and mentorships, to help participating educators build their leadership capacity, pedagogic skills, andJudaic knowledge. The program also engages lay leaders and rabbis as key partners in the change process.

The paper is organized around three questions:

1. What are the goals of congregational educationalchange? What can and should we hope to achievethrough these efforts and for whom? What visionsare guiding these endeavors?

2. What is the content of congregational educationchange? What is it that needs to be changed? Whatare the primary drivers of success in this endeavor?

3. What is the process for congregational educationalchange? What needs to be done, by whom, to makecongregational educational change efforts succeed?

These questions, and often the answers to them, are, ofcourse, closely related. In some cases, indeed, there is adeliberate congruence between an initiative’s vision forwhat a synagogue should be and the methods it employsto reach these goals. The intertwining of goals, content,and process may produce what on the one hand seemlike tautologies — e.g., that to create a synagogue inwhich more members are active Jewish learners (a goal),we should introduce more Jewish learning into thechange process (the means). But, in fact, this and othersimilar “tautologies” we will encounter actually representone of the most profound overarching learnings thatemerges from the accumulated experience of theseinitiatives: synagogue change is not a destination; it is ajourney in which what we do powerfully shapes what webecome. So, though we will use the categories of “goals,”“content,” and “process” to organize the materialpresented here, it should be clearly understood thatthese are three faces of a single reality.

The final section of the paper looks briefly to the future.What may be next for the work of congregationaleducational change? What challenges and opportunitieslie ahead? What issues need to be addressed if thesubstantial work already done and underway is to realizeits full potential? This section will, hopefully, set the

stage for the next phase of the overall project which theLippman Kanfer Institute and these initiatives haveundertaken: envisioning the next decade ofcongregational educational change.

The pages that follow offer synthetic reflections, notspecific assessments of or judgments about individualinitiatives. Some of the projects from which theproposed learnings are derived have been evaluated(generally with substantially positive findings about theirimpacts), but not all. Some have a long “track record”;others are virtually brand new. The change initiativesthemselves are quite varied in their foci, intensity, andmethods — some do not even focus specifically oneducation, but rather on synagogue life more broadly.What we are looking for are patterns of experience andlearnings that can illuminate broad directions forcongregational educational change going forward. Weshould not expect that each organization or initiativewill yield identical insights. But, we will also see theoutlines of a “collective wisdom” that is beginning toemerge from the accumulated experience of theseinitiatives and that can provide substantial guidance forfuture action.

What we offer here is, then, neither an analysis ofindividual projects nor a formula, but rather a set ofproposed findings and insights that (still somewhattentatively) seek to outline key parameters of amaturing, but not yet fully grown, field of endeavor.Operating at this level of abstraction, some context willbe lost. But, hopefully, we can compensate for this lossby drawing out principles of action that transcendindividual initiatives and can help guide future work in arange of settings.

In all that follows we try to keep in mind the startingpoint for this lessons learned process: a desire to see therevolution that has already begun continue with evengreater vigor and greater success as the next decade ofcongregational educational change unfolds.



2“”

The significance hereis the clear recognitionby nearly all of theinitiatives that at the endof the day their successshould be judged…by the impact they haveon individuals’ lives,not just on institutionsor programs.

The initiatives reviewed for this paper articulate theirgoals in a variety of ways. Nearly all of thesearticulations, however, focus on three “beneficiaries” ofthe change efforts: the learners, the educationalframework or process (“school”), and the synagogue as awhole. Some of the initiatives clearly make one of thesethe primary focus of their goal articulations; someinclude two or all three; and some are explicit in tryingto weave different foci together (e.g., changing howsynagogues operate in order to better inculcate Jewishidentity).

Within each category, the specific goal articulationsoffered have a great deal in common.With respect toimpact on individuals, for example, initiatives speakabout “enhancing the learning experience for youngpeople,” “having students become lifelong learners,”“increasing Jewish literacy,” “creating more engagementwith Jewish learning by more people more regularly,”“making Judaism a palpable force in the daily lives ofstudents,” and “making a positive difference in the livesof learners.” The significance here is the clear recognitionby nearly all of the initiatives that at the end of the daytheir success should be judged (at least in part) by theimpact they have on individuals’ lives, not just oninstitutions or programs. One of the issues we willaddress below is whether and how this “learner-centrism”is in fact reflected in the change processes themselves.

