Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adrian A. Durlester on November 8, 2010 at 7:10pm

I find myself largely in agreement with the draft statement as it exists. I'll need to take more time for a detailed analysis. One a first read, the only thing I find missing is reference to the continual re-evaluation and reshaping that will be needed. The extant wording makes it seem (at least to me) as if we are trying to create a system that, like its predecessor, will suffice with only minor modifications for a foreseeable future. I suggest that we need a system that is constantly self-evaluating. Admittedly, a system that is client-driven will, of necessity, be self-adjusting. Nevertheless I'd be more comfortable with some wording that suggests that such constant re-examination and adjustment of any system established will be a basic tenet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mamie Kanfer Stewart on December 27, 2010 at 9:10am

I am in agreement with Adrian Durlester - I had the same reaction to the missing concept of continual relevancy / evolution through assessment, improvement and innovation. Other than that, I think its right on target.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheri Ellowitz on February 19, 2011 at 5:15pm

I'm interested in knowing who wrote the statement. It's very comprehensive and current in many of the issues that it contains, but I'd like to know who wrote it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jewish Education Change Network on February 23, 2011 at 7:52pm

The leadership team of the Lippman Kanfer Institute - Jonathan Woocher, Arnee Winshall, and Ellen Kagen Waghelstein - is primarily responsible for the document, with input from a number of other individuals.

Cheri Ellowitz said:

I'm interested in knowing who wrote the statement. It's very comprehensive and current in many of the issues that it contains, but I'd like to know who wrote it.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion