Alexander M. Dushkin

Abstract: *Editor's Note: This article is a reprint of the Summary of the Report of the Commission for the Study of Jewish Education in the United States, sponsored and published by the American Association for Jewish Education, 1959. For the complete Report of the Study, communicate with the American Association for Jewish Education. For an account of the organization of the Study of Jewish Education in the United States and the procedures followed in conducting the Study, see: Engelman, Uriah Z.: The First National Study of Jewish Education, JEWISH EDUCATION, Vol. XXIX, No. 1.

Abstract: (1949). The Personality of Samson Benderly — His Life and Influence. Jewish Education: Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 6-15.

Abstract: * Opening Address at the Fortieth Annual Conference of the National Council for Jewish Education, Jerusalem, July 1966.

Abstract: The diversification of higher education systems into ‘first tier’ and ‘second tier’ institutions raises the issue of who gets to study where. The diversity approach suggests that the institutional enrollment of students will be mainly influenced by their social origins, whereas the stratification approach underscores the role of academic ability in the process of matching students and institutions. We hypothesize that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive and that their applicability is context-bound, depending on the characteristics of the second-tier institutions. The hypothesis was tested through a survey of a sample of about 4,500 Israeli freshmen enrolled in first- and second-tier institutions in the Israeli expanded and diversified higher education system. Multinomial logistic regressions of institutional enrollment revealed the role of the hierarchy of the second-tier institutions in shaping institutional enrollment and in preserving the advantages of privileged groups.

Abstract: Despite the growing body of literature on the stratification of the university systems in the US and the UK, the treatment of all universities in countries where the system of higher education is publicly controlled tends to remain monolithic. This is certainly true of Israel, where all universities and colleges are regulated by the Council for Higher Education (CHE), which considers all universities the "first layer" of higher education versus the "second layer" of degree-granting colleges. We claim that the six major Israeli universities - the five regular universities and the Technion - are highly stratified into three elite institutions, aiming at academic excellence, versus three "target universities" aimed at specific or peripheral popula- tions. Drawing on periodical university figures published by the Central Bureau of Statistics between 1985-1996, we show that the growth of various academic fields and of graduate studies has been limited in the target universities. Subsequently, their student composition differs from that of the three elite universities. They have larger than expected proportions of older students, women, and minority students (Sephardic Jews and Arabs). Three implications of these stratification patterns for higher education policy in publicly controlled systems are discussed: the extent and stability of university stratification in these systems; the benefits and limitations of this stratification process; and its impact on further developments in higher education, mainly the expansion of degree-granting colleges.

Abstract: The current paper explores the messages through which low‐stratified higher education (HE) institutions strive to increase their organisational image and “product” status and concurrently to attract prospective students. Thus, by a qualitative content analysis of 66 advertisements of teacher training colleges in Israel, the paper provides insight into the complexity of re‐building new images for HE institutions that have long suffered, and still suffer, from a low public image. It is argued here that both the messages directed to transmit a more “academic”, “professional” and “university‐like” image, and the messages aimed to emphasise the personal advantages gained by applying to the colleges, may, ironically, further weaken the publicly low‐academic image of the low stratified HE institutions and re‐position them in the post‐secondary system. Practical implications for marketing the low‐stratified HE institutions are suggested.

Abstract: Jonathan B. Krasner’s exhaustive exploration details through comprehensive research and engaging prose the unlikely rise of Samson Benderly, a Palestine-born immigrant who brought his own understanding of American innovation into a traditional Jewish educational framework. A trained physician, Benderly’s vision helped create an educational system both uniquely Jewish and unequivocally American, a distinct and inimitable identity for modern Jews in the United States. Benderly’s vision extended beyond his immediate circle of proteges. As Jewish educational systems evolved through the latter half of the 20th century, Benderly’s ideology of the professional, progressive, and American Jewish school model remained constant, a beacon of pedagogical quality and a preservation of Jewish cultural life. As an educational history, The Benderly Boys and American Jewish Education is a comprehensive analysis of archival material from multiple rabbinical colleges and libraries as well as urban historical societies. It achieves its goal of synthesizing voluminous textual sources into a readable narrative that can also serve as a reference for other scholars interested in this uniquely American and totally Jewish educational approach. As ethnography, the text explores the emerging cultural identity of American Jews during what can be considered the Benderly period from 1910,when Benderly founded the first Bureau of Jewish Education in New York City until Benderly’s death in 1944. As an educational history and ethnography, then, the text, under Krasner’s deft prose, allows Benderly to emerge as an unparalleled protagonist. Krasner argues that Benderly’s role in elevating the practice of Jewish education contributed to the overall stabilization of Jewish life in modern, and then postmodern, America. As a biographical portrait of Benderly, the volume lends itself as a study in leadership. His unrelenting and innovative methodology was fueled by his own innate understanding of the power of education to a people in diaspora. Benderly developed modern curricula, invested in professional education for teacher training, and communicated clearly the urgency of his mission, which was to create American Jewish education from whole cloth. It is a model for focused and uncompromising excellence in administrative educational settings. For the scholarly reader, then, the book is a narrative that meets the needs of academics seeking a good model for how to explore other distinct American subgroups and their own cultural trajectories. For the general reader, it is a mirror on the history of a specific educational movement, its outcomes, and its lasting and still-relevant impact. Krasner pays particular attention to the method by which teachers in the Benderly system

Abstract: (1998). AMERICAN JEWISH EDUCATION IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. Journal of Jewish Education: Vol. 64, No. 1-2, pp. 8-21.