10
This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University] On: 19 December 2014, At: 18:18 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Jewish Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujje20 Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students Dafna Ross Published online: 23 Aug 2006. To cite this article: Dafna Ross (2004) Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students, Journal of Jewish Education, 70:1-2, 51-59, DOI: 10.1080/0021624040700108 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0021624040700108 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

  • Upload
    dafna

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]On: 19 December 2014, At: 18:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Jewish EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujje20

Engaging Students’ Voices in theJewish Day School: Perspectivesof Learning Disabled StudentsDafna RossPublished online: 23 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Dafna Ross (2004) Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School:Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students, Journal of Jewish Education, 70:1-2, 51-59,DOI: 10.1080/0021624040700108

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0021624040700108

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

ENGAGING STUDENTS' VOICES IN THE JEWISH DA Y SCHOOL 51

Engaging Students' Voices in the Jewish Day School:Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

Dafna Ross

Dafna Ross is a doctoral student at York University and a special education consultant.

Introduction

It makes sense to attend to ways in which children actively shape their contextsand begin to model their worlds and the way in which we, in turn, shape thepossibilities available for learners (Lincoln, 1995, p. 89).

Educators and researchers from both the secular and Jewish education systems are unitedin advocating for the need to restructure some aspects of educational practice (Bunch & Valeo,1997; Woocher, 1995). In recent years, there has been a growing trend toward including teachers'voices in these efforts to enlist insider knowledge from their classrooms (Nias & Aspinwall,1995); yet the main consumer's voice, that of the students, is largely missing. We mostly addressstudents as passive beneficiaries of such efforts, rather than including their voices in the search forbetter practices.

This paper focuses on the perceptions of four students with learning disabilities regardingtheir daily experiences within a Jewish day school. The paper grew out of a larger research studythat was conducted as part of the requirement of the completion for the degree of Master ofEducation.1 It joins current efforts that aim to fill the gaps in research in Jewish education andspecial education (Fishman, 1994) while incorporating students' voices. The quality, depth andsignificant insights that the students in this study expressed have led me, as a Ph.D. candidate, tobecome a strong advocate of incorporating students' voices in educational research. Although Iwas the students' teacher in the past and thought I knew them well, the meaning-making processesevidenced in their responses during this research surprised me greatly. It also helped metremendously in shaping and prioritizing my new position as coordinator of student supportservices for the three campuses of the Shalom2 school, equipping me with invaluable knowledge.

I believe that this topic is worthy of consideration in any educational context, as we beginto view students as partners in their education. The topic is especially important for the Jewishcommunity for it evolves from, and addresses its own special and unique context by bringingforward, the missing voices of students. It addresses an area that has received minimal attention inresearch and practice. In the following sections, I briefly review the literature, describe the studydesign, present a sample of the students' perspectives and discuss common themes. I concludewith recommendations for the practice of teaching in Jewish day schools and implications forfuture research.

Literature ReviewConceptually, my work operates from a constructivist theoretical framework, whereby

knowledge is socially negotiated and personally significant (Lincoln, 1995; Johnston & Nicholls,1995). Furthermore I have advocated the adoption of a constructivist orientation when attendingto students' voices. Within this theoretical framework, perception and perspective are viewed assubjective multiple realities that are grounded in their specific contexts rather than a singleultimate reality. Students' perspectives are viewed as the sum of their knowledge, views, feelings,concepts and general stands. Hence, the research focus is on uncovering the meaning-making

1 Ross, D. (2000). Jewish education for all — how? The perspectives of students with special needs on their schoolexperiences. Unpublished research paper.

2 Pseudonym. Similarly, pseudonyms (Ron, Dan, Avi, and Sara) were used to protect the students' identities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

18 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 3: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

52 JOURNAL OF JEWISH EDUCATION

process (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Students within this orientation are viewed as activeparticipants in constructing their knowledge, and the good teacher is viewed as the facilitator andprovider of tools for knowledge construction.