With respect to goals articulated in relation toeducational programs, there is an important distinctionamong the initiatives. For some, the major focus isstrengthening what has historically been the mostprominent educational framework that synagoguesmaintain — the Hebrew or religious “school.” Suchgoals are often stated simply and straightforwardly:

“help schools be better”; “change the schooling process”;“school is happier and more satisfying.” Somearticulations have more specific content, especiallyaround creating a common body of knowledge to belearned, or common goals and a shared language aroundstudent outcomes.

For other initiatives, though the language of “schooling”may not be explicitly repudiated, neither is “schoolimprovement” the primary framework for goalarticulation. One initiative speaks, e.g., about seeking tocreate “a new type of educational programming thataddresses and transcends the weaknesses of traditionalJewish education.” Another speaks of creating anappropriate framework for a “next generation” vision,that involves the integration of education, youthprogramming, camping, and Israel experiences. Theissue here is not insignificant. The initiatives appear tobe divided among those who see their goal to be one of“improving” the operation of synagogue schools andthose whose aim includes transforming them (“re-imagining the religious school”) into something that isquite different, perhaps not even a “school” as wegenerally think of it. (There is actually a third category,as we shall see in a moment: those that do not focusmuch on the education of children at all.)

The line between “improvement” and “transformation” isnot always clear, nor does it map directly onto the scopeand substance of the actual change efforts pursued.Some of the most ambitious and systematic initiativesreviewed do not explicitly challenge the structure of theschool as the basic unit for delivering quality Jewisheducational experiences for children and their families.Nonetheless, whether fundamental structural change isneeded in how education is delivered by congregations


2

Goals: What Are We Trying to Achieve?

continued >

or whether the existing structures can be sufficientlyimproved to provide a dramatically better educationalexperience is one of the issues on which initiatives thatotherwise overlap substantially in content and processappear to disagree.

There is another important sub-category of goalarticulations with respect to educational activity thatshould be noted: Several initiatives explicitly aim tosupport what might be called “under-resourced”congregations. These initiatives argue (implicitly, if notexplicitly) that more ambitious “transformational”objectives are often not relevant to synagogues that lackfull-time clergy and leadership personnel, trainedteachers, well-developed curricula, and other elementsthat larger or better-resourced congregations may take forgranted. A major goal for these initiatives is providing awell-designed educational framework — curriculum,educational resources, teacher training, consultativeassistance — that will enable any synagogue that wishesto do so (including, but not necessarily limited to, under-resourced ones) to provide a solid Jewish educationalexperience for its children and families.

As noted above, there is a third category of goalarticulations that is fully as prominent as those thatspeak about improving or transforming educationalframeworks and processes: those that aim at majorchanges in the synagogue as a whole. We deliberatelyincluded in the universe of initiatives being reviewedseveral that do not even claim education as theirprimary focus, though Jewish learning is certainly animportant part of their vision for synagogue life.However, even excluding these projects aimed atsynagogue transformation, it is striking that nearly all ofthe initiatives speak in some fashion about changes inthe synagogue as a whole as part or even the centerpieceof their visions.

For some, an important piece of this is a transformedrelationship of the school to the synagogue as a whole.They speak of seeking “an organic interconnection ofsynagogue and school, with the school seen as central tocongregational purpose and activities,” or a “sense of

community among congregations and schools.” Someenvision education in turn as a lever for wider change:“using Jewish learning as the pathway to congregationaltransformation”; “re-imagining the religious school, butwith the hope of congregational change.” And some havea vision for the synagogue that places Jewish learning andlearners at its core: creating “congregations of learners,” orbuilding “learning communities, where planning anddecision-making are rooted in Torah study.”

But the goal articulations are not limited to theeducational domain alone. Several initiatives speak ofseeking to create “systemic change”: “increase thecapacity of synagogue and school leaders to reflect and‘re-engineer,’ based on their own unique vision andmission”; build “a more systematic operation ofcongregations in order to better inculcate Jewish identityand promote engagement”; “get congregations to thinkdifferently, to respond differently to people and thecommunity.” These initiatives aim to affect synagoguesas a whole, “to increase participation and visibility,”“involve the disenfranchised and those ‘on the way out,’”“strengthen synagogues as vital centers of Jewish life inNorth America.” This is an ambitious vision forsynagogue transformation that extends far beyondimproving specific educational offerings (though thelatter may contribute to its realization).

