Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century: International and Israeli Perspectives 9783030631024, 9783030631031

Citation preview

Policy Implications of Research in Education 12

Izhak Berkovich

Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century International and Israeli Perspectives

Policy Implications of Research in Education Volume 12 Series Editors Prof. Stephen L. Jacobson, State University of New York, University at Buffalo – State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA Paul W. Miller, University of Greenwich, London, UK Editorial Board Members Prof. Helen Gunter, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Prof. Stephan Huber, Institute for the Management and Economics, University of Teacher Education Central, Zug, Zug, Switzerland Prof. Jonathan Jansen, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa Prof. Karen Seashore Louis, Educational Policy and Admin, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA Dr. Guri Skedsmo, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Prof. Allan Walker, Ctr, c/o Anthon Chu Yan Kit, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong

In education, as in other fields, there are often significant gaps between research knowledge and current policy and practice. While there are many reasons for this gap, one that stands out is that policy-makers and practitioners may simply not know about important research findings because these findings are not published in forums aimed at them. Another reason is that policy-makers and educational authorities may tend to apply only those findings that agree with and legitimate their preferred policies. Yet we hear often the mantra that policy and practice should be research based and informed by evidence. This claim relates to the interplay between the social realities of science, politics and educational practice and draws attention to knowledge production and application, processes of implementation, change and innovation. However, there are often different interests involved, different knowledge domains, political and economic interests, and legitimate questions can be raised with regard to what counts as ‘research’, what counts as ‘evidence’, who should define it, what are their implications for policy, and what kind of actions should consequently be taken to improve education for children and youth. Please contact Astrid Noordermeer at [email protected] if you wish to discuss a book proposal. More information about this series vat http://www.springer.com/series/11212

Izhak Berkovich

Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century International and Israeli Perspectives

Izhak Berkovich Department of Education and Psychology The Open University of Israel Ra’anana, Israel

ISSN 2543-0289     ISSN 2543-0297 (electronic) Policy Implications of Research in Education ISBN 978-3-030-63102-4    ISBN 978-3-030-63103-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Based on a translation from the Hebrew language edition: ‘‘Education Policy, Processes and Trends in the 21st Century’’ by Izhak Berkovich Copyright © 2018 The Open University of Israel. All Rights Reserved

Acknowledgments

In the course of the writing of this book, I have received a great deal of support and assistance. First and foremost, I wish to extend my special, heartfelt thanks to Ronit Bogler. Her support and encouragement were vital to the development of this book. I am also very grateful to the following individuals who read the manuscript at different stages and whose expertise and kind feedback were invaluable and greatly helped me improve the quality and accuracy of the book: Philip Woods, Yuval Dror, Ami Volansky, Dan Inbar, Dan Gibton, Ori Eyal, Smadar Moshel, and Amit Avigur-­ Eshel. I owe a debt of gratitude to members of the Development Unit at the Open University of Israel, Oren Soffer, Maya Lahat-Kerman, Dina Nusbaum, and Michal Roth, and to the editorial team of Springer Publishing, Annemarie Keur and Marianna Pascale, for their valuable support of the project. Special thanks go to Astrid Noordermeer, from Springer Publishing, and to Nina Eisenkraft, from the Open University of Israel, for their caring work in bringing this book into production. Lastly, I thank Gabriel Lanyi for his meticulous and dedicated editing of the book.

v

About the Book

In recent decades, education policy has become established as a growing and productive academic field of inquiry. The great interest in education policy stems from the importance of education in modern society. The quantity of education and the quality of education are closely related to the economic, social, and political aspects that characterize the nature of societies. Education directly influences the lives of many citizens who consume the services of the education system or are employed by it, and indirectly affects the community and the environment of many other citizens. In practice, education assumes a variety of forms that include a comprehensive set of formal and informal settings, ranging from frameworks designed for young people to those intended for adults. This book focuses mainly on education policy relating to primary and secondary schools. The idea that an education policy should be formulated emerged with the expansion of educational systems in the early twentieth century, when education began to take on a public character. In those years, large public education systems were established, which became an integral part of the public services consumed by citizens and of the agenda of policymakers. In recent decades, however, the perceptions of the state and its relations with the citizenry have changed significantly, and with it, the identity of those active in education policy, as well as the balance of power between them. Since the early 2000s, the concept of education policy being a core government activity has been reinforced by a global discourse on education policy. Traditionally, the field of education policy touches on a range of disciplines, including public policy, economics, demography, sociology, history, and psychology. All these multiple perspectives are reflected in the book, which focuses on two main aspects of education policy: the policy process, that is, the design of education policy and its implementation in the field, and the contemporary discourse in the field of education, seeking to identify problems and propose solutions. Chapter 1 deals with key concepts relating to education policy, the definition of public education, and the changes that have taken place in recent decades. The chapter presents key values ​​and ideologies in education and discusses their effects on education policy. Much of the literature in this domain is devoted to the way in which education policy issues are identified, defined, and shaped. Chapter 2 concerns the vii

viii

About the Book

knowledge of political aspects involved in the definition of the educational agenda; the key players seeking to influence its design; the construction of a target audience at which education policy is directed by policymakers, various interest groups, and the public; the inherent complexity of education policy issues; and the analytical and ethical challenges involved in policymaking. A separate body of knowledge in the literature on education policy focuses on the implementation of policy and the translation of ideas and objectives into actions. Chapter 3 deals with policy instruments being adopted by the top level, the influence of the field on policy, and how the success of policy can be evaluated. The chapter also discusses the central place of reforms as a tool in modern education policy. Fundamental reforms in the organization, management, funding, and curriculum of public schools are more frequent nowadays than in the past. The literature also points to the contextual components that must be considered in making education policy and which components influence its success to a large extent. Chapter 4 describes the way in which economic and demographic aspects affect the success of education policy, the effects of political culture on the effectiveness of policy, and the effects of national culture and social cohesion on the design and implementation of education policy. Chapter 5 reviews the problems with public education, as identified in the contemporary discourse, including bureaucratic and central government, poor professionalization of teachers, and a gap in achievements that reflects and replicates social power structure. The research literature reveals that these systemic educational problems “correspond” to a large extent to the proposed solutions aimed at improving the public education system. Chapter 6 describes the key solutions proposed in this area, including decentralization approach and market-driven standards, professional reforms that focus on teacher training and development, policy proposals aimed at promoting social justice through education, and initiatives to promote collaboration between schools and between educators, stakeholders, and the community. Finally, the book discusses education policy as a field of knowledge. Chapter 7 deals with epistemological assumptions and critiques of methodologies in the field of education policy, specifically with comparative approaches and evaluation studies.

Contents

1 Introduction to Education Policy������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Definitions and Basic Concepts����������������������������������������������������������    1 1.2 Public Education in the Twenty-First Century ����������������������������������    3 1.3 Values and Ideologies in Education���������������������������������������������������   10 1.4 Summary of the Chapter��������������������������������������������������������������������   16 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   16 2 The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy ����������������������������   21 2.1 Power, Politics, and Agenda Setting��������������������������������������������������   21 2.2 Key Players and the Social Construction of the Target Population������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   24 2.3 Decision-Making Processes and Ethical Aspects of Decision-­ Making ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   30 2.4 Summary of the Chapter��������������������������������������������������������������������   36 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   36 3 The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy ��������������������   41 3.1 Policy Instruments������������������������������������������������������������������������������   41 3.2 Field Effects on Implementation��������������������������������������������������������   46 3.3 Evaluation of Education Policy����������������������������������������������������������   51 3.4 Systemic Change and Education Reforms ����������������������������������������   55 3.5 Summary of the Chapter��������������������������������������������������������������������   60 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   60 4 The Policy Process: Contextual Factors��������������������������������������������������   65 4.1 Demographic and Economic Aspects������������������������������������������������   65 4.2 Political Culture����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   69 4.3 National Culture and Social Cohesion ����������������������������������������������   71 4.4 Summary of the Chapter��������������������������������������������������������������������   76 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   76

ix

x

Contents

5 Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems��������������������������������������������������   79 5.1 Public Education in Crisis������������������������������������������������������������������   79 5.2 Bureaucratic Structure and Central Government ������������������������������   83 5.3 Poor Professionalization in Teaching ������������������������������������������������   87 5.4 Inequality in Education����������������������������������������������������������������������   93 5.5 Summary of the Chapter��������������������������������������������������������������������  102 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  103 6 Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions��������������������������������������������������  109 6.1 Promoting School Effectiveness��������������������������������������������������������  110 6.2 Promoting Teaching as a Profession��������������������������������������������������  124 6.3 Promoting Equality in Education ������������������������������������������������������  128 6.4 Promoting Collaboration in Education����������������������������������������������  136 6.5 Summary of the Chapter��������������������������������������������������������������������  139 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  140 7 Criticism of Education Policy as a Field of Knowledge������������������������  147 7.1 Criticism of the Basic Assumptions and Conceptualizations of Studies on Education Policy��������������������  147 7.2 Criticism of Comparative Studies in Education Policy����������������������  153 7.3 Criticism of Evaluation Studies in Education Policy ������������������������  154 7.4 Summary of the Chapter��������������������������������������������������������������������  157 References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  158 Postface ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  161

About the Author

Izhak  Berkovich  is a faculty member in the Department of Education and Psychology at the Open University of Israel. He serves as the head of the Research Institute for Policy Analysis at the Open University of Israel. He graduated from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, with a BA in Behavioral Sciences and Education, and received MA and PhD degrees in Policy, Administration, and Leadership in Education from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research focuses on the strategic and micro aspects of leading educational organizations, as well as on educational policy, governance, and planning. He has authored more than 60 papers on educational leadership, ethics, and social justice in school management, emotions in schools, politics and policymaking in education, and educational reforms in leading peer-reviewed journals such as Review of Educational Research, Journal of Educational Change, Comparative Education Review, Critical Studies in Education, Journal of Educational Administration, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, Leadership and Policy in Schools, School Leadership and Management, Urban Education, Teachers and Teaching, British Journal of Sociology of Education, and Globalisation, Societies and Education. His recent books include Digital Protest and Activism in Public Education (2019, Emerald) and A Model of Emotional Leadership in Schools: Effective Leadership to Support Teachers’ Emotional Wellness (2020, Routledge). He has received several awards, including the Emerald/EFMD Outstanding Doctoral Research Award in the Educational Leadership and Strategy category and the Emerging Scholar Award from the AERA Educational Change SIG.

xi

Chapter 1

Introduction to Education Policy

This chapter provides a background for the discussion of the two main foci of the book: (a) the processes of design and implementation of education policy, and (b) the contemporary discourse on problems and solutions in education systems. At the beginning of the twentieth century, education became accepted as a basic public resource, and the idea that the government should shape the policies that guide the education system took root. Since then, the essence of the state, its relations with its citizens, the nature and extent of the education systems, and the importance attributed to them have undergone considerable changes. In recent decades, as a result of the growing dominance of globalization and multiculturalism, public education has been reshaped, and the management of public education systems is changing (Goren H, Yemini M: Comp J Comp Int Educ 48(3):397–413, 2018; Ichilov O: The retreat from public education: global and Israeli perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht, 2009). In this chapter, we begin by explaining the basic concepts, such as policy and education policy, as well as related concepts, such as educational planning. Next, we define what public education is, discuss how a given historical period influences it, and talk about trends in the present era that shape it. We also discuss the key ideologies that shape education, and explore how they relate to education policy.

1.1  Definitions and Basic Concepts The word “policy” comes from the fourteenth century French word policie, which means a plan of action or management. The root of the word is associated with the Greek “politia,” which means state or government. Education policy can be narrowly defined as “a collection of statements about activity to be carried out” and broadly as “a system of details, overt or implicit, about the guidelines for future action” (Inbar 1997, p. 249). This distinction emphasizes two central aspirations of © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Berkovich, Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century, Policy Implications of Research in Education 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_1

1

2

1  Introduction to Education Policy

education policymakers: on one hand, to manage what is happening in the present, and on the other to shape what will happen in the future. Education policy is a specific case of public policy. Anderson (2014) defined public policy as a process by which political actors address a public problem. It also includes government intentions and enactment patterns/routines. Public policy is expressed in a variety of manifestations, including formal legislation, administrative regulations that translate legislation into concrete aspects, the interpretation of court rulings, budgeting activity that reflects government priorities, as well as the activities of field personnel and adjustments made in different contexts of implementation. Although the use of the term “education policy” has been documented in the context of the management of education policies in African and South American colonies under imperialist rule, the concept of education as a domain of government interest is associated with the middle of the nineteenth century and the formation of nation states (Fuller and Robinson 1992; Brumbaugh 1907; Committee on Native Education 1925). Guba (1984) reviewed a series of policies and identified three recurring conceptualizations of education policy: (a) policy-in-intention, which includes goals, decisions, judgment, and problem-solving strategies. Those who adopt this conceptualization explore objectives, rules, guidelines, and a set of tactics. Research on policy-in-intention focuses on points of view that are far from the actions of the policy itself; (b) policy-in-action, which includes sanctions on behavior, behavioral norms, outcomes of the decision-making process, and it explores expectations, norms, and effects. Research on policy-in-action focuses on points of view close to the policy itself; (c) policy-in-experience, which includes building on the experiences of the field personnel and on the meanings embraced in the implementation of the policy. Research on policy-in-experience focuses on the internal points of view of the implementers of the policy-in-action. Ball (2015) examined other conceptualizations of education policy and discussed the philosophical question of what policy is. Ball identified two approaches. The first, which is modernist in nature, presupposes the existence of a single reality. This approach views policy as an authoritative text. It explores the interpretative processes and the translation of policy in the field, and how field personnel embody the policy. The second approach, which is critical and post-structuralist in nature, emphasizes the influence of those with power in society and the concepts they promote to construct social reality as objective. This approach views policy as a discourse and investigates the ways in which teachers are constructed as specific subjects by a given policy, i.e., the particular manner in which they are expected to think and act. Thus, practitioners’ interpretations also constitute policy. In Ball’s view, much of the research in education policy today is based on a modernist approach, and therefore focuses on “what is written and said, rather than how those statements are formed and made possible” (Ball 2015, p. 311). Education policy can be explored from a variety of theoretical perspectives (Inbar 1997): (a) philosophical—policy as a series of collective philosophical principles that shapes communal identity and is used to solve problems; (b) political— policy as a political product that constitutes a tool whose purpose is to promote

1.2  Public Education in the Twenty-First Century

3

political goals that are sometimes close to values ​​or ideology; (c) organizational— policy as an organizational effort to instigate change while maintaining stability; (d) economic—policy as an allocation of resources in short supply (economic shortage relates to the gap between what is desired and what is provided, given an unlimited public need or desire facing limited public resources). McDonell (2009) identified three main interrelated building blocks in education policy: (a) institutions—the rules and norms that shape who participates in policymaking, who has the power to decide, and what procedures take place before the decision; (b) interests—groups that attempt to influence policy, the interests they advance, their effects on the political process, and their part in the formation of policy; and (c) ideas—the underlying values of ​​ the proposed policy, the strategies underlying these beliefs, and the assumptions about how these strategies advance the desired outcomes. Wadi and Demsky (1995) argued that the determination of education policy and educational planning are closely related. Planning is a common type of education policy, with a detailed, structured, and purposeful nature. Education planning involves analyzing the situation and assessing different options, preparing and monitoring the implementation process for the purpose of improving policy. Planning is the “intellectual anticipation of possible future situations, the selection of desirable situations to be achieved (objectives) and the determination of relevant actions that need to be taken in order to reach those objectives at a reasonable cost” (UNESCO, n.d., p .9). Planning is divided into three levels (Wiles 2007): (a) the strategic level, where organizational goals are derived from the definition of the task; the goals are broadly defined and are usually few; (b) the tactical level, where each goal is translated into applicable and measurable objectives; and (c) the operative level, in which each target is translated into required steps, sometimes called actions or plans. Planning an education policy is a type of strategic operation designed to ensure that members of the organization work to promote its goals in a changing environment (UNESCO n.d.). Mintzberg (1994) warned that organizations often focus on strategic planning processes that are characterized by a bureaucratic and simplistic view that seeks to draft detailed formal procedures for existing strategies, without creative thinking about what is required or what will be required in the future.

1.2  Public Education in the Twenty-First Century In a survey of the development of public education in the US, Thattai (2001) identified the roots of public education in the seventeenth century, when Christian communities of Puritans and Protestants established their frameworks of religious education. After the declaration of independence and the establishment of the US, in 1776, education became a local issue and was accessible mainly to the wealthy. Katz (1976) identified the establishment of public education as a central concept in modern societies at the end of the nineteenth century. In the mid-nineteenth century,

