Concern about the sustainability of the Jewish educator workforce is both widespread and well-founded, with burnout, turnover and retention familiar themes in communal conversation. But much of what we know comes from snapshots: exit interviews, climate surveys or moments of acute stress such as in the wake of Oct. 7, 2023.

What’s been missing is a longitudinal lens: not just how educators feel at a moment in time, but what actually changes in their professional lives from one year to the next — and what does not.

Unsplash

Illustrative.

The Growing Educators and Leaders Study (GELS), launched by the Jim Joseph Foundation in 2023, is designed to provide that lens. Following more than 550 Jewish educators and leaders over multiple years, the study tracks how their motivations, workplace experiences and career trajectories evolve over time.

Even at this early stage, with the study just entering its third year (see interim report here), a striking pattern is already emerging. These are early signals, not final conclusions, but they are already clarifying something important. 

During the first two years of the study, across roles, sectors and career stages, educators have described their work in identity-laden terms — as an expression of calling and responsibility. Their sense of purpose, career motivation and commitment have barely changed. This is consistent with a previous study supported by the Foundation, Preparing for Entry. Commitment appears deeply rooted and slow to shift.

At the same time, other dimensions of educators’ professional lives are far more variable. Job satisfaction, their sense of contribution and perceptions of sustainability fluctuate, especially when educators change roles, organizations or supervisory arrangements.

This distinction — between stable commitment and variable experience — is one of the clearest patterns to emerge so far. It suggests that short-term changes in educators’ experience are driven less by shifts in motivation and more by shifts in context.

Supervision as a hinge

Within these findings, one detail stands out. Among the contextual features shaping educators’ professional lives, the quality of supervision functions as a hinge between educators’ stable commitment and their day-to-day experience.

Survey data underscore this point. While measures of career commitment have remained highly stable over the first couple of years of data collection, responses related to supervisory relationships have shown some of the greatest change. In fact, 41% of participants in the first cohort experienced a meaningful change — positive or negative — in their relationship with a supervisor over a single year, making it one of the most volatile domains measured.

These shifts matter. Educators who reported improvements in supervision were significantly more likely to report increased career satisfaction and a stronger sense of professional contribution. Conversely, where supervisory relationships deteriorated, satisfaction often declined — even while commitment to Jewish educational work itself remained intact.

Interviews help explain why this pattern is so pronounced. Educators do not describe supervision as a narrow managerial function limited to evaluation or oversight. They experience it as a structural and relational condition that shapes nearly every aspect of their work: clarity of expectations, alignment of priorities, workload, opportunities for growth and whether their contributions are recognized.

A supportive supervisor does not eliminate the demands of educational work. But in participants’ accounts, strong supervision makes those demands feel navigable rather than overwhelming. Where supervision is weak, misaligned, or inconsistent, the strain intensifies.

Educators who changed jobs during the first two years of the study illustrate this dynamic clearly. These educators were far more likely than others to report shifts — positive or negative — in satisfaction and autonomy; and supervisory dynamics frequently featured in their explanations. Leaving was rarely framed as a rejection of the mission of Jewish education. More often, it reflected an effort to find conditions in which that mission could be sustained.

In this sense, supervision is not peripheral. It is a key mechanism through which organizational context influences educators’ professional trajectories.

Reframing the retention conversation

These early findings invite a reframing of some familiar field conversations. Concerns about educator retention often focus on motivation: Are younger professionals as committed as previous generations? Are educators losing their sense of purpose?

The evidence emerging from GELS suggests that these may not be the most productive questions. So far, commitment appears durable. What varies more are the conditions under which that commitment is exercised.

If supervision functions as a hinge between educators’ stable commitment and their variable experience, then strengthening supervisory capacity becomes a strategic lever for sustaining the workforce.

This does not mean placing additional burdens on already stretched supervisors. It points instead to the importance of investing in supervisors’ preparation, support, and clarity of role. Supervisors themselves operate within systems that shape what they can realistically provide. Attention to supervision requires attention to organizational design, leadership development, and culture—not simply individual performance.

As a longitudinal study, GELS does not yet offer definitive conclusions about long-term retention or attrition. We are still in the early stages of observing trajectories unfold. What the study does offer, even now, is the ability to distinguish between what appears stable and what appears sensitive to change. This distinction allows the field to move beyond generalized anxiety about burnout toward a more precise understanding of how educators experience their work over time. As additional waves of data accumulate, we will be better positioned to examine how supervisory practices interact with role transitions and longer-term career sustainability.

Sustaining a vibrant Jewish educator workforce requires attention both to the inner commitments that draw people to this work and to the organizational conditions that shape their daily experience of it. The early evidence from GELS suggests that while commitment remains strong, context matters profoundly. If the field seeks durable impact, it will need to focus not only on who educators are, but on the environments in which they work—and on strengthening the hinge points (especially supervision) that connect the two.

Alex Pomson is principal and managing director at Rosov Consulting.