Indeed, the relationship among the three different “goalclusters” we have identified — the goal of strengtheningJewish identity and affecting the lives of learnersthrough enhanced learning experiences, the goal ofimproving specific educational programs andperformance, and the goal of strengthening synagoguesas centers of Jewish learning and living — is itself aninteresting issue to consider. These represent threepotentially quite different takes on where our focus ofattention should be as we examine and seek to changethe condition of congregational education today. At thesame time, it is important to note that while the variousinitiatives do not all articulate their goals in all threecategories, nor place equal emphasis upon them, anumber do connect them, implicitly or explicitly, and inpractice they are deeply intertwined. In the concluding


section of the paper, we will look again at the distinctionamong these three ways to articulate the goals ofcongregational educational change efforts and at therelationships among them, and consider some of theissues these distinctions and relationships raise forsetting future directions.

Looked at through another lens, the various initiativeswe reviewed can be arrayed along a spectrum withrespect to their goals, from those that are narrowlyfocused on improving the educational process andexperience within specific frameworks (the synagogueschool, or even programs targeting specific populationswithin those frameworks such as teenagers) to those thatseek broad transformations in synagogue life as a whole,with changes in education an important component andbeneficiary of and sometimes lever for such widerchange. Yet it is also true that there is substantialoverlap among the initiatives, with many articulatingsubstantially similar goals for enriching the lives ofJewish learners, for improving educational programs andpractices, and for strengthening synagogues asinstitutions capable of engaging large numbers inrewarding Jewish learning. We would even suggest that

implicit in the variety of goal articulations is, perhaps, aunifying (or at least a bridging) vision for the work ofcongregational educational change that might be statedsomewhat as follows:

To provide those of all ages interested in Jewishlearning and experiences with attractive, highquality educational experiences in a variety of formsand contexts that will affect their lives, and to do soby helping synagogues become more visionary,reflective, integrated and disciplined about puttingin place the conditions necessary to be aninstitution and community where such Jewisheducation is done widely and well.

What nearly all of the initiatives reviewed would alsoagree is that achieving such change involves acombination of practical steps and deeper cultural andperhaps structural transformation. So, we turn next tothe question of what exactly must be changed in orderto achieve the goals these initiatives set, and then to thequestion of how to do this.



3“ ”For a number of theseinitiatives, the best answer to the question, “whatmust be changed?” is, in fact, “everything”.

Regardless of how one articulates the goals forcongregational educational change, the work itself iscomplex and challenging. Every initiative reviewedunderstands that there is no “silver bullet,” no singleintervention or lever that will achieve even a modestlyarticulated goal such as “making school more satisfying.”For a number of these initiatives, the best answer to thequestion, “what must be changed?” is, in fact,“everything.” They use watchwords like “systemicchange” and “alignment” to express the idea that notonly must multiple elements be changed, but that theymust be changed in a planful and coordinated fashion.At the same time, the various initiatives do highlight anumber of specific elements of congregations’ structures,cultures, and practices where change is seen as especiallycritical and impactful, whether this change isundertaken through an encompassing systemic processor a more measured and limited set of activities. Thesemay, therefore, serve as particularly useful leveragepoints on the positive side, or barriers on the negativeside, when change is being attempted.

Many of the most ambitious initiatives seekingcongregational educational change or synagoguetransformation more broadly argue that such changemust be both systemic (touching many aspects ofsynagogue life in a coordinated fashion) and vision-driven. They speak of “aligning all elements of theeducational system to work toward a common purpose(make a difference in the lives of learners),” or“changing the culture, vision, and structure, andaligning other elements — curriculum, training,leadership, budget — around the vision.” For some ofthese initiatives, the “vision” serves as the touchstone ofthe entire change process, and hence developing thatvision becomes the first and foremost task for a

congregation to undertake. For others, creating a visionis one (important) dimension of the process, but onethat can and should be carried out in conjunction withother changes that address other dimensions of theeducational process and of the synagogue’s structure,culture, and practice, or even as an outgrowth of aperiod of experimentation.

These are perhaps not unimportant nuances in terms ofthe process of change (see further below), but theyshould not obscure the fact that a significant number ofthe initiatives studied view far-reaching structural andcultural changes, guided by a vision and findingexpression in a range of new practices, as the best (oronly) way to achieve substantial change in theeducational life of synagogues and the attitudes andbehaviors of learners. In this context, there are a numberof characteristics of congregational culture that arefrequently singled out as targets for change:

• reflectiveness and the ability to be self-critical

• openness, willingness to innovate, experiment, andtake action

• the cultural norms around Jewish learning — where,when, and how it is done

• systemic thinking around issues such as governanceand engagement of constituencies

• marketing and communications

As we have seen, for several of the initiatives reviewed,improving Jewish education is one dimension of thegoal of strengthening synagogues and synagogue life,and the latter is seen as essential for the former. Bothare part of a comprehensive vision for congregations as


3

Content : What Must Be Changed?

continued >

“congregations of learners” (infused with Jewishlearning) on the one hand, and “learning (or self-renewing) congregations” (capable of ongoing growthand development) on the other. It is not surprising,therefore, that these initiatives focus a good portion oftheir attention on aspects of synagogue structure,culture, and behavior (such as governance, lay-professional collaboration, risk-taking, reflectiveness, awelcoming and engaging atmosphere, etc.) that do notat first glance seem to relate directly to Jewisheducation. In fact, the impact of these changes onspecifically educational outcomes is not yet well-established empirically. But, it is not only theambitious “systemic change” initiatives that cite suchfactors as leadership, communication, volunteerengagement, and other aspects of congregationalculture as important. Thus, the case for connectionappears to be strong enough to justify the prominencethat these areas for change have been given in the workof these initiatives.

At the same time, nearly all of the initiatives studied doaffirm that changing specific dimensions of theeducational environment, framework, and process is alsoindispensable to achieve their goals. This is especiallytrue for those initiatives that place the quality of thelearning experience for students (children and families)at the center of their goal articulations. A number ofinitiatives identify as targets for change:

• the school culture and the centrality of the school inthe congregation

• the quality of teaching — teachers’ skills, methods,and relationships with students and one another

• curriculum (although different initiatives havedifferent images of what curriculum shouldemphasize, how and by whom it should bedeveloped, and how individual schools should relateto the curriculum development process)

• congregational programming — more diverse,experiential, integrated, family-oriented, andShabbat-centered

As noted earlier, while some initiatives appear to focusheavily on one arena for intervention — e.g., curriculum— the reality is that all of the initiatives seek to bringmultiple levers to bear. Some do this more fully or moreexplicitly than others. Several strive to create what is ineffect a complete and fully aligned “package” of changes,to be pursued simultaneously or sequentially, in whichall aspects of the synagogue’s educational program —vision, curriculum, leadership, teaching, familyprogramming, lay support, evaluation — receiveattention. Others target their interventions morenarrowly, trying, as it were, to carve out spaces wherefirst-rate Jewish learning — strong, relevant content;well-prepared teachers; active learning approaches;connection to the lives of the learners and theenvironments in which they live — is taking place.Some focus directly on the religious school as still thesingle most important venue within the synagogue forJewish education. Others look explicitly to move beyondthe school and to stimulate educational activity thatconnects to and penetrates into wider populations anddimensions of the synagogue’s life.

These differences are not inconsequential. As with thearea of goals, there are real differences among theinitiatives with regard to what they seek to change thatcannot and should not be minimized. However, there isanother perspective that can be taken as well: As agroup the initiatives propose a set of targets for changeefforts that cover all of the key “commonplaces” thathave come to be seen as defining any educationalprocess. More important, the changes they recommendin these areas are generally well-delineated andfrequently are recommended in quite similar terms, evenif in different configurations, by multiple initiatives.This should increase our confidence that ifimplemented, these changes will in fact make adifference.