4

1  Introduction to Education Policy

reformers called for common education as a basis for citizenship, solidarity, crime prevention, and reduction of poverty. They gained public support, and by the end of the nineteenth century, free primary education was offered throughout the US (Thattai 2001). Previously, the few schools that existed were arbitrarily organized, each having its own individual outlook and level of public support. Only after the organization has grown, the number of schools increased, and the task of learning was newly defined, did the public education system that we know today come into being. The design of education as a public system resulted in several key functions (Katz 1976): (a) a formal organization that operates hierarchically, (b) is operated by a team of experts who are trained in a particular way, (c) its services are free and often enshrined in a legal obligation, and (d) contains services for a range of ages. Public education was intended to socialize children, encourage discipline for shaping the social order, and promote economic development. Soon, many states enacted laws that made primary education mandatory through attendance of public or private schools. Katz argued that four key developments that occurred during the late nineteenth century are responsible for the expansion of the public education systems: (a) the industrial revolution and growing urbanization; (b) increased understanding of the state as responsible for the welfare of its citizens; (c) the spread of the bureaucratic idea that the establishment of specialized institutions can resolve social issues; and (d) redefining of the family, from traditional to modern. The importance of the extended family declined, and that of the nuclear family increased, as a consequence of urbanization. Also as a result of the process of urbanization, a separation was created between work and home spaces. Therefore, it became necessary to establish an agency that would replace the extended family in its role as educator. Throughout the twentieth century, many countries expanded their public school systems and enacted laws requiring attendance until the age of 16. As a result, the higher education system was also expanded. According to Schofer and Meyer (2005), the ratio of those enrolled in higher education institutions in 1900 was about 1% of world population; by the year 2000, the proportion increased to 20%. Talshir (2006) offered a broader perspective on the development of education in Western democracies, arguing that the concepts of citizenship, civil society, and education are interconnected, and that they vary and are continually redefined in different historical periods. The researcher presented a historical analysis that divides the different periods by century, dominant values of the time, and the effect of these values on concepts of citizenship, civil society, and education. Whereas in the past education and the public sphere were controlled by the religious institutions, in the eighteenth century the supremacy of religion as the constitutive value of society was replaced by focus on human reason and judgment. Recognition of this insight necessitated that individuals have personal human rights (the right to liberty, the right to own property, and so on) and a role in shaping the public sphere. As a result, civil society and private education rose in importance. In the nineteenth century, the constitutive value was the nation. Recognition of the nation as a foundational value resulted in the rise of national policy. In consequence of this recognition, political rights were granted to individuals: the right to criticize the government,

1.2  Public Education in the Twenty-First Century

5

the right to vote, the right to be elected, and so on. This period is also that of the industrial revolution, which creates a new class system. Talshir’s understanding is that during this period civil society served as a broker between the private and the public, and education, appropriated by the monopoly of the state, acquired a social/ national function. Talshir observed that in the twentieth century, the worth of an individual life becomes especially important after the destruction brought about by the world wars. As a consequence of this value, social rights were granted to individuals, and the model of the welfare state was formed. The welfare state is based on an array of government mechanisms related to the collection of resources (usually through taxation) and their redistribution in a manner designed to reduce inequality (usually through the operation of broad public systems, transfer of payments, etc.). The model of the welfare state creates a synthesis between the political and economic spheres, which were previously separate. In this way, the state builds upon civil society. The state takes education under its wing, perceiving it as a means of shaping its citizens. It mandates attendance and extends public education to include the post-primary level (high school). Thus, education is not only considered a fundamental civic right but also a civic responsibility. According to Talshir, in the twenty-first century, the constitutive value is cultural definition. Various arenas (political, social, economic) are divided into separate parts. The country is perceived as a framework that contains many different cultural communities, and as a result the education system changes to adopt a multi-cultural and communal aspect. Civil society, operating alongside the state and the economy, offers a space for democratic expression and civic participation. Talshir’s analysis of the twenty-first century coincides closely with many researchers’ analyses of the processes that are affecting us, characterized by functional effects (related to the strengthening of the processes of globalization and changes in the patterns of the state and the mode of national governance), and ethical effects (related to the rise of post-modernist values) on the public school system. Therefore, in this section, we focus on the expansion of the concept of globalization and its influence on education systems and their management. Ram (2007) defined globalization as a process in which societal interaction beyond the borders of the country becomes meaningful for societies and individuals. According to Ram, the nation-state model that dominated the twentieth century was founded on the combination of land, population, and government, which is how a common ground and collective identity were formed. In the second half of the twentieth century, however, new information and communication technologies have created new financial networks, as well as networks of production and consumption that have shaped the global capitalist economy. This reality is characterized by a global market, division of labor, and financial markets. These processes have various manifestations, dominant among them being the liberalization of national markets and their opening to foreign elements, immigration, ethnic diversity, and an increase in the power of international organizations. Technological changes have thus resulted in economic, social, and cultural activities no longer being confined to a defined national territory, and have weakened the ability of the national political power to manage its resources and policies, reducing its

6

1  Introduction to Education Policy

maneuvering space. Ram argued that in the current reality, national frameworks are being redesigned from the ground up and are changing their role in response to global processes and dictates. Ben-Peretz (2009) identified four changes associated with globalization that affect education policy: (a) migration between countries, which produces multi-­cultural societies; (b) the rise of the global economy, and with it the demand for graduates of the education system to integrate and compete in the global labor market; (c) changes in the content and patterns of knowledge acquisition and its transience following the rise of communication technologies; and (d) increasing awareness of environmental and climatic changes, and of the humans’ role in these changes. Globalization processes affect the education system both directly and indirectly (Stromquist and Monkman 2014) in several ways: new technologies undermine the status of the teacher as an authoritative source of knowledge; growing similarity between education systems worldwide, following comparisons by international organizations and the creation of global standards of “quality” education; increased cultural and ethnic diversity in the student population as a result of the global labor market; and growing perceptions of a global citizenship through electronic communication, which creates “an imagined community” worldwide (i.e., a large group of people converging around an idea that binds them into a collective, although the connection and similarity between them is small or nonexistent; see Anderson 1983). In the wake of globalization, education policymakers need to reconsider educational goals and the structure of the public education system, examine the training and skills of educators, establish evaluation systems in education, and formulate a new conception of the role of government in the design and supply of public education and of the place of other organizations in these processes (Hallak 2000; Pizmony-Levy 2017). Hay (2008) argued that globalization is challenging and tampering with the power of the national public policymakers for several reasons: (a) globalization requires certain types of policy choices involving privatization and technocratization, and therefore disrupts the local accountability of policymakers toward their public; (b) it requires international capital, reducing the maneuvering room of economic policymakers; (c) it reduces the governing ability of governments and their autonomy because national and international institutions assume a part in public functions; and (d) it creates a convergence and a similarity between countries in their public policies. In this way, globalization creates constraints and dictates the choices to policymakers while remaining itself outside of the sphere of influence of those policymakers. Inglehart (2000) identified a global value change when the need for economic and physical security, after World War II, was replaced by the need for self-­ expression and quality of life. One explanation he offered for the change is that societal values develop as a collective response to the socioeconomic and political environment in which people grow up, as dissatisfaction with certain psychological or physical needs emphasizes their importance. In contrast, Aviram (1996) argued that the accumulation of social-cultural-technological changes produced a society with new features, which he called post-modern. In his view, the post-modern society is characterized by ethical relativism (as opposed to the absolute morality that shapes societies in which religion or nationality are constitutive parameters). As a

1.2  Public Education in the Twenty-First Century

7

result, there is an increase in the importance of individualism and self-realization and a decrease in the importance of the collective. In parallel, a demand is created for social frameworks that are based on satisfying the needs of the individual, and a variety of social frameworks advocating cultural pluralism. According to Aviram, a value change creates a wide gap between the social reality and the education system, turning the education system into an “anomaly,” i.e., deviating from the situation that is deemed consistent with reality. In his opinion, the gap is extremely wide because it touches on many aspects of education: (a) its goals—in the past, education was intended to make students internalize and implement a high moral ideal, whereas today relativism places self-realization as its target; (b) the target audience of education—in the past, the target audience consisted of children who need an “addition” of knowledge to reach adulthood, whereas today the cultural distinctions between children and adults are blurred; (c) the attitude toward the target audience—in the past, students were forced into the system, whereas today children have the right to choose; (d) the content of educational activity—in the past, curricula were based on the study of disciplines that conferred a unique status on theoretical knowledge, whereas today, as a result of relativism, there is no recognition of an “absolute truth;” (e) the organizational structure of the educational system—in the past, education was dependent on a physical place and a regular time, and adopted a pattern of authoritative management, whereas today technology enables learning to occur in different places and times, and requires network management patterns; (f) instructional strategies—in the past, instruction was based on books and frontal lectures, whereas today various media create experiential and interactive patterns of learning and communication. Apart from these broad changes, it is possible to identify specific changes related to the management of public institutions and the education system. This change is reflected in the widespread adoption by these systems of the pattern of New Public Management (NPM), which aims to streamline public systems by implementing the ideas of market, competition, and privatization. Some researchers perceive the change in the management of public services stemming from the effects of globalization and the value changes in society, discussed above. The literature attributes the idea of privatizing education to Milton Friedman, who argued that market forces can contribute to public education more than government involvement can (Miron 2008). Michaeli (2015) suggested that the classification of the education system according to public and private poles touches on three aspects: policy planning, policy financing, and policy execution. He argued that in characterizing the school system as public or private one can follow two approaches: a restrictive and a broader one. The restrictive approach holds that only when the responsibility of the state is removed from all three aspects, does public education become privatized. Under this approach, even if the state does not in practice operate the educational institutions, but establishes policies that guide the outcome or finance it, the education system remains public in its essence. The broader approach claims that the public nature of education becomes private when the state withdraws from one of the three aspects (i.e., policy planning, policy financing, and policy execution). Despite the differences between them, the two approaches embody a formalistic conception of