The field of educational research is full of data about students as passive beneficiaries.However, students' active voices are still largely unexplored (Phelan, Davidson & Cao, 1992).Holmes (1998) argues that this lack of attention derives from old notions whereby children areconceived as passive receivers of knowledge whose opinions need not be considered. Johnstonand Nicholls (1995) add that this lack of interest in students is also related to a hierarchy ofknowledge in which the students' personal knowledge is seen as valueless, whereas the knowledgepossessed by authorities is the most valuable commodity. Dahl (1995) suggests that the shifttoward soliciting students' voices evolved from a view of students as active constructors ofknowledge.3 Johnston and Nicholls (1995) argue that if educators are instructed to start teachingwhere the learner is, there is a concomitant need to actively reveal information from students' ownvoices. Dahl (1995) explains that the concept of voice within this orientation refers to a deepermeaning and perspective of the learners, and also includes the nuances connected to expressionwhile reflecting multiple personal realities.

The few studies that have investigated student perspectives (Dychas, et. al., 1996;Gutterman, 1995; Klingner, Vaughan, Schumm, Cohen & Forgan, 1998; Jenkins & Heinen, 1989;Phelan, Davidson & Cao, 1992) have revealed that students possess valuable insights, definitebeliefs, and thoughtful information regarding their school experiences. Gutterman's study (1995),for example, shows that students' views do not always coincide with those of their teachers and,therefore, there is a need to include students' views in any educational search. However, Bunchand Valeo (1997) warn us that though student perspectives can provide invaluable guidance, theyshould be interpreted within the knowledge of the setting in which they were conducted.

Both the special education community and the general education community are callingfor reconceptualizing, rethinking, and reevaluating current practices in order to promote equity andquality education for all (Lupart, et. al., 1996). Overall, this literature (Lupart, et. al., 1996;Stainback & Stainback, 1996; Bunch & Valeo, 1997) identifies child-centered programs,responsive and flexible curricula, shared agendas, positive teacher attitude, and a supportiveclassroom as universal facilitators of learning. Similarly, it argues that successful processes oflearning are not limited to special-needs students but are the same for all students.

Advocates for Jewish education (Cohen, Kress & Elias, 2002; Schick, 2000; Solomon,1984; Woocher, 1995) appear to be united with advocates of inclusion (Bunch & Valeo, 1997;Stainback & Stainback, 1996) in their goals of fostering a child's sense of belonging to thecommunity, positive perceptions of self, and a need for educators and lay people to attend to andaddress the social-emotional domain within the classroom. In practice, however, the Jewisheducation system offers contradictory messages regarding inclusion. On the one hand it promotesidentity, community, and cultural belonging to Jewish heritage (Woocher, 1995), while on theother hand it presents a challenging academic program that in the past has not welcomed studentswith learning difficulties (Fishman, 1994; Sarna, 1998). Despite a constant call for research in theJewish education system (Sarna, 1998), relatively little empirical work has focused on issuesinside the Jewish classroom, and even less has focused on special education or inclusion(Fishman, 1994). Furthermore, little attention has been given to the exploration of students'perceptions of both general education and Jev/ish day schools.

This study, in a very preliminary way, aims to begin to fill some of the gaps in theexisting research on Jewish special education by exploring the perceptions of special-needsstudents of their experiences within the Jewish day school.

3 The 1995 issue of "Theory into Practice," devoted to learning from students' voices, is an indication for this growinginterest (Shultz & Cook-Sather, 2001).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

18 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 4: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

ENGAGING STUDENTS' VOICES IN THE JEWISH DAY SCHOOL 53

MethodologyThe study took place at The Shalom School, a Conservative Jewish day school

(approximately 600 students from J.K. to grade eight) in metropolitan Toronto. Approximately15% of the student body receives academic support for part of the day or week, inside and outsidethe classroom. The students receiving support are those who have been identified with mildlearning difficulties.

The study used a qualitative research design based on the constant comparative method—using in-depth, open-ended, semi-structured interviews as the primary method for data collectionand analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Although I developed a preplanned interview guide, Ifollowed the students' lead in adding topics of importance during individual interviews. Emergentdata were analysed concurrently and guided a further exploration of students' views in a follow-upfocus-group interview. This proved to be a useful strategy, for, as Bogdan and Biklen suggest,"young people are often stimulated to talk more expansively when others of their age join them"(1998, p. 100). The individual interviews were about one hour in length, and the group interviewwas two hours. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. I collectedsupplementary data, descriptive and reflective, in field notes during and after the interviews. Thisyielded useful information that could not have been captured on tape. I gave the students time toreview and correct the transcripts of their respective interviews to ensure that their perspectiveshad been captured accurately. Data analysis began concurrently with data collection. A line-by-line analysis yielded common themes that then constituted the coding categories andsubcategories.

The participants included four grade-eight students with learning difficulties identifiedthrough formal assessments. Since my objective was to explore the experiences of exceptionalstudents within a Jewish day school, I made an effort to select a representative sample of thepopulation receiving support, in relation, for example, to factors such as male-to-female ratio andtype of exceptionality. Ron, a motivated and conscientious 14-year-old boy, was identified ingrade two as having language processing difficulties. Avi, a sensitive 13-year-old boy, had somesocial-emotional issues that made it difficult for him to perform academically. Dan, also 13 yearsold, was a sociable boy who had a nonverbal learning disability, as well as hearing and visionimpairments. Sara was a seriously dedicated 14-year-old girl who struggled with comprehensionand expression difficulties. Each had attended Jewish day schools for ten years.

It is important to recognise the limitations and potential biases that were embedded in thisstudy. I was the elementary resource teacher in the school and taught the students in grades twothrough five. Although I believe that my position as their past special education teacher gave memany advantages in gaining their trust, acceptance and understanding, it also held some potentialbiases. I also recognise the fact that the small number of participants and their specific learningdisabilities cannot be representative of either all students in Jewish day schools or of all thedifferent disabilities students may have. Being aware of these factors encouraged me to takeadded caution when I composed the questions, conducted the interviews and analysed the results.

FindingsThe qualitative data analysis resulted in five major categories that portrayed the students'

perceptions of their school experiences: perception of self, perception of teachers and teaching,perception of the nature and structure of the program, perception of support, and overallperception of Jewish day school experiences.4

Perception of SelfAll four students reported on current positive perceptions of self that they attributed to

academic improvement, growth in their social-emotional skills, and their supportive environment;however, when they recalled earlier experiences in school they articulated a negative self-

4 For full manuscript, see Ross, 2000.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

18 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 5: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

54 JOURNAL OF JEWISH EDUCATION

perception. For instance, Sara said, "I wasn't really good.... I couldn't read Hebrew and couldn'tunderstand the teacher." Avi commented, "I was scared.... I was clueless.... I had no clue whatthey were talking about in class. We were, or at least I was, a step behind the class. Eventually Ididn't care." Dan explained, "I got a lot of anger against myself. I tried but I couldn't, andnobody understood it. She [the teacher] used to yell at me when I needed help, because she saidthat we went over all the questions before."

Just as the students' low self-perceptions were linked to their negative experiences, amore positive perception of self and a growth in self-esteem emerged as the students met withsuccessful learning experiences. As Avi said, "I got help from teachers and I improved my marks.I showed them that I could do better. Now I'm mostly at class level." Dan was very blunt instating, "I was an idiot. I'm still an idiot but now I'm an idiot with better marks, because I knowwhat to do."

The students acknowledged their parents' and friends' roles in enhancing their positiveself-perception. Sara said, "They [my parents] encouraged me to continue." Dan indicated, "Itwas important for my parents that I will succeed and they helped me a lot." Commenting on therole of friends, Ron said, "They helped me to feel good." Avi asserted, "I stayed in the schoolbecause of my friends."

Applied to the Jewish context, several studies (Cohen, 1995; Shluker, 1998) haveidentified parental involvement as a crucial factor impacting on students. Similarly, JESNA'sTask Force on Jewish Day School Viability and Vitality indicated a call for educators to facilitateand enhance peer interaction (Yankowitz, 1999). Sara's comments captured the picture of generalgrowth that emerged when she said, "I feel that I have a positive attitude and it's much easier thisway... because I'm on top of my work and if I don't understand, I ask or read over my notes."

