How do Jewish day schools influence Jewish identity? This question might seem stale, if not for a fascinating twist incorporated by Alex Pomson and Randal F. Schnoor, who asked parents how they have been affected by their children's enrollment in such schools. In so doing, the authors focus not on the Jewish identities of children, but on that of adults.

Back to School: Jewish Day School in the Lives of Adult Jews offers a compelling portrait of parents at the Paul Penna Downtown Jewish Day School (DJDS), a nondenominational Jewish elementary school in Toronto.Footnote ¹ The authors present a detailed case study, including observations of school events and semistructured interviews with parents, teachers, and administrators. How and why, they ask, did the parents choose DJDS for their children? Drawing on interviews with twenty-eight sets of parents, Pomson and Schnoor show that while many wanted their children to receive day school education, they also expressed profound ambivalence about day schools, based either on a commitment to public education or a fear that day schools will ghettoize Jewish students. The authors found that in choosing a school, parents were concerned not only about their children's education, but also about their own sense of belonging in the school community.

That is the central claim of this work: “Choosing a school for one's child is closely interrelated to making choices about one's own adult life as a Jew” (57). By recognizing parents not simply as their children's auxiliaries, but also as members of the school community in their own right, Pomson and Schnoor show how day schools have taken on the roles traditionally played by synagogues: as bet kenesset, a site for assembly with other Jews; as bet midrash, a place for Jewish learning; and as bet tephilah, a location for religious and spiritual growth. For these parents, DJDS is not just for children, but is an institution that offers opportunities for adult community, adult learning, and adult religious expression.

According to Pomson and Schnoor, Jewish day school education is “a resource that informs the development of adult Jewish lives within the home” (111). As the children learn about Jewish customs and rituals at school, they bring such knowledge home. Although some parents reject or remain unchanged by what their children learn at school, the book gives examples of many others who have adopted school practices and adapted their home environment. Those who do so often have less prior Jewish engagement or knowledge. Pomson and Schnoor conclude that Jewish day schools “possess significance for the personal lives of parents but … greatest significance [for] the parents who come to schools with limited prior Jewish social and cultural capital” (147).

To address the criticism that DJDS may be unrepresentative, Pomson and Schnoor interviewed parents at two other day schools in Toronto and four in “Centerville,” an anonymous midwestern city in the United States. Armed with the data from these schools, which vary by denominational affiliation, size, location, and years in existence, the authors establish that neither the Downtown Jewish Day School's small size nor its newness can account for the level of parental involvement. They go on to demonstrate that the parents with limited Jewish social and cultural capital were most responsive to the Jewish content their children received at seven schools that ranged across the denominational spectrum. Pomson and Schnoor's striking conclusions call into question earlier findings that less traditional Jewish parents enroll their children in day schools despite the Jewish educational opportunities afforded by such schools.Footnote ² Instead, they discovered that “a lack of prior Jewish engagement does not necessarily inhibit parents' interest in a school's Jewish content or their responsiveness to their children's Jewish learning; it may actually vitiate their interest and engagement in the school” (148).

Back to School is a thoughtful and impressive study that offers rich data to enhance conversations among scholars of Jewish education and Jewish identity. If the book has an Achilles heel, it lies neither in its methodology nor in its findings, but instead in how Pomson and Schnoor frame the study and its implications. What, they ask, can DJDS and, more broadly, the sociology of Jewish identity, teach Jewish schools? However, if Jewish education is to take its place as a legitimate and respected field in the academy, its scholars must speak to a broader audience, not just those interested in Jewish schools, camps, and other Jewish institutions. A case must be made for how scholarship in Jewish education not only enhances the teaching of Judaism and development of Jewish identity, but also contributes to the existing body of educational research.

Though Pomson and Schnoor attempt to frame their study in larger language about “school choice,” the explicit focus of this work may ultimately cost it a broader audience of education scholars. The authors assume that readers possess the type of linguistic and cultural knowledge held by literate Jews. They take for granted that terms such as “Bubbe meises,” “Kol Nidre,” “Kiddush,” and “daven” are part of their readers' vernacular, and they rarely explain the Jewish holidays and rituals referenced by the parents in this study. Such omissions may present serious obstacles for scholars who (like many of the parents at DJDS) bring limited Jewish cultural capital to the equation.

The scope of the book's conclusions is even more problematic. In their closing chapter, subtitled “Lessons from Sociology for Jewish Education,” Pomson and Schnoor assume that the relationship between the two is unidirectional. They fail to explore how the case of DJDS could offer lessons to sociology and/or education writ large, even as the content challenges dominant beliefs in education—most strikingly, the assumption that the family mediates the quality of children's education in school. Back to School: Jewish Day School in the Lives of Jewish Adults makes an excellent case that schools can have a profound impact on family life. While the authors briefly mention this point, they choose not to pursue its implications for educational theory.

Pomson and Schnoor, and this worthwhile book, have much to offer. But they sell themselves and their potential readership short by presenting their subject only in terms of Jewish education and identity. As the authors explain, “Parochial education [at DJDS] does not imply parochialism or cultural separatism, but rather engagement with the world through the agency of a distinct minority culture” (33). Despite its meticulous methodology and fascinating findings, their own work remains at heart decidedly parochial. Even so, the book recasts relationships between a set of parents and their children's school in important new ways.