8

1  Introduction to Education Policy

the “publicness” of education. Miron argued that there are two competing conceptions of publicness in education: formalistic, having to do with legislation and rulings that identify the authority and administrative control of the state, or of its representatives, as decisive characteristics of the publicness of education; and functionalist, adopted by the supporters of an education market (based on privatization and choice), which identifies the publicness of education not with the powers and influence of the state, but with the ability to achieve public purposes. Michaeli (2015), for example, claimed that the public school system has three main goals: (a) provision of vocational education, (b) provision of equal opportunities and reducing social gaps, and (c) the creation of a common cultural and ethical foundation in society. Academies in England An example that can be analyzed based on both perceptions of public education, those of formalism and functionalism, is that of academies in England. The academies were established in the early 2000s by the Labor government, headed by Tony Blair, with the intention of improving the quality of education and achievement of children from disadvantaged and poor populations. The creation of academies is related to a move in which many schools have been detached from the local authorities and became “independent” (Woods et al. 2020). Academies are also referred to as “sponsored academies,” as they are often established by companies, religious groups, charities, universities, collages, and even “successful” schools (Woods et al. 2020). These schools have been granted greater authority in the areas of teacher recruitment, fundraising, and the ability to make changes in the curriculum, but they are subject to government supervision conducted by Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. Yet, the move to decentralize public education in England did not create autonomous schools in practice. In early 2018, about 75% of secondary schools and about 25% of primary schools were academies (Woods et al. 2020). Over two thirds of all academies were run by multi-academy trusts that formed a centralized leadership and governance structure (some more hierarchical than others) (Woods et  al. 2020). Moreover, local authorities remained somewhat active because they continue to support schooling services, and negotiate partnerships and agreements between schools (Woods et  al. 2020). The schools participate in national exams. It is not yet clear to what extent this model is effective, because the schools show mixed results (The Economist 2016, August 27). Some scholars have been critical of academies, viewing them as one more step in the privatization of public education in England because they allow the transfer of education and responsibility for its quality from public to private hands (West and Bailey 2013; Woods et al. 2007). Thus, a formalist analysis of the “publicness” of education that adopts a restrictive approach may argue that this initiative is privatizing education in England, because these schools are managed by private or non-governmental entities. A functionalist analysis, however, may consider this initiative as public education because it serves public goals.

1.2  Public Education in the Twenty-First Century

9

Hill (2001) criticized the disappointing results of US public schools, especially urban institutions serving poor populations, and argued that the public schools we know today are not an ideal model but rather “accidents of politics and history” (p. 316). Hill supported schools defined as “private” and argued against public education. In his view, people who laud public education associate it, incorrectly, with certain characteristics, such as a neighborhood building, control by public representatives, and free public service supported by tax money. According to Hill, public education supporters who frequently criticize private education make a basic logical mistake because they confuse means with goals. He further argued that public education is not a specific means but an array of public goals, including (Hill 2001): the provision of universal education that focuses on learning; creating economic, social, and political opportunities for all; and cultivating a community, citizenship, and tolerance. Therefore, in his view, private schools also provide public education if they serve these purposes. In contrast to Hill’s analysis of the publicness of the American education system from a functionalist perspective, Michaeli (2015) analyzed the publicness of the education system in Israel from a formalist perspective. Michaeli identified changes in three key areas related to the publicness of the education system in recent decades. The first concerns the trend of the privatization of funding, whereby the state withdraws from funding public education. This phenomenon is reflected in increasing cuts in the government budget for education and in increased rate of private funding in national spending on education (e.g., Addi-Raccah 2019). The second is the trend of pedagogical privatization, in which the state withdraws from planning and supplying content for public education. This phenomenon is manifest in the growing involvement of non-governmental and private organizations in public schools (e.g., Eyal and Yarm 2018), as well as in the founding of schools by private non-­ governmental organizations with public funding. The third concerns administrative privatization, in which the state withdraws from managing public education. This is reflected in the transfer of administrative powers to school principals, setting standards for student achievement and establishing a system of assessment, and the widespread adoption of flexible employment for the teaching staff (e.g., Berkovich 2014; Resnik 2020).

Legislative Framework of Israeli Public Education In 1949, the Israeli parliament passed the Compulsory Education Act that imposed on the state exclusive responsibility for the education of all children, and mandated state funding for elementary schools (grades 1-8) (Michaeli 2015). Several years later, in 1953, the State Education Act was passed, aiming to unite all educational streams into a common public education system, with one curriculum, and thereby sever the link between educational institutions and political bodies. According to Israeli legislation, schools may belong to one of three legal categories: (a) an officially legal institution, owned by the state, where teachers are directly employed by the state, and schools are fully funded by the (continued)

10

1  Introduction to Education Policy

state and subordinated to all state demands and regulations; (b) a recognized institution that is not officially owned by the state, where teachers can be employed directly by the state or indirectly by non-governmental organizations, but still be public employees, and schools are partly (75%) funded by the state and partly subordinated to state demands and regulations, but enjoying some independence in accepting students, employing teachers, and devising a curriculum, and (c) an exempt institution, owned by a non-­governmental organization, partly (55%) funded by the state but not subordinated to state demands and regulations. Only after the expansion of the law for compulsory education to grade 10, introduced by the Israeli parliament in the late 1960s, did secondary education become a central stage in the Israeli education system. As a result, most primary state schools have an official legal status, and most secondary state schools have a recognized unofficial status.

1.3  Values and Ideologies in Education Many have argued that values ​​and ideologies play a special role in education policy. Values ​​are “concepts or beliefs about patterns of behavior, goals, or action that help to direct, evaluate, or judge behaviors, situations, or events” (Almog-Bareket and Friedman 2010, p. 32). Ideology is defined as “a fairly coherent set of values and beliefs about the way the social, economic, and political systems should be organized and recommendations about how these values and beliefs should be put into effect” (Isaak 1987, p. 133). These concepts are often discussed in contrast with the concept of interests, which describe the tangible personal or group gains of political actors (Campbell 2002). Campbell described three approaches to the relationship between policy processes, interests, and ideologies. One approach is the materialist one, which holds that the desire of players to achieve personal or group gain drives policy processes. According to this approach, various policy actors operate out of an economic rationale to maximize their benefit. Scholars of the critical school have argued that political elites make cynical strategic use of ideological frameworks to justify the policy that serves them. According to this approach, “particular ideas are nothing more than a smokescreen for the institutional and personal interests that are really animating and guiding action” (Moore 1990, p. 71). On the other side of the divide is the idealistic approach that emphasizes ideas rather than interests as the engine that motivates players to act in political processes. Therefore, in this view, arguments about policy are intrinsically about values. A third approach connects the other two and argues for the interaction of interests and values to ​​ drive policy processes. According to this approach, a values-based conception of personal identity affects how key players in the policy process regard their interests. In this way, the rational interest takes on a more concrete meaning within the framework of the ideological perspective that plays a role in translating it into a practical program. In

1.3  Values and Ideologies in Education

11

the spirit of this approach, Moore (1990) concluded that “ideas matter because they establish the contexts within which policy debates are conducted, organizational activities are rendered coherent and meaningful, and people’s actions are animated and directed,” (p. 78) and as such, ideas have the ability to destabilize the power structure. Goldstein (1993) elaborated on the relationship between beliefs and policy. According to Goldstein, beliefs contain cognitive paradigms (which describe how the world works, for example, in cause-and-effect relationships) and normative frameworks (describing how the world should run, for example, expectations of a proper personal and social life) that affect (a) the delegitimization process of a plan in the eyes of policymakers; (b) the judgment of policymakers on the question of which alternative plan is “logical;” (c) the motivation of policymakers to adopt and implement a plan; and (d) the efforts of policymakers to institutionalize the program as an integral part of the government mechanisms. It is important, therefore, to question the values that ​​ guide a particular policy, its value conflicts, and its assumptions about the essence of man, society, economy, and governance. According to the literature, ideologies become dominant in a particular government in two ways: infiltration and embeddedness (Campbell 2002). Infiltration of ideas occurs through institutional filters, such as academic intellectual elites that legitimize and advance them. Intellectuals play an important role in translating new ideas into governmental tactics and operating mechanisms of authority. The importance of intellectuals and academics in promoting ideologies stems not only from their formal role as disseminators of ideas, but also from the informal relations that often exist between members of elites, which leads to personal relations with politicians and the formation of trust. In the transfer of dominant ideas into government by embeddedness, ideologies that have been translated into applicable mechanisms become part of the DNA of the government because they have been institutionalized by legislative, procedural, and bureaucratic tools, and have become durable organizational arrangements with a long lifespan. Among the common political ideologies discussed in the context of education policy are the liberal, the social democratic, and the neoliberal ideologies. 1. Liberal ideology is an individualistic political philosophy based on the principle of human liberty, which emphasizes the protection of individual rights, including freedom of religion, freedom of expression, property rights, freedom of association, and free trade. The liberal ideology holds that the state must ensure the liberty of individuals by maintaining political equality and equality before the law (formal equality), separating religion from state, and establishing a free capitalist economy (Vincent 2009). 2. Social democratic ideology is a philosophy based on the idea that society is responsible for the welfare of its constituent individuals. This assumption is at the bottom of the desire to ensure not only political equality and equality before the law that prohibits discrimination, but also economic and social equality of opportunity. To this end, the supporters of this ideology adopt a central planning approach in these issues. According to this approach, it is the role of the state to

12

1  Introduction to Education Policy

intervene in socioeconomic matters to create equality of opportunity (e.g., by taxation of the stronger classes, the transfer of payments to the weaker classes, etc.) (Vincent 2009). 3. Neoliberal ideology is a philosophy that serves as an alternative to classical economic liberalism and central social democratic design. This ideology emphasizes broad economic liberalization and free trade, alongside a reduction in government spending and in its involvement in socioeconomic issues. According to this ideology, it is vital for the state to withdraw from economic and social life, to enable the private sector to follow its path and contribute to economic growth and society (Ward et al. 2015). In contrast to classic liberalism, which claims that the market has its own dynamics and the ability to regulate itself, and therefore encourages passivity on the part of the central government in the economic sphere, the neoliberal approach holds that the state must intervene to enable markets to function optimally. The neoliberal state agenda is capitalist, and it supports privatization of public services, deregulation of markets, and increased competition (Oplatka 2018; Saunders 2010). • Alongside neoliberalism, an ideological approach called “neoconservatism,” whose proponents support the strengthening of national motifs and “traditional” values is often mentioned. Many scholars perceive this ideology as complementary to the neoliberal one because it seeks to return to a distinct hierarchy and sees the success of individuals and groups in the market as a central element in the creation and justification of the social hierarchy (Apple 2006). We discuss in detail the practical expressions associated with the application of the neoliberal ideology to education policy, in particular, promoting effectiveness in education (with respect to such issues as parents’ choice of school and standard assessment tests). When discussing education policy, not only political ideologies, but also educational ones should be taken into account, including detailed concepts of the nature of the educational process. Jones (2009), who has studied the discourse on values ​​in the Australian school system, argued that several value approaches can be identified in Western educational discourse: 1. Conservative values ​​gain expression in authoritative schools and teaching. This concept assigns students the role of passive recipients of knowledge, the primary goal of education being preparation for the workforce. Conservative values can ​​ stem from religious or secular perceptions. This form of education endeavors to guide students to integrate into society and comply with social norms. Conservative values ​​are often translated into goals, such as character education, civic education, or vocational education. Pedagogical methods include frontal teaching, the personal example of the educators, and rules enforced through reward and punishment. 2. Liberal values ​​are manifest in the desire to develop students’ knowledge and skills, especially with regard to inquiry and autonomous decision-making. This approach perceives students holistically and relates to them as individuals.

1.3  Values and Ideologies in Education

13

Liberal values ​​are reflected in choices involving morality, personal initiative, and self-fulfillment, and in pedagogic methods that include democratic school frameworks, instruction that addresses both cognitive and emotional domains, group work, and individual work. One pedagogical approach that reflects these values​​ is the constructivist approach, which emphasizes the role of the learners in constructing knowledge and the importance of their activity and responsibility. 3. Critical values ​​are expressed in active involvement in multicultural and social issues. This approach seeks to enable students to take an active role in creating the social knowledge and values ​​of society. Values ​​are translated into topics concerning economic classes, multiculturalism, feminism, sexual orientation, pacifism, and ecological sustainability. They manifest in student-centered pedagogical methods, as well as in political and social involvement through participatory community processes. 4. Post-modern values are ​​ reflected in criticism of the social constructs of “truth” and “reality.” This approach attempts to deconstruct knowledge, values, and practices in a way that reveals how they serve the hegemonic groups in social power relations. Post-modern values ​​are translated into a discussion of the “natural” social order and its dominant values, which manifest in pedagogic methods of reflective inquiry, and discourse analysis. Jones (2009) elaborated that these four approaches are accepted in many countries worldwide, but each country applies a different local emphasis. For example, in Israel it is generally argued that pedagogy and the dominant values in ​​ the national education system are nationalist-conservative (Sabar and Mathias 2003;  Yosifon and Shmida 2006). The reason is that  Israel is defined as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Nevertheless, the Israeli Jewish population (about 75% of the state’s population) is heterogeneous (Central Bureau of Statistics 2018): 45% define themselves as “secular,” 25% as “traditional,” 16% as “religious,” and 14% as “ultra-Orthodox.” The Arab minority (20%) and other minority groups (5%) comprise 25% of the state’s population (Central Bureau of Statistics 2018). The struggles over political and educational ideologies are often reflected in the design of the curriculum. Sabar and Mathias (2003) identified several periods in the design of the curriculum in Israel. According to them, the first period began with the system that was implemented at the establishment of the state, in 1948, when a unified curriculum was introduced that emphasized the internalization of national values. Its goal was to ensure formal equality and to promote a melting pot. In the 1970s, in response to the strengthening of liberal values ​​of the Israeli elites, and to the ethnic and political awakening of minority groups, the Ministry of Education formulated new educational programs that have been perceived as more academic and “objective” source of content. With the absence of national and Zionist elements, which had previously been part of the state education system, these plans encountered resistance (Sabar and Mathias 2003). The researchers note that since the 1990s, as a result of significant demographic changes following immigration from the former Soviet Union and the growth of the Jewish ultra-Orthodox and of the Arab populations, pluralism

14

1  Introduction to Education Policy

in the curriculum was strengthened, and the criticism of the plans by opponents over the weakening of the national perspective has intensified. Sabar and Mathias (2003) argued that the ideological struggle over curriculum is especially evident in the discipline of history, in which there are conflicts between different values in the shaping of collective memory in Israel. Abu-Saad (2008, 2019) argued that even in the absence of certain topics from the curriculum, the attempt of the state to dictate the shaping of a national narrative is clear, as the curriculum seeks to “de-educate” weakened populations, causing them the loss of knowledge about their group and its history. Another curriculum that has become the subject of a value debate in recent years is that of civics (Pinson 2007, 2020). Kashti (2015, November 13) described changes in the content that Israeli schools are required to teach in civics, and changes in civics textbooks that reflect a transition from the concept of liberal democracy (which emphasizes individuals and gives priority to protecting their rights) to a republican democracy (which emphasizes society and gives precedence to the benefit of the community over individual rights). The above discussion concerned the explicit curriculum, but schools also have an implicit curriculum, as part of which values ​​and behaviors are taught without having been formally included in the official educational program (Alpert 2002). The overt and covert curricula are seen as complementary aspects that express political and educational ideologies. Scholars have argued that ideologies must be understood beyond their implications for learning and organization, because all ideologies address human nature and relations within society (Susser 1999). According to the literature, values ​​shape several fundamental concepts underlying education (Cheong 2000), such as: (a) the character of human nature, which determines whether the basic assumption is that human beings are intrinsically good, inherently evil, or devoid of a definite character; (b) the nature of social relations concerns the question whether the “right” ideal is that of a collaborative act by group members or an individual act; (c) the nature of human activity asks whether the “right” ideal is passive or pro-active, conservative or entrepreneurial; (d) a connection between humanity and nature refers to whether humans should control the natural environment or try to live in harmony with it; (e) the value of human diversity determines whether differences between people should be the basis for a social structure or whether all should be treated equally; (f) the nature of truth determines whether “real” knowledge is found in external authority figures or it is revealed by personal investigation. Different basic concepts have a direct connection to specific educational models. Harpaz (2013) discussed the theory of “conflicting theories of instruction,” postulated by the educational philosopher, Zvi Lamm. This theory holds that in education there are three different models of desirable adults: (a) the integrated adults who have acquired the knowledge, skills, and habits required for their social roles (for example, being a parent) and professional roles (e.g., being a physician); (b) the civilized adults, who have internalized the beliefs and values ​​of the preferred culture and are committed to them in their personal positions and actions (for example, being a religious or a liberal person); and (c) the self-actualized adults who have discovered and developed themselves independently and authentically. These models are associated with three corresponding educational rationales—socialization,

1.3  Values and Ideologies in Education

15

acculturation, individuation—that shape educational processes aimed at developing the specific adult model. For example, the logic of socialization offers an educational process based on demonstration and practice, whose purpose is to encourage obedience and promote success in integration into society. The logic of acculturation offers an educational process based on identification and internalization of the values ​​and actions that teachers and other role models (in canonical texts or out-of-­ school meetings) embody. The individuation logic suggests an educational process based on self-motivation, personal guidance, and a flexible curriculum. Harpaz (2013) offered a vocational school as an example of socialization, a religious high school as an example of acculturation, and a democratic school as an example of individuation. He stressed that the three models of teaching are fundamentally contradictory because each one requires different teaching and evaluation patterns, and because no educational institution can effectively teach divergent curricula. Other researchers have criticized Harpaz’s view of the logic of education. These researchers regard public education as a system committed to meeting conflicting demands. For example, Nir and Eyal (2008) argued that the introduction of a national curriculum entails an understandable duality, rooted in the fact that public education operates in a competitive educational environment and in a relativistic society. As a result, public education is currently faced with multiple challenges, including: (a) being flexible in responding to a diverse population and adapting to technological changes, (b) being authentic and unique, (c) the economic challenge of providing educational results, and (d) the challenge of being relevant for students and parents. In light of this analysis of the challenges of public education, Nir and Eyal identified several basic dilemmas in shaping the national curriculum. The dilemmas have to do with tensions between uniformity and pluralism, between promoting equality and promoting excellence, between emphasizing efficiency (the ratio of inputs and outputs) and emphasizing effectiveness, and between conservatism and innovation. In their view, as a result of the multiple challenges and of the duality involved in shaping policy, we can also identify duality in the content of the national curriculum. According to the researchers, in the contradictory content elements reflected in the national curriculum it is possible to identify a preoccupation with national identity alongside global identity, an emphasis on depth and on superficiality, processes of repetition and memorization together with those aimed at fostering critical thinking, constructing the study of areas of knowledge in a disciplinary manner in which each field is separate from the other alongside the multi-­disciplinary learning process in which subjects are studied in an integrated fashion (Nir and Eyal 2008). Harpaz, as well as Nir and Eyal emphasize the connection of education with social goals and the manner in which politics uses education for social purposes. Others posit an even tighter link between politics and education, and suggest that all education is political and ideological in essence (Ichilov 1991). This view is reflected in Michaeli’s (2014) analysis of Israeli policy regarding political education, which can be defined as dealing with ideological positions within the school. Michaeli (2014) identified three periods in policy regarding political education in the Israeli education system: (a) the period of streams, from pre-state days until the enactment

16

1  Introduction to Education Policy

of the State Education Law in 1953, during which time funding and the provision of education were connected to political parties (also referred to as “ideological education”); (b) the state period, from the enactment of the State Education Law until the 1980s, during which period education was severed from party affiliation to establish a state education system, when political activity in schools and political statements by teachers were prohibited (also referred to as “apolitical” education which was criticized for trying to preserve the dominant narrative in society and prevent objections); and (c) the period of decentralization and privatization, which began in the 1980s and continues to this day. This last period is characterized by the withdrawal of the state from various aspects of education and the increasing involvement of private entities. Education preserves a political “sterility” during regular school hours, but provides a platform for economic and political interests in external programs operated by non-governmental organizations serving as “moral education contractors” (also referred to as pseudo-neutral education) (Michaeli 2014). By contrast, Agbaria (2018) suggested that currently political “sterility” is present mainly in Arab state education, whereas the Jewish state education is enlisted to promote the political ideology of the right.

1.4  Summary of the Chapter This chapter is an introduction to education policy in general and in the Israeli context in particular. A discussion of basic concepts related to education policy was followed by the presentation of the development of public education and the connection between this development and trends related to the concepts of citizenship and civil society. The chapter also highlighted the nature of the key processes affecting public education in the twenty-first century, including globalization, privatization, as well as changes in the management patterns of public systems and the rise of post-modern values. Finally, the chapter dealt with the complex relationship between ideology and education policy, and described common political and educational ideologies.

References Abu-Saad, I. (2008). Present absentees: The Arab school curriculum in Israel as a tool for de-­ educating indigenous Palestinians. Holy Land Studies: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(1), 17–43. Abu-Saad, I. (2019). Palestinian education in the Israeli settler state: Divide, rule and control. Settler Colonial Studies, 9(1), 96–116. Addi-Raccah, A. (2019). Private tutoring in a high socio-economic secondary school in Israel and pupils’ attitudes towards school learning: A double-edged sword phenomenon. British Educational Research Journal, 45(5), 938–960. Agbaria, A.  K. (2018). The ‘right’ education in Israel: Segregation, religious ethnonationalism, and depoliticized professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 59(1), 18–34.

References

17

Almog-Bareket, G., & Friedman, I. (2010). The school in the eyes of students: Values and ​​ organizational culture. Studies in Educational Administration and Organization, 31, 56–31. [in Hebrew]. Alpert, B. (2002). Concepts and ideas in the curricula as leading texts. In A. Hofman & I. Schnell (Eds.), Values and goals in Israeli school curricula (pp.  9–29). Even Yehuda: Reches. [in Hebrew]. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. London: Verso. Anderson, J. E. (2014). Public policymaking (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Apple, M. W. (2006). Understanding and interrupting neoliberalism and neoconservatism in education. Pedagogies, 1(1), 21–26. Aviram, R. (1996). The educational system in a post-modern society: An abnormal organization in a chaotic world. In I. Gur-Ze’ev (Ed.), Education in the era of post-modern discourse (pp. 103–120). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. [in Hebrew]. Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313. Ben-Peretz, M. (2009). Policy-making in education: A holistic approach in response to global changes. Lanham, MD: R&L Education. Berkovich, I. (2014). Neo-liberal governance and the ‘new professionalism’ of Israeli principals. Comparative Education Review, 58(3), 428–456. Brumbaugh, M. G. (1907). An educational policy for Spanish-American civilization. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 30(1), 65–68. Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21–38. Central Bureau of Statistics (2018). The face of Israeli society report, No. 10. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Cheong, C. Y. (2000). Cultural factors in educational effectiveness: A framework for comparative research. School Leadership & Management, 20(2), 207–225. Committee on Native Education. (1925). Education policy in British tropical Africa. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Eyal, O., & Yarm, M. (2018). Schools in cross-sector alliances: What do schools seek in partnerships? Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 648–688. Fuller, B., & Robinson, R. (1992). The political construction of education. Westport, CT: Praeger. Goldstein, J. (1993). Ideas, interests, and American trade policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2018). Obstacles and opportunities for global citizenship education under intractable conflict: The case of Israel. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(3), 397–413. Guba, E. G. (1984). The effect of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy analysis. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 63–70. Hallak, J. (2000). Globalisation and its impact on education.  In T.  Mebrahtu, M.  Crossley, & D. Johnson (Eds.), Globalisation, educational transformation and societies in transition (pp. 21-40). Oxford: Symposium Books. Harpaz, Y. (2013). The desired graduates: Towards a redefinition. Hed Hachinuch, 47(4), 37–32. [in Hebrew]. Hay, C. (2008). Globalisation and public policy. In R. E. Goodin, M. Rein, & M. Moran (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 587–606). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hill, P. T. (2001). What is public about public education. In T. M. Moe (Ed.), A primer on America’s schools (pp. 285–316). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Ichilov, O. (1991). Political socialization and schooling effects among Israeli adolescents. Comparative Education Review, 35(3), 430–446. Ichilov, O. (2009). The retreat from public education: Global and Israeli perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.

18

1  Introduction to Education Policy

Inbar, D. (1997). Education policy. In Y. Kashti, M. Arieli, & S. Shalsky (Eds.), Lexicon of education and teaching (pp. 250–249). Tel Aviv: Ramot. [in Hebrew]. Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalization and postmodern values. Washington Quarterly, 23(1), 215–228. Isaak, A. C. (1987). An introduction to politics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Company. Jones, T. M. (2009). Framing the framework: Discourses in Australia’s national values education policy. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8(1), 35–57. Kashti, O. (2015, November 13). The Ministry of Education rewrites citizenship studies: More Judaism, less democracy. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew]. Katz, M.  B. (1976). The origins of public education: A reassessment. History of Education Quarterly, 16, 381–407. McDonell, L. M. (2009). A political science perspective on education policy analysis. In G. Sykes, D. N. Plank, & B. L. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 57–70). New York, NY: Routledge. Michaeli, N. (2014). Introduction: Education and politics in the Israeli education system. In N.  Michaeli (Ed.), Yes in our school, articles on political education (pp.  29–29). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad and the Mofet Institute. [in Hebrew]. Michaeli, N. (2015). Privatization trends in the Israeli education system. In I. Galnoor, A. Paz-­ Fuchs, & N. Zion (Eds.), Privatization policy in Israel: State responsibility and the boundaries between the public and the private (pp. 237–183). Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. [in Hebrew]. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107–114. Miron, G. J. (2008). The shifting notion of “publicness” in public education. In B. S. Cooper & J. G. Cibulka (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 338–349). New York, NY: Routledge. Moore, M. (1990). What sort of ideas become public ideas. In R. B. Reich (Ed.), The power of public ideas (pp. 55–83). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nir, A., & Eyal, O. (2008). Setting a national curriculum: Bridging the gap between professionalism and politics. In J. N. Casey & R. E. Upton (Eds.), Educational curricula: Development and evaluation (pp. 235–251). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Oplatka, I. (2018). Reforming education in developing countries: From neoliberalism to communitarianism. London: Routledge. Pinson, H. (2007). At the boundaries of citizenship: Palestinian Israeli citizens and the civic education curriculum. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 331–348. Pinson, H. (2020). The new civics curriculum for high schools in Israel: The discursive construction of Palestinian identity and narratives. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 15(1), 22–34. Pizmony-Levy, O. (2017). Big comparisons, little knowledge: Public engagement with PISA in the United States and Israel. In A. W. Wiseman & C. S. Taylor (Eds.), The impact of the OECD on education worldwide (pp. 125–156). Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Ram, U. (2007). The globalization of Israel: McWorld in Tel Aviv. Jihad in Jerusalem. New York, NY: Routledge. Resnik, J. (2020). From government to governance: The incorporation of managerial regulation at the ministry of education in Israel. In G. Fan & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Handbook of education policy studies (pp. 187–221). Singapore: Springer. Sabar, N., & Mathias, Y. (2003). Curriculum planning at the threshold of the third millennium: The Israeli case. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 381–400). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Saunders, D.  B. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 41–77. Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920. Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (Eds.). (2014). Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.