Perception of Teachers and TeachingTo my surprise, this category emerged as a major theme, as all students passionately

linked most of their attitudes and experiences of learning to their contact with, and view of,teachers. Ron summed up the critical role attributed to teachers by saying, "Everything dependson the teacher... Good teachers have helped me a lot, and bad teachers did the opposite." Dan,another participant, identified four groups of teachers and described them using a beautifulanalogy to the Jewish holiday Succot, in which he compared the four festival plant species to fourgroups of teachers:

> Group A were not good and didn't care. They were teachers that didn'thave a lot of faith in what you'd do. They brushed you off and figured thatyou wanted to take the easy way out.... As long as the words came out oftheir mouths, they figured that they had done their job.

> Group B, the "power trip" teachers...good teachers but not nice.... Theyused their power in a very negative way. These teachers feelpowerful...without thinking about us, though they can still teach and keepthe class under control.

> Group C, nice teachers but not good teachers. They are people you cancommunicate with. They are really nice but they are awful teachers. Theydon't know how to teach the material or to keep control of the class.

> Group D are nice teachers that help. There were few teachers that wereboth nice and were good teachers.

A close examination of Dan's comments reveals an important distinction betweenpositive and negative forms of attitudes and skills. That is, in his view an effective teacherpossesses both a positive attitude and sound teaching skills.

The students' common use of the word "approach" (in its various forms) suggests theyhad strong views about who is likely to be a teacher with whom students will feel comfortable. AsDan put it, "I will not approach teachers that are good but not nice." For Sara, "...I don't really

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

18 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 6: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

ENGAGING STUDENTS' VOICES IN THE JEWISH DAY SCHOOL 55

like his way. He's sort of hard to approach," and for Avi, "Teachers need to be able to approachyou.... They don't understand a way of getting through to us." In these statements, the studentspointed to a cyclical relationship between teachers' acceptance and student confidence inapproaching them.

Many of the students' direct or indirect comments suggest they perceived and interpretedpositive attitude, respect and interest to be a matter of "care"—whether in its negative form, "Theydon't care" (Avi), or in its positive form, "He cared about us" (Sara). Sara, who was particularlysensitive to the issue of caring, asserted, "It [the differences in teachers] all depends if the teachercares enough." In summarising this category, Ron captured the group's view on the keyingredients for the ideal teacher: "The most important thing is patience, then good people skills,and then that they will know and be able to explain the material well."

Perception of the Nature and Structure of the ProgramThe process of data analysis and the search for common themes were especially long and

complex in this category. At first glance, it appeared that although the students raised many finepoints, they were mostly unrelated and did not connect with one another. As I became moreimmersed in data analysis, it became clear that the common characteristic here was the data's non-relatedness. In other words, just as the content of the students' comments suggested an overloadof details, so they overloaded me with details. The students perceived their program as anoverwhelming set of unrelated topics (i.e. many subjects, much work, busy schedule, activities,work, etc.). As a result, the structure of their comments fits with a traditional view of thecurriculum in which students are seen as accumulating unrelated facts (Solomon, 1984; Stainback& Stainback, 1996;Udvari-Solner, 1996).

Sara explained, "The fact that we had all the regular English subjects then the extraHebrew to learn...sort of makes it harder, and you have less time in your day to focus on certainthings and you can't put as much time on a subject." Dan said, "It's unbelievable pressure...atremendous amount of work. All they [the teachers] care about is the subject and to teach somuch, and then you get a project from one teacher and a test from another and another.... That'sthe biggest problem. We are always crunched! We end up with two tests on the same day. Wedon't know which one is more important and which one to study for." Ron summarized histhoughts by saying, "They simply don't care about us. They just care about what they teach."

These insightful comments, which repeated themselves in the discussion about lack ofcaring, indicate that the students perceived the teachers' focus on content as a reflection of teachercare about the curriculum and, hence, a lack of care about them. The overall view of thesecomments accords with Jewish educators (Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1997; Fishman, 1994; Solomon,1984), who have recognised the ambiguity and complexity of current day school programs to be ofmajor concern and in immediate need of restructuring.

Perception of SupportThis category emerged as the students described their experiences and perceptions of the

school's support system. Struggling to express in what way and how support helps him, Avicaptured the group's view with a "train metaphor." He said, "Let's say that there is a train. Okay?If someone falls back on another, they [the support personnel] will push them back up; because ifthe teacher stops and explains well to a kid, he doesn't fall behind."

The verb "push" was commonly used by all students. While it seems to illustrate manycharacteristics of what support meant to the students (help, motivation, instruction, etc.), it alsoillustrated the extent to which support was perceived to be crucial for them. For example Ronsaid, "Without it, I would not have been here today." Dan elaborated, "A good teacher that helps,she will push you and then, just then, when you start to get good marks, then you will be able topush yourself to get better marks.... It is hard to learn on your own, so that's why support isimportant."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

18 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 7: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

56 JOURNAL OF JEWISH EDUCATION

Overall Perceptions of Jewish Day School ExperiencesThis category emerged as the students discussed their overall perceptions after ten years

of attending a Jewish day school. They acknowledged the importance and impact of the school,and viewed Judaic studies knowledge, social interactions with their Jewish age-mates, and soundpreparation for bar/bat mitzvah and high school to be among its most beneficial elements. In asimilar view, quantitative studies reviewed by Cohen (1995) and Shluker (1998) indicate a strongand positive impact of Jewish day school education on the development of Jewish identity.Despite the overall similarities between students' views, my qualitative study and prior bodies ofresearch, differences of methodological approaches should be noted. The qualitative approachused in my study enabled students to express their opinions freely. For example, when I askedthem questions such as, "What made you stay, despite the difficulties that you encountered?" or,"Would you recommend to your cousin [who has similar difficulties] to come to the same school?Why?" they responded as follows:

Ron: My experience was very good.... Basically I have been friends with people forten years. It was hard at the school sometimes, especially with some teachersand some lessons, but it [the school] prepared me well for my bar mitzvah andfor CHAT [the Jewish high school] and made me feel comfortable.... It [theschool] gave me more knowledge about being Jewish, and I think it's importantfor me.... I'd say to him [his cousin] to come to this school, but if you are notdoing well at all, I would leave; but if he is having a little difficulty I would saystay here, because the teachers can always help you for the little filler that youneed help with.

Avi: I felt that I belonged here. I'm more familiar with all the Jewish stuff because Iwent to a Jewish school all my life...and I know a lot about Judaism, so I'm notignorant about it...so I can know more about myself.... I think it's important,because I can make a choice, to be religious, without being ignorant.... I thinkthat the school needs to improve. It is not good when they force you to pray orwhen they give you little time to be with your friends.... I would tell my cousinto come to the school because it helped me for my bar mitzvah, so I wouldsuggest to send him to this school for five years just to get the language andJudaism up.

These comments suggest that the social (friends), cognitive (knowledge) and affective(good, comfortable feelings) dimensions were embedded to different degrees in the students'overall positive perceptions of their experiences. As Herman (1984) has argued, ethnic identityimplies affiliation on the cognitive, emotional and behavioural levels. Furthermore, specificthemes within the students' comments (parental involvement, identity, belonging, support, friends,high school and bar mitzvah) are also echoed in the literature on general and Jewish education(Cohen, Kress & Elias, 2001; Fishman, 1994). The richness of the students' comments suggeststhat their life events may be much more meaningful factors when exploring students' perspectivesand identities. Furthermore, the students' use of bar/bat mitzvah, as well as metaphors from theJewish festival of Succot, provides further evidence that the students' perspectives were highlydependent on the Jewish context in which they were immersed. The students' comments in thiscategory and throughout the study also imply a need to improve delivery of the current program.For example, they proposed, "They [the teachers] should be child-friendly.... I don't mean to beour friends but to listen to what we need" (Avi); "Less Hebrew, and get more teachers like Mrs.J." (Sara); "Make the lessons easier and more interesting" (Ron); "Give us more time to socialiseand longer recesses" (Dan).

In light of the enormous insights grasped in these interviews, it is important to note thatthe small number of participants and/or the specific disabilities cannot be representative of either

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

18 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 8: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

ENGAGING STUDENTS' VOICES IN THE JEWISH DAY SCHOOL 57

all students in Jewish day schools or of a complete variety of disabilities. It can, however, give usa glimpse of these four specific students and their experiences.

DiscussionThe four participants perceived their education to have provided them with many

benefits, including positive growth in their own cognitive, social and affective domains. Sara'scomments capture all these domains in one simple statement: "I stayed in the school because Iwas interested to learn Hebrew [cognitive dimension] with my friends [social dimension] and alsobecause of the ways I was treated. It made me feel good [affective dimension]."

