Given the number of Cleveland congregations already engaged in educational visioning and implementation processes, the summit focused on lessons learned from the field, maintaining momentum, communicating vision to the broader congregational membership and the difference between vision-guided evaluation versus program evaluation.

During his keynote address Professor Pekarsky, invoking the stance of the Mandel Foundation, repeatedly challenged the congregational leadership to remain faithful to clear, shared and inspiring educational visions.  Such visions serve as the basis for ongoing educational planning, effective evaluation and help institutions make tough choices and persevere in the face of difficulties.  These words were especially timely and pertinent given the financial disruptions affecting the community.

A significant block of time was devoted to vision-guided evaluation.  While measuring hard numbers will always be important, numbers cannot adequately reflect the qualities of mind and heart that lay at the center of vision-guided education.  Professor Pekarsky used concrete examples from his book, Vision At Work: The Theory and Practice of Beit Rabban, to demonstrate this principle in action.  Congregational teams were asked to discuss their current evaluation efforts and how these efforts could be improved by paying closer attention to vision-guided evaluation.

Representatives from three congregations were invited to share successes and challenges from their educational visioning projects.  Rabbi Richard Block, senior rabbi at The Temple-Tifereth Israel, reflecting on over 20 years of experience with educational change processes advised the participants to begin by asking the right questions and focus on leadership development.  These two components will set the congregation on the path to a meaningful process and a culture of self-sustaining transformation.

A highlight of the program was a chance for participants to pose questions to Professor Pekarsky.  The issue of educating teachers and communicating the vision to the broader congregational community was of primary concern.  Professor Pekarsky rejected the notion of creating “buy in.”  He observed that the phrase implied a commercial exchange – with the leadership, or in group, playing the role of a seller.  He suggested, instead, that we think of this important issue in terms of two-way communication and education.

The short-term impact of the program was felt immediately, as participants shared significant “take-aways” with peers and colleagues who were unable to attend the summit.  We now turn our attention to the important, ongoing work of embedding these ideas in the educational visioning and implementation processes currently underway in our community.

Jewish Education Center of Cleveland – www.jecc.org
Laura & Alvin Siegal College of Judaic Studies – www.siegalcollege.edu

Funding for the “Summit on Educational Visioning” was provided by
The Fund for the Jewish Future of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland.