AN INTEGRATION BIBLIOGRAPHY:
KEY ARTICLES TO HELP THINK ABOUT & PLAN INTEGRATION
by
Rabbi Uri C. Cohen
Senior Fellow, ATID
[Version 1  November 2002]
We have carefully selected the following reading material as
essential background reading on integration, which should help Jewish
educators and schools on both theoretical and practical levels. This
literature is valuable in showing the underpinnings of integration,
both in general and in Jewish education. Interestingly, the
cacophony of voices represented herein indicates that there is no
consensus on either the goals or methods of integration (although
Zeldin, below, recommends a shift from integration to
interaction, it
remains to be seen whether his call will be heeded.) This leaves us
with the task of developing our own "manifesto" for integration as we
would like to see it implanted in practice.
Indeed, the hard work of integration takes place not on paper but in
the classrooms and hallways of actual schools. Nevertheless, each
school may find it helpful to look elsewhere for models of excellence
and of failure  both of which are represented in the following
reading material  to use as a "lens" into its own planning and
practice.
If you find this material useful, we at ATID would be happy to hear
from you. If there are any other resources we can provide, feel free
to contact us at atid@atid.org
Annotated Bibliography of Readings on Integration
D. N. Perkins and Gavriel Salomon, "Teaching for Transfer," Educational
Leadership 46:1 (September 1988).
Available at:
http://www.lookstein.org/integration/teaching_for_transfer.htm
Integration is based on the premise of transfer  applying
learning from one area to another. This article addresses why
transfer is important; why transfer rarely results from the standard
"Little Bo Peep" approach ("Let them alone and they'll come home,"
i.e., provide the stimuli and students will integrate them on their
own); the "low road" and "high road" types of transfer; and how to
teach for transfer using "hugging" and "bridging." Perkins and
Salomon also address the problem of local knowledge (that each
discipline has unique characteristics) and present three reasons why
transfer is still possible.
"Ten Tools for Teaching for Transfer"
Available at:
http://www.atid.org/resources/transfer.jpg
This helpful chart of ten techniques is a practical application of Perkins
and Salomon.
David Eliach, in "The Jewish Day School: A Symposium," Tradition
13:1 (Summer 1972), pp. 100101
The alternative to integration is compartmentalization. The
longtime principal of the Yeshiva of Flatbush (New York) complains
that day schools, by teaching Jewish and general studies with their
incompatible assumptions, "create a split personality within a
compartmentalized mind." Although this is a description without a
prescription, and is thirty years old, unfortunately Rabbi Eliach's
J'accuse still holds true for most Jewish schools.
Jack Bieler, "Integration of Jewish and General Studies in the Modern
Orthodox Day School," Jewish Education 54:4 (1986), pp. 1526.
Available at:
http://www.lookstein.org/integration/bieler.htm
What's wrong with compartmentalization, anyway? Rabbi Bieler, a
prominent Modern Orthodox educator, focuses on how
compartmentalization in day schools leads to the devaluation
of Jewish studies. He then presents three theoretical constructs for
integration based on Modern Orthodox thinkers, along with the factors
that would make each of them difficult to translate into curriculum.
Bennett Ira Solomon, "A Critical Review of the Term 'Integration' in
the Literature on the Jewish Day School in America," Jewish
Education, Winter 1978, pp. 417.
In this oftencited article, the late Bennett Solomon demonstrates
how "integration" has been merely a slogan in day schools, neither
defined nor implemented. He details several different possibilities
of what is to be integrated, as well as the type of integration; all
have been equated and thus made meaningless. Toward the end, Solomon
presents the problem of local knowledge. Even though the article is
twentyfive years old, it is the starting point of much of the
subsequent literature.
Zalman F. Ury, "Integration Does Not Mean Melting Pot," Ibid.,
pp. 2527.
Ury objects to Solomon's assumption that integration with the outside
culture is a desideratum. He suggests the term "interrelationships"
(between a day school's two departments) instead of integration.
(Cf. "interaction" in Zeldin, below.)
Benjamin Brickman, "Integration and Interrelations in the Program of
the Day School," Ibid., pp. 2931.
This is an outline of examples of interrelationship and of
integration in several areas: curriculum units, school projects, and
within Jewish studies.
Joseph H. Lookstein, "True Integration," Ibid., pp. 3738.
The founder of the Ramaz School (New York) makes two declarations.
Integration of subject matter is virtually impossible. Yet
integration is still possible within a given learner. Rabbi
Lookstein makes five suggestions how to achieve the latter.
Barry Holtz, "Towards an Integrated Curriculum for the Jewish School,"
Religious Education 75:5 (Sept.Oct. 1980), pp. 546557.
Bennett Ira Solomon, "Curricular Integration in the Jewish AllDay
School in the United States," Studies in Jewish Education 2
(1984), pp. 150174.
Here Solomon presents a theoretical exposition of how integration can
work despite the problem of local knowledge. Based largely on
Scheffler, he lists several skills and dispositions which can apply
in every subject.
Michael Zeldin, "Integration and Interaction in the Jewish Day
School," in Robert E. Tornberg, ed. The Jewish Educational
Leader's Handbook (Denver: A.R.E., 1998), pp. 579590.
This is the single most comprehensive article on day school
integration. Zeldin first summarizes types of integration (from
Solomon's first article) and offers nine justifications of
integration. He describes three alternative ways of organizing the
curriculum for integration. Then he (anticipated by Ury, above)
questions whether the meltingpot motivations for integration
described by Solomon are still relevant. Zeldin prefers the more
realistic "interaction" to integration. He compares and contrasts
the two, and outlines how a school leader can develop a strategy for
interaction, from four perspectives. Zeldin concludes with a chart
comparing compartmentalization, coordination, integration, and
interaction.
"Toward an Integrated Curriculum"
Available at:
http://www.atid.org/resources/fogarty.asp
Based on the writing of Robin Fogarty, this page gives descriptions
and examples of 10 types of integration for curriculum. The first
three are integration within a single discipline, the next five are
across several disciplines, and the last two types are integration
within the learner.
Alex Pomson, "Knowledge that Doesn't Just Sit There: Considering a
Reconception of the Curriculum Integration of Jewish and General
Studies," Religious Education 96:4 (2001).
Pomson starts by explaining why integration fails; he offers reasons
that relate to all four "Commonplaces" (subject, teacher, student,
and milieu). The synthesis model of integration was too ambitious.
Instead, we should view integration not as an either/or, but as a
continuum of possibilities  namely, Fogarty's ten types. Pomson
presents specific examples of how some of these types of integration
have been applied (types 3, 5, 6 and 7). In his conclusion, he
suggests three factors that the successful cases had in common:
students and teachers as colearners, working towards a culminating
event, and realistic demands of teachers. (Although Pomson focuses
on the King Solomon High School, the ten views of integration are not
limited to any specific type of school.)
Carol K. Ingall and Mitchel Malkus, "Negotiating the Borderlands:
Implementing an Integrated Curricular Unit in a Jewish Day High
School," Journal of Jewish Education 67:12 (2001), pp. 3645.
This is a report of one attempt at a curricular unit to foster
integration in a nonOrthodox Jewish high school. Though it was
wellplanned, it became a model of failure. One of the obstacles the
unit confronted is especially noteworthy. While the teachers viewed
integration as an ideal, "bridging the borders" or "negotiating the
borderlands" of different subjects, they discovered that the students
resisted these efforts and preferred the safer, familiar dual
curriculum. The authors present a gloomy reality but maintain hope.
Of special interest to integration of Jewish and
general/world history, see:
David Bernstein, "Teaching Jewish History," Jewish
Education (Winter 1986).
David Bernstein, "Two Approaches to the Teaching of Jewish
History in Orthodox Yeshiva High Schools," Ph.D. Dissertation
(New York University, School of Education, 1986).
