The Central Agency for Jewish Education: Fifty years of Jewish education in Dade County

The purpose of the study was to provide a historical record of the Bureau of Jewish Education/Central Agency for Jewish Education and its role in Jewish education in Miami since its inception in 1944 as well as to provide a sociological context within which to view the growth and development of the community. During the past 50 years of the Agency's existence, Dade County's Jewish population has undergone many changes including a huge population increase in the 1960s and 1970s and then a decrease in the 1980s and 1990s, and a shift from postwar business class of store owners to turn of the century professional class.^ The methodology used in this study was threefold. First, document analysis of formal and informal documents dating from 1944 to the present was conducted. Second, personal interviews were conducted with the Executive Directors of the B.J.E./C.A.J.E., long-time B.J.E./C.A.J.E. staff, present staff, Greater Miami Jewish Federation leaders, and lay leadership of C.A.J.E. Third, national trends in Jewish education were cited as a basis for the comparison and contrast of the achievements of C.A.J.E.^ The historiography concluded that the Agency had come full circle in its programs. Analysis of the services provided to religious and day schools, early childhood education, the High Schools, teacher services, adult education, and the library indicated that in some areas C.A.J.E. was an innovator, in other areas it followed national trends, and in others it was deficient. Recommendations included a reeducative process for the community with Jewish education made top priority, more visibility and publicity for the work of C.A.J.E. that would enhance its prestige and improve support, and holistic planning of programs for the future. ^

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida: 1989--1994

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, a unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991).^ The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey.^ The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education. ^