References

19

Talshir, G. (2006). Citizenship, civil society and education: The Israeli case in the perspective of Western democracies. In D. Avnon (Ed.), Civic language in Israel (pp. 201–233). Jerusalem: Magnes. [in Hebrew]. Thattai, D. (2001). A history of public education in the United States. Journal of Literacy and Education in Developing Societies, 1(2), 2001–2011. The Economist (2016, August 27). After freedom, what? The Economist. Retrieved from http:// www.economist.com UNESCO (n.d.). Educational planning: Approaches, challenges and international frameworks. Distance education programme on education sector planning. Module I. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.jo/Files/(22-­12-­2013)(1-­01-­43%20PM).pdf Vincent, A. (2009). Modern political ideologies. New York, NY: Wiley. Wadi, H., & Demsky, T. (1995). Education policy-planning process: An applied framework. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO. Ward, S. C., Bagley, C., Lumby, J., Woods, P., Hamilton, T., & Roberts, A. (2015). School leadership for equity: Lessons from the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(4), 333–346. West, A., & Bailey, E. (2013). The development of the academies programme: ‘Privatising’ school-based education in England 1986–2013. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(2), 137–159. Wiles, M. R. (2007). What is strategic planning? In M. R. Wiles (Ed.), Strategic planning for the chiropractic practice (pp. 1–6). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Woods, P.  A., Woods, G.  J., & Gunter, H. (2007). Academy schools and entrepreneurialism in education. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 237–259. Woods, P. A., Roberts, A., Jarvis, J., & Culshaw, S. (2020). Autonomy and regulation in the school system in England. In H. Ärlestig & O.  Johansson (Eds.), Educational authorities and the schools: Organisation and impact in 20 states (pp. 111–130). Dordrecht: Springer. Yosifon, M., & Shmida, M. (2006). Towards a new educational paradigm in the Israeli educational system in the post-modern age. Tel-Aviv: CET Innovations in Education. [in Hebrew]. Susser, B. (1999). Nationalism: Alive and well. In From left and right (pp. 308–270). Tel Aviv: Schocken. [in Hebrew].

Chapter 2

The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

A policy process is a series of events that occur when a political system encounters public problems, examines different approaches to their solutions, adopts one approach, attempts it, and evaluates it. One of the most common ways of describing a policy process is as a chronological sequence of events. Such a model usually contains key steps, such as the stage of problem identification and agenda setting, policy formulation, decision-making, the adoption of a preferred alternative, and finally, the stages of implementation and evaluation (Jann W, Wegrich K: Theory of the policy cycle. In: Fischer, Miller GJ (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 43–64, 2006). In this chapter, we focus on education policy that seeks to understand how and why issues receive public attention, and why certain policy solutions are accepted. These questions arise because, at any given time, a large number of issues require the attention of policymakers. Focusing on certain issues and on how they are framed in the public discourse, as well as on the selection of certain solutions, is also related to aspects of power and to the characteristics of the problems in the field of education. We expand on these topics in this chapter.

2.1  Power, Politics, and Agenda Setting We begin by discussing the concept of power and its influence on political processes related to policy formulation. Political theorist, Robert Dahl, defined power as follows: “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do” (Dahl 1957, pp. 202–203). Power may be divided equally between players, or asymmetrically, where one side holds or is attributed a greater degree of power. This definition identifies behavior as an indicator of the use of power, but researchers extended the definition and included other aspects as well. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Berkovich, Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century, Policy Implications of Research in Education 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_2

21

22

2  The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

Scholars argued that political power can be expressed as one or more of the following factors (Bachrach and Baratz 1963; Carstensen and Schmidt 2016; Lukes 1974): 1. Explicit use of power (i.e., decision-making power), which is the ability of one actor to impose its position in the decision-making process despite the possible opposition of another. Among the various means of influence are force (physical or psychological manipulation), economic control (through wages, working conditions, or career prospects), authority (legal, charismatic, or through tradition/culture), and persuasion (training and socialization processes). 2. Mobilization bias, which is the ability of one actor to place constraints on the decision-making process in a manner that delays or prevents decisions that do not interest the actor (i.e., non-decision-making power). Those in power enjoy customs, norms, organizational structure, and procedures that enable them to control who is involved in the decision-making process, or to limit the issues being discussed. 3. Shaping of consciousness, which is not concerned with individual or group behaviors regarding actual conflict, but rather with the way in which systemic and social arrangements control the boundaries of public discourse and create ideological superiority of certain ideas (i.e., ideological power). The shaping of the consciousness of individuals and groups is accomplished through language and images transmitted within the frameworks of family, education, or mass media. Changes in consciousness are essential for understanding policymaking processes in democracies. Governments have significant powers to shape policy issues according to their political ideology and interests given their institutional legal tools to determine the work of ministries and parliaments (Rasch and Tsebelis 2013). One of the main gauges of power in the political arena of a democratic country is the advancement of policy issues that require government intervention in the public agenda (McCombs 2013). Because there are many possible issues, this preference dictates the attention of policymakers. Often, an issue that is high on the public agenda leads to the formulation of a policy proposal that is adopted by the relevant state bodies (legislative or executive branches), granting the policy official status in the law or regulations. The term “agenda setting” refers to a process in which issues become worthy of political attention. The prominence of an issue can arise from situational factors, such as economic crisis or war, or as a result of the intervention by various players and stakeholders. The mass media plays a particularly important role in this process at present, because of its power to shape public opinion (McCombs 2013). Public opinion is influenced to a large extent by ideological or demographic-cultural affiliation, but these aspects are relatively stable, and therefore less relevant when it comes to explaining changes in public opinion (Soroka 2003). In modern times, the mass media serves as the link between the public and policymakers. On one hand, the public receives information about the actions of policymakers through the media; on the other hand, policymakers regard media reports as a reflection of public opinion.

2.1 Power, Politics, and Agenda Setting

23

McQuail (1994) argued that agenda setting is related to the media agenda, that is, the scope and nature of the coverage assigned to particular topics or personalities creates a psychological experience in the public by giving prominence to certain issues. Scheufele (2000) elaborated upon these ideas and noted that the mass media shapes the standards for the evaluation of governments and politicians. Intensive coverage of certain issues raises their prominence in the eyes of the public, which makes them a criterion for evaluating the success of their leaders and political bodies. The struggle between powerful players for setting agendas is particularly evident in initiatives for policy changes or reforms. Beginning in the early 2000s, there has been an increase in the dominance of new digital media, which has been changing the behavior and substance of traditional democratic participation (Avigur-­ Eshel and Berkovich 2017, 2018; Berkovich and Avigur-Eshel 2019). An example of the rise of the digital media in education policy processes in Israel can be found in Berkovich’s study (2011) of teachers’ resistance to educational reform. In the past, scholars dealt mainly with micro-politics (i.e., the interests, mechanisms, and political processes used by individuals and informal groups in the intra-organizational arena to promote their goals) and macro-politics (i.e., the interests, mechanisms, and political processes used by the state and official organizations in the extra-organizational arena on the local or national level to promote their goals). Today, as a result of the Internet, it is also necessary to investigate multi-level mechanisms and processes. Politics that cross the separation between the micro and the macro levels can be expressed in the actions of individuals and informal groups seeking to influence national policy. For example, Berkovich described the teachers’ strike in Israel, in 2007, against the “New Horizon” reform, which took place before the rise of social networking and Facebook. The strikers published posts by teachers and groups of teachers on blogs and school sites, independently of the teachers’ associations, with the aim of influencing policymakers and changing, or even thwarting the reform. The study found that the teachers identified the Internet as an important new arena for independent political action, which is not subject to the established media agenda, and that their statements in this arena were similar to those of political campaigns in democratic elections (Berkovich 2011). The growing centrality of the Internet is changing the communication between citizens and government over the government priorities. Many researchers have argued that these technological-cultural changes contribute to the emergence of a post-representational democracy that is accompanied by new forms of civic participation in policy processes (Zuckerman 2014). Yet, despite documented cases in which social media has been heavily involved in broad socioeconomic and political processes (such as the Arab Spring and economic protests around the world), the effect of these forms of participation and their influence on policy has still not be studied sufficiently (Zuckerman 2014). Some argue that social media brought about fragmentation of the public and of political communication (Meraz 2014). In this new situation, agenda setting often takes place in a competitive and hostile social atmosphere, in which social network homophily serves as an echo chamber of political views, and the traditional media serve mostly to raise topics that are challenged