As well, the participants provided important insights into how students with disabilitiesperceived their schooling (through the quality of interaction with teachers) and the key ingredientsembedded in good teaching (positive attitude and teaching skills). The good, approachableteacher, in their view, is one who cares, has good instructional skills, and has knowledge about thesubjects and the children. These findings reaffirm Gutterman's (1995) research, which indicatedthat the relationship between students and teachers dominates students' feelings and perspectivestoward their school. Applied to the Jewish programme in schools, Reimer (1997, p. 132) supportsthe very same notion and its impact on students. He asks teachers to "teach as impressively aspossible" but reminds them, "It is the human relationships that will keep these youths comingback."

Care, in its positive and negative form, was a common concept used by the studentsthroughout the study. Interestingly, care was what the students wished for and also what theyperceived many teachers to be lacking. Edgar (1999) and Levine (1994) call upon educators toadapt a caring pedagogy that will better balance the current focus on the cognitive domain withmore attention to the social-emotional domain. Similarly, Cohen, Kress and Elias (2002) call forthe elevation of the social-emotional domain within the Jewish classroom. This is not to implythat teachers do not care about their students; but it does suggest that we give credence to thestudents' perception that school's focus on subject matter, and the lack of learning strategies thatwork for them, are indicative, in their view, of a lack of care for them.

No less important, the finding indicates that while educators are busy searching forinnovative programs (Bunch & Valeo, 1997), students' desires are actually very basic and withinthe scope and responsibility of most principals (as seen also in Dahl, 1995). As demonstrated inmy research as well as in an increasing number of research studies (e.g., Bunch & Valeo, 1997;Johnston & Nicholls, 1995; Lincoln, 1995; Shultz & Cook-Sather, 2001), information gained bylistening to students can contribute much to any educational milieu. The quality and depth ofinsights that the participants in my study offered strongly support the benefit of incorporatingstudents' voices into ongoing research and development.

Although this study represents a very small piece of a much larger puzzle, it begins to fillin some gaps in Jewish education research in three important ways: 1) solicitation of students'voices; 2) utilization of qualitative techniques; and 3) an examination of special education withinJewish education, a long-neglected area. The insights gained from this study strongly recommendthe benefits in extending this vein of research. I firmly believe that such a move will offer Jewishday schools a multi-directional roadmap from which to pave more successful pathways.

RecommendationsIn accordance with the spirit of this paper, the students' comments suggested the

following recommendations in answer to the guiding question of my study: How can the Jewisheducation system provide a successful learning environment for all students? Meaningful practicecan be better achieved by:

> Enhancing and expanding facilitative factors (caring pedagogy, successfullearning experiences, support, positive attitude and skills, attention to social-emotional domains)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

18 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 9: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

58 JOURNAL OF JEWISH EDUCATION

> Tackling and restructuring impeding factors (ineffective instruction, negativeattitude, improving quality of the program)

More Recommendations for Practice:> Students' voices should be engaged at every step.> Doors of Jewish education should be open with sufficiently skilled manpower

and resources for students with learning disabilities.> Pre/in-service training for a "Caring Pedagogy"—teach, assist, equip and model

issues within the realm of:- The social-emotional domain and their affect on the cognitive domain- Theories of learning, communication skills- Examination of teachers' beliefs and processes of change

> Provide structure (space, time, knowledge) for personal interaction andproblem-solving models.

Recommendations for Research:> Establish structure and method of enlisting and representing students' voices.> Examine teacher beliefs (knowledge construction) and find ways for change.> Cross-reference students' views with those of their teachers and parents.> Examine knowledge issues—power relation in education.

My own direction is an examination of Foucault's notion, its contribution to centralissues of knowledge construction and examination of self.

References

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction totheory and methods (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bunch, G., & Valeo, A. (1997). Inclusion: Recent research. Toronto, Ontario: Inclusion Press.Cohen, I. J., Kress, J. S., & Elias, M. J. (2002). Classroom climate in an orthodox day school:

The contribution of emotional intelligence, demographics, and classroom context.Journal of Jewish Education 68(1), 21-33.