Two final comments on the “what” of congregationaleducational change:

As noted above, a number of initiatives have come tothe fore in recent years that focus on helping


congregations expand and transform their programming,both in and beyond the school framework. Althoughthese initiatives certainly call on synagogues to engagein reflection and planning, they tend to emphasize (atleast initially) a “go out and do it” attitude. This can beseen in a sense as a practical counterpoint to theemphasis on vision-driven systemic change that wenoted above as characteristic of several initiatives. Thesedo not constitute incompatible alternatives. Quite thecontrary. A number of initiatives seek in various ways toconnect the design and implementation of newprogramming to a larger vision for the synagogue and arecognition of the importance of systemic thinking.Some begin with the vision and ask congregations toexperiment with specific programmatic innovations thatwill begin to move them along the road to realization ofthat vision. Others encourage synagogues to initiate newprograms, but then to reflect on them and to begin toenvision and implement the wider changes necessary forthese new programs to thrive and expand. We can seethis as a contrast between more “deductive” and more“inductive” approaches to change. In both cases, theoutcome is intended to be both immediate, visiblechange that improves and enriches the Jewisheducational experience for one or more constituenciesand creation of a platform for ongoing expansion anddeepening of Jewish learning and communitythroughout the congregation. The fact that what look atfirst glance like alternative approaches — “vision-driven”vs. “program-driven” — are seen by their advocates as

complementary and compatible (as evidenced bycooperation between and among several of theinitiatives) is itself a highly positive indicator that a solidshared wisdom about the whats and hows ofcongregational educational change may be emerging.

Finally, it is worth noting what is generally not spokenabout by these initiatives when they address the contentof change. While many of the initiatives acknowledgethe larger backdrop against which synagogue life andcongregational education are playing out today, very fewdiscuss changes that might be pursued outside thecontext of individual synagogues. A few speak aboutbetter integration with other educational venues(especially camp) or reaching out more effectively to thelarger community. And, several express a desire to“change the conversation” about congregational andcomplementary Jewish education specifically and Jewisheducation generally. But, the vast bulk of attention theseinitiatives give is, perhaps inevitably, on changes to bemade within the synagogue — facilitated and supportedexternally, but internal to the life and work of thecongregation. By and large, these initiatives do notaddress explicitly the implications of looking at thecongregation as, at least potentially, part of a largereducating system (though they certainly do notdiscourage this). Nor do they detail the (additional)changes that might need to be made internally andexternally were this direction to be pursued. We willreturn to this issue in the concluding section.



4“”

…change is clearlyhappening. This reflectsthe fact that over thepast two decades theinitiatives reviewed havedeveloped quitesophisticated processesfor catalyzing andsupporting change.

All change is difficult. Changing education isnotoriously difficult (viz. the often unhappy history ofeducational reform). Changing education in synagogues— institutions that are both voluntary and religious —is perhaps in the same league as quitting smoking: notimpossible, but damned difficult. And yet, such changeis clearly happening. This reflects the fact that over thepast two decades the initiatives reviewed have developedquite sophisticated processes for catalyzing andsupporting change.

These processes are hardly identical. This is notsurprising given the differences in goals and in the scopeand scale of change being sought among the initiatives.The differences in approach reflect differences ofviewpoint, some pragmatic, some philosophical,concerning what strategies and tactics work best forspecific purposes. They also reflect to an extent tensionsthat may be inherent in any guided change process, e.g.,between “customization” and “curricularization,” thatshow up not only among initiatives, but within them aswell.

Nonetheless, there are a number of themes that cutacross the approaches taken and the learnings reportedby the various initiatives. Though constituting less thana “formula” or “recipe” for how to implementcongregational educational change, they clearly provideextensive guidance on what to do, what not to do, andwhat to expect. Together, they bespeak a sophisticatedunderstanding of what successful change requires andentails.

Substantial change takes time and does not proceedsmoothly. Deep change is hard work. The process istime-consuming, creating tensions that need to bemanaged between the need for process and the desirefor visible results, and between the time needed to rootchange and how long one can maintain enthusiasm.Change has its own rhythms; it’s not a straight line.Adoption will always be uneven, and luck andidiosyncratic events play a role. The process is neverfinished.

Take action and be ambitious. Perhaps precisely becausechange is difficult, “just doing it” is important.Congregations need to “think big and act boldly.”Action and results are a window into reflection andvision. Be willing to experiment and don’t setexpectations too low. Change is messy, and attemptingto proceed at a “moderate” pace may produce the worstof both worlds (drawn-out process, few visible results).