Cohen, S. M. (1995). The impact of varieties of Jewish education upon Jewish identity: An inter-generational perspective. Contemporary Jewry 16, 68-96.

Corbett, D. & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A plea for researchersand reformers. Educational Researcher 24(5), 12-17.

Dahl, K. (1995). Challenges in understanding the learner's perspective. Theory into Practice43(2), 124-130.

Dychas, T. T., Egan, M. W., Young, J. R., Ingram, C., Gibb, G., & Allred, K. W. (1996).Inclusion through teaming: Perceptions of students with learning disabilities. Journal ofSpecial Education 20(3), 5-24.

Edgar, E. (1999). A narrative for special education: A personal perspective. Education andTraining in Mental and Developmental Disabilities 34(4), 366-372.

Encyclopaedia Judaica. (1997). CD-ROM Edition. Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.Fishman, E. (1994). Including children with special needs: A perspective. Journal of Jewish

Communal Services, Fall, 71-73.Gutterman, B. R. (1995). The validity of learning disabilities services: The consumer's view.

Exceptional Children 62, 111-124.Herman, S. N. (1984). Jewish identity: A social psychological perspective. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Books.Holmes, R. M. (1998). Fieldwork with children. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Jenkins, J. R., & Heinen, A. (1989). Students' preferences for service delivery: Pull-out, in class,

or integrated models. Exceptional Children 55, 526-523.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

18 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Page 10: Engaging Students’ Voices in the Jewish Day School: Perspectives of Learning Disabled Students

ENGAGING STUDENTS' VOICES IN THE JEWISH DAY SCHOOL 59

Johnston, P., & Nicholls, J. (1995). Voices we want to hear and voices we don't. Theory intoPractice 43(2), 94-100.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughan, S., Schumm, J. S., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. W. (1998). Inclusion or pull-out: Which do students prefer? Journal of Learning Disabilities 31, 148-158.

Levine, M. (1994). Educational care: A system for understanding and helping children withlearning problems at home and in school. Cambridge, MA: Educators PublishingService.

Lincoln, Y. (1995). In search of students' voices. Theory into Practice 43(2), 88-93.Lupart, J., McKeough, A., & Yewchuck, C. (Eds.). (1996). Schools in transition: Rethinking

regular and special education. Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Canada.Nias, J. & Aspinwall, K. (1995). "Composing a life": Women's stories of their careers.

Teachers' stories. Ed. David Thomas. Buckingham: Open University Press.Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Cao, H. T. (1992). Speaking up: Students' perspectives on school.

Phi Delta Kappan 73(9), 695-704.Reimer, J. (1997). Succeeding at Jewish education: How one synagogue made it work.

Philadelphia, PA: JDS.Ross, D. (2000). Jewish education for all—how? The perspectives of students with special needs

on their school experiences. Unpublished research paper.Sarna, J. (1998). American Jewish education in historical perspective. Journal of Jewish

Education 64(1-2), 8-21.Schick, M. (2000). A census of Jewish day schools in the United States. New York: Avi Chai

Foundation.Shultz, J., & Cook-Sather, A. (Eds.). (2001). In our own words: Students' perspectives on school.

Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Shluker, D. (1998). The impact of Jewish day schools: A briefing paper prepared for the CJF

Task Force on Jewish Day School Viability and Vitality. New York, NY: JESNA.Solomon, B. I. (1984). Curricular integration in the Jewish all-day school in the United States.

Studies in Jewish Education 2, 150-174.Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (Eds.). (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore, MD:

Paul H. Brookes.Udvari-Solner, A. (1996). Examining teacher thinking: Constructing a process to design

curricular adaptations. Remedial and Special Education 17(4), 245-254.Woocher, J. (1995). Jewish education: Crisis and vision. JESNA. Retrieved November 25,

1999, from http://www.jesna.org/publicat/vision.html/. Available as of publication ofthis article at http://www.jesna.org/cgi-bin/webpages.php3?op2=gt_crisis.

Yanowitz, B. (1999). Task Force on Jewish Day School Viability and Vitality. New York, NY:JESNA.D

ownl

oade

d by

[N

ewca

stle

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:18

19

Dec

embe

r 20

14