In a systemic approach to change, vision, action, reflection,and conversation feed off one another to drive the processforward. Combining these elements is the key to asuccessful change process. A guiding vision is important,but so is creating facts on the ground. Envisioning whatmight be and encountering concrete examples of “the

3

2

1


4

Process: How Do We Make Change?

continued >

Emerald City” provide both inspiration and impetus totry to close the gap between the ideal and the currentreality. New programs and activities, even at early stagesin the change process, in turn help people see what isneeded and possible more clearly and can be used aslevers to drive further and deeper change throughcapacity-building and referral back to the vision.Conversation at every stage is critical, as long as it ispurposive and linked back to the vision and Jewishvalues. At its best, this becomes a spiraling process ofcontinuous learning and growth, with each elementfeeding the others.

Getting (the right) people engaged and empowering them iscritical. Bring a broad-based group of leaders together todo the planning and make sure they are listening to thecommunity. Respond to what’s coming from thecongregation. Find the “Nachshons” and cultivate them tolead. Keep moving people to higher levels of engagement.Rabbis, parents, and educators are key stakeholders in anychange effort. They need to be engaged directly andsometimes separately if the process is to work. Lay leadersare also key. Their personal growth is often tied to and aspur for institutional growth. Getting and keepingstakeholders — those driving the change process,congregational leadership, and those affected by change— on the same page is an ongoing challenge. So too iskeeping those most involved from burning out.Leadership transitions pose a challenge as well. Teachersneed particular attention. They should be included earlyon and given the professional development and supportthey need to work in new ways.

The change process is powered by and largely aboutlearning. Learning is taking place on multiple levelsthroughout these change initiatives: learning aboutJewish education, the congregation, leadership, process,people, the relevance of Jewish texts. Jewish learningplays a unique role, modeling the outcomes beingsought, helping participants to grow Jewishly (and feel

the satisfaction of doing so), and anchoringconversations in Jewish values.

Quality outside assistance can help the processtremendously. Consultants, facilitators, mentors, andevaluators can provide invaluable guidance and supportfor many aspects of the process. But, they need to begood at what they do — and there are too few goodconsultants currently available. Building a relationship oftrust is critical. Consultants and mentors need to be anactive but not overbearing presence, and if more thanone is involved in different aspects of an initiative, towork as a team. Calibrating the right type and amountof support to provide may be a challenge. Ideally, thereshould be a balance between providing ongoing supportand preparing a synagogue to take charge of the changeprocess itself. The most effective outside support, itwould appear, is aimed both at supplying the perspective(and occasionally mediating the conflicts) that insidershave difficulty achieving and at building internalcapacity in the synagogue.

Because change is complex, a multi-pronged support system isneeded. While some congregations have been able tomake substantial change in their educational programs ontheir own, most appear to require some type of outsideassistance in order to initiate and negotiate a seriouschange process successfully. Even for apparentlystraightforward changes (such as introducing a newcurriculum), and certainly for multi-dimensional systemicchange, support needs to come in multiple forms:assessment, tools, training, site visits, networking,inspiration. It needs to be both individualized (targeted atthe specific congregation and often at sub-groups orindividuals within the synagogue) and collective (bringingthe congregation and change-makers into relationshipwith others similarly engaged). Conferences, classes,formalized curricula, publications and other resources,consultation, communities of practice, networking(including online) all play a role and can be deployed in

7

6

5

4


various combinations. Support should be available fromthe outset and ideally would be ongoing even beyond theactive phase of a change initiative. However, thoseproviding support also need to give congregations roomto take ownership of their own change and adapt it totheir needs. There is a potential tension between“turnkey” support (“we’ll give you everything you need”)and empowering synagogues to pursue their owndirections and develop their own resources.

Financial resources can help “lubricate” change. All changerequires resources, and new funding, whether internallyor externally generated, can certainly help to make thechange pathway smoother. A challenge is to ensure thatnew funds help to create the infra-structure forsustainable change, not just new short-term programs. Ifmore funding were available to the change initiativesthemselves, their ability to support congregations intheir processes could be significantly strengthened.

• • •

These eight themes certainly do not exhaust thelearnings about the change process from the initiativesreviewed. But, they demonstrate that the current state-of-the-art with respect to congregational educationalchange is quite sophisticated, and that there issubstantial agreement among the initiatives about therequisites (or, at least, the desiderata) for successfulchange.

In practice, there are differences in how these principlesare implemented. Even initiatives that aim to promote“systemic” change start in different places and employdifferent tools: Some begin with broad visioning, andthen move to experiments. Some begin with actionprojects that aim to be systemic in microcosm, and thentry to use these to generate deeper reflection aboutlarger issues. Some tackle multiple dimensions of thechange process (visioning, leadership development,professional training, curricular change) almostsimultaneously. Others address these sequentially. Some

provide highly explicit processes for synagogues tofollow; others are looser. Some place great emphasis ongatherings of participating congregations. Others focusmore resources on intensive consultation.

As we have noted throughout, there are also “tensions”and “tradeoffs” built into the entire change processbetween:

• “customization” and “curricularization,”

• “turnkey” support and an emphasis on process,

• fostering autonomy and maintaining an ongoingsupport structure,

• concentrating on specific elements (curriculum,teaching, leadership) and seeking broad systemicand cultural change,

• deliberative visioning/planning and quick actionsteps/new programs.

These are best seen not as either/or propositions, butrather as “eilu v’eilu” options with valid rationales forboth alternatives. And, indeed, though some initiativesclearly incline toward one end or the other of thesetensions in their practice, a number work hard and withsome success to embrace both — to create a balance orsynthesis, rather than simply a trade-off.

The differences among the initiatives with regard tohow best to generate and support change are notunimportant, and there is room for a great deal ofadditional sharing and learning about what works best,with whom, for what purposes, under whatcircumstances. But, these realities should not obscureanother: much has been learned and much agreed upon,perhaps enough to allow us to say (with some caution)that we now know how at least to start congregationson the road to substantially improving or eventransforming their educational programs, practices,performance, and culture. With this achievement as thebackdrop, we can turn to the final question we willexplore: Where does the work of congregationaleducational change go from here?

8


5“”By coming together to sharelearnings and envision futuredirections, these initiatives havethe potential to greatly acceleratethe endeavor of congregationaleducational change as a whole,and perhaps to give it some new direction.


5

The Future: What L ies Ahead?


This is a moment when congregational education seemspoised to take on new prominence on the agenda ofNorth American Jewish education and Jewishcommunal life. Without rehearsing all the reasons orindicators of why this may be so — and withoutdetailing all the potential pitfalls that could derail thisphenomenon — it may suffice to say that for those whoare already committed to strengthening this endeavor,this is a time of opportunity. This is especially so for theorganizations and initiatives involved in this project,who have both helped materially to shape the currentenvironment and who are in a position to gainadditional support for their work.

The opportunity, however, may well extend beyond thedevelopment of each individual initiative. The premise ofthis project is that this is indeed the case. By comingtogether to share learnings and envision future directions,these initiatives have the potential to greatly acceleratethe endeavor of congregational educational change as awhole, and perhaps to give it some new direction. If thisis to happen, we would suggest that there are a numberof questions growing out of the experience of the pasttwo decades and the learning derived therefrom that arenow ripe to be addressed. These questions form, ineffect, a learning and planning agenda for the next stagesof the work of congregational educational change — anagenda that we now have the possibility of pursuingcollaboratively as well as individually.

Here are 10 questions that might be part of this agenda:

How can processes that are almost inevitablyincremental in practice (even when guided by a “bigvision”) be a lever for fundamental and systemic change?Thus far most of the changes that have beenimplemented at the congregational level, regardless ofwhich initiative they grow out of, seem relativelymodest, programmatic, and incremental. (There aresome notable exceptions, congregations that have madefar-reaching changes and that have sustained amomentum for ongoing change over a considerablenumber of years.) Despite injunctions to “think boldly”and some ambitious visions, transforming a wholecongregation or even a whole “school” appears verydifficult indeed (which may be why some of theinitiatives do not even attempt it). What more can wedo, if more is needed, to help congregations achievedeep and fundamental change in how they do Jewishlearning? Is this just a matter of time and persistence, ordo new approaches need to be injected into thecongregation on a sustained basis, so that a culturereceptive to systemic change is created? If the former,how do we give more impetus to efforts to overcome the“regularities” of congregational life that appear toconstrain change? If the latter, what might these newapproaches be?

1

continued >


How do we balance (or synthesize) a desire to elevatecongregations’ sights, raise their standards for whatconstitutes “good” Jewish learning, and increase theiraccountability for performance (all necessary, perhaps, ifJewish learning is really to be satisfying andtransformative for individuals) with a recognition ofcongregations’ fundamental autonomy and their need to“own” whatever changes they make? Is there some mixof advocacy, standard-setting, tools and resources, andsupports that can propel congregations along a fastertrajectory of improvement?

How can we more effectively incorporate learners’ voicesin the change processes? To date, this has not seemed tobe a prominent feature of most of the change initiatives— though some do encourage the synagogues they workwith to seek out such information. We are livingincreasingly in an age of not only consumer choice, butco-production of experiences and a demand forcustomization. How do we incorporate this reality intochange processes that are almost inevitably going to bedriven by a relatively small group of leaders. Are theretechniques to be used beyond town meetings and focusgroups?

Can we see today’s initiatives — different as they are —as a collection of valid options for synagogues that are atdifferent places in terms of their visions, histories, andcapabilities? If we are prepared to adopt this view, a)how do we help congregations to determine where theyare and what initiative will best fit with their currentsituation and aspirations; b) how do we make moreoptions actually available to congregations, including thefinancial support necessary to pursue them (this maymean getting funders to re-think how they “steer”congregations toward particular initiatives); and c) howdo we encourage congregations to move in a thoughtfulway along a continuum of development that might

include involvement with multiple initiatives(simultaneously or over time)? (We know that there arecongregations today that participate in multipleinitiatives; is this being coordinated in any fashion?)

How can the congregational educational changeinitiatives collaborate more effectively in general? (Somecollaboration already takes place, and many initiativesacknowledge learning from others.) In what areas and inwhat ways is greater cooperation desirable and feasible?Should there be a framework for regular conversationand knowledge sharing? Is developing and maintaininga common bank of materials and resources possible andadvisable? To what extent does competition for fundingand attention inhibit greater cooperation?

How can we help congregations take better advantage ofadditional modes and settings for Jewish learning? E.g.,while a number of the initiatives make use of technologythemselves, there is generally little emphasis on helpingcongregations make better use of technology forexpanding Jewish learning. Similarly, relatively littleattention (with some exceptions) seems to be given tohelping congregations think through their relationshipswith other educational providers and experiencesavailable outside the congregation itself. At a time when“silo linking” is a major theme in thinking about how toexpand and maximize educational impact, should thisplay a more prominent role in the change initiatives?Should these initiatives be helping synagogues rethinktheir educational roles to embrace “educationalstewardship” more explicitly?

Should the change initiatives put greater emphasis onencouraging/helping congregations to engagepopulations currently not being served? Again, with afew exceptions, almost all of the initiatives focus onhelping congregations do better “inreach.” Should more

7

6

5

4

3

2


emphasis on “outreach” be added (or should this be leftto other organizations that do focus on this area)?

How should congregational educational changeinitiatives relate themselves to non-synagogue providersof “complementary” education? There is some anecdotalevidence that the number of children enrolled in non-synagogue based complementary education programs isgrowing. Should congregational educational changeinitiatives seek to work with such programs (at least onealready does)? How would this affect their commitmentto strengthening synagogue life? Is there a potentialtension between the goal of strengthening synagoguesqua synagogues and the goals of creating bettereducational programs and enriching the experience oflearners?

How do we develop the cadre of personnel needed tocarry forward and expand the work of congregationaleducational change (both synagogue leadership andthose who work with them)? Who will recruit, prepareand develop these change agents and facilitators? Whowill they work for? Can we agree on the skills and

dispositions needed? Do we need to design a different“delivery system” for providing consultation, training,and support in order for this work to scale effectivelyand efficiently? Is this best done locally, nationally?

How do we enhance accountability, evaluation, andlearning with respect to these initiatives? What are weprepared to hold ourselves accountable for and towhom? How can we track progress and measure resultsmore effectively? (Evaluation practices and sharing ofevaluation materials vary widely among the initiatives.)What more do we need to learn in order to make ourefforts more effective? How can we go about learningthis?

• • •

Undoubtedly, there are other questions that could beadded to this list (and some that might be dropped).What we hope is that posing these questions alongsidethe portrait we have tried to draw of these initiativestoday underscores that we are in the middle of a journey.Significant progress has already been made, but there isstill plenty of room to move forward. The next steps inthe journey are ready to be taken.

10

9

8

Transforming Congregational Education: Lessons Learned and Questions for the Future

Documents

Transcript of Transforming Congregational Education: Lessons Learned and Questions for the Future