24

2  The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

and reframed by opinion leaders for their reference political groups (Meraz 2014). In the West, this phenomenon has been associated with the rise of citizen groups with defensive conservative attitudes, often regarding issues such as anti-immigration and anti-mainstream political institutions (e.g., “Trump supporters”, “Brexit supporters”) (Berkovich 2020), which move away from what these groups view as the liberal traditional media. Attempts to determine the public agenda cannot focus only on specific policy issues—to shape government priorities, they must also take into account broader general concerns. Few studies have examined media coverage of education in Israel. These include Turin’s (2012) study that randomly sampled about 300 articles from daily newspapers in Israel between 1945 and 2009 to examine how teachers are reflected in the Israeli media. An analysis of the news reports revealed that the most common issues examined were strikes, sanctions, employment conditions, and wages, which together accounted for about a quarter of the topics covered by the media. The researcher also found that the Israeli media is more inclined to present the institutional point of view, and prefers sources and quotations of official spokespersons, such as finance and education ministers and union leaders, to the perspectives of those actively involved in these issues (teachers, parents, and students). Based on these findings, and using a critical, interpretive approach, Turin concluded that coverage of education in Israel, which focuses mainly on crises in education, serves the dominant male hegemony in government and the media. According to Turin, the extent of the coverage and the issues that the media reports are disconnected from the importance of the educational system from the point of view of its share of the public budget, and its effect on the lives of the citizens who consume its services or who are employed by it.

2.2  K  ey Players and the Social Construction of the Target Population Key policy players are working to shape policy as well as the social construction (i.e., public image) of the target audience of policy. There are various views on how power works in a democratic society and who wields this power. The literature mentions four main theories about the extent to which these players influence public policy (Gilens and Page 2014): 1. A theory of majoritarian electoral democracy. According to this theory, government policy is directed at the collective will of the average citizen, expressed in positions supported by a majority in democratic elections. This view holds that the democratic process of proper representation is based on the accountability of elected officials to their constituents. Yet, the ideal of a representative democratic process contains several possible failures (Fung 2012). First, on many public issues, citizens do not have a clear or stable preference. Second, messages from the public are not always clearly articulated to politicians. Third, politicians lack

2.2 Key Players and the Social Construction of the Target Population

25

an effective mechanism for reporting to the public about their role in promoting public preferences. And fourth, the state may not always perform to the expectations of its constituents. 2. The theory of economic elite domination. According to this theory, state policy is determined by those who have financial resources. Scholars of the critical school who advocate the conflict approach argue that the idealistic assumption underlying the democratic approach does not stand the test of reality because power and influence are not equally spread amongst the general public, but concentrated in the hands of a small number of key players who make up an elite group. Within this framework, some researchers emphasize income and capital as characteristics that define the elite, whereas others emphasize social status or senior managerial positions (in corporations, political parties, the government, the legislative system, the judiciary system, or the military). The latter often assume that elites from different arenas join together because of a similar personal background, social (or occupational) interactions, and shared interests. 3. Majoritarian pluralism. According to this theory, interest groups attempt to shape policy, and these individual endeavors lead to a policy that balances all the needs and interests of citizens. An interest group is defined as a voluntary assembly that seeks to influence government policy to achieve a certain goal. The majoritarian pluralist approach holds that having many free-acting and active system groups is critical for democracy (Mawhinney 2001). Therefore, the involvement of different groups in political issues is perceived as creating and maintaining equilibrium. According to the pluralistic approach, social equilibrium is the natural state of democracy, and in this situation, the division of resources, key positions, and rights are accepted by all groups in society. Interest groups use different strategies to generate political influence (Berry 1977): litigation and administrative intervention, protest and public relations, production and dissemination of information, and public campaigning. This approach has been widely criticized for justifying the status quo and for preserving the control of hegemonies. 4. Biased pluralism. According to this theory, the struggle between interest groups is not egalitarian or symmetrical, and therefore policy does not balance the interests of all players, but is biased in a way that serves the will of corporations and businesses. Olson (1965), for example, found that small groups with greater organizational and economic capabilities were better able to exert political pressure regarding issues that were important to them. He argued that large groups, representing the interests of people of low socioeconomic status or of people in financial distress, cannot be effective because despite the collective benefits, members cannot or will not bear the personal costs required of them to exert these pressures (time, resources, etc.). Olson did not address the structural aspects that increase the power of business entities (e.g., Dal Bó 2006). According to Dal Bó (2006), the political focus on technical business issues creates a built-in advantage for businesses because they have a great deal of expertise in the field (at times even more than policymakers and regulators themselves). Therefore, political parties attach great value to the positions of large economic entities, striving to obtain their support to promote the growth of the economy.

26

2  The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

Empirical studies from recent years support the theory of the dominance of the economic elite and the theory of biased pluralism. A comprehensive overview of the effects of economic power groups on US policymaking was published by Gilens and Page (2014). The researchers used a national opinion survey on proposed policy changes to map different interests on 1779 policy issues that were decided upon between 1981 and 2002  in the US.  The study found that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests had the most significant influence on US government policy, whereas the average citizen or independent interest groups had little or no influence at all. The study showed that a proposed policy change with little support from the economic elite (only one out of five supporters) would be adopted in about one-fifth of cases, whereas a proposed change that is widely supported by the economic elite (four out of five supporters) would be adopted in about half the cases. The researchers claimed that this situation is a threat to American democracy. Another example of the influence of elites on policy, this time in the context of the judiciary branch of government, was described by Biskupic et al. (2014, December 8). Biskupic and her colleagues examined the cases heard by the US Supreme Court between 2004 and 2012 and found that of the 17,000 lawyers who filed cases for court review, 66 (representing 1% of all petitioners) were involved in about 43% of the cases. They also found that 51 of these lawyers worked in large legal firms that in most cases promoted the positions of large corporations. In a study conducted in Israel, Ben-Bassat and Dahan (2014) identified a connection between the contributions of wealthy donors to politicians seeking reelection and the promotion of these donors’ interests by these politicians during the design and implementation of structural reforms, at times against the public interest. Fung (2012) described this as a fundamental failure of the democratic representation process, with the interests of policymakers systematically being separated from the interests of the wider electorate, leading to a conflict of interest in practice. Policymakers act to promote the interests of those with political or economic power rather than implementing the will of the public. Given this failure in representation, Fung recommended the adoption of participative democracy practices, in which, citizens become involved in public decision-making processes. Participatory democracy may include collecting recommendations from citizens for policymakers, and involving citizens in policy discussions. Note that in many cases, the promotion of a particular policy solution is not the act of one single player, but of an array of individuals and bodies acting in concert to promote the enactment of their preferred solution. For example, McDonnell and Weatherford (2013) investigated the promotion of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative in the US over several decades, from the inception of the idea, in the early 1990s, until it became a central policy in educational discourse in the US, in the early 2010s. The success of the initiative was the result of an extensive action taken by individuals, groups, and organizations in the fields of politics, academia, education, and economics, each working to promote the idea, develop standards, mobilize public support for the change, and raise funds for training and implementation programs. This seems to be a pluralistic description of reality, but researchers argue that it is often about individuals and bodies with similar backgrounds and similar

2.2 Key Players and the Social Construction of the Target Population

27

demographic characteristics. Myers and Cibulka (2014), for example, noted that since the 1970s, the Christian right has maintained a close alliance with the Republican Party and media outlets to promote conservative educational ideas.

The CCSS Initiative Individual states in the US enjoy a relatively high degree of independence in the field of education, therefore there is considerable variation in the way different states implement it. The CCSS initiative formulates educational standards common to all states in the US, which define the required performance for each grade in mathematics and language. The purpose of the CCSS is to ensure that graduates of the education system are equipped with skills that will enable them to enter the labor market or to pursue studies in higher education.

A parallel example, in Israel, of a coordinated system of actors exists, for example, in vocational education, which focuses on teaching technical skills. Raichel (2008) noted that during the 1980s, about half of all secondary school students were enrolled in vocational studies. Because of intense public criticism of economic and ethnic discrimination, however, it was decided in the 1990s to significantly reduce these frameworks and the proportion of students enrolled in them. Following the negative effects of this policy change on the scope and quality of the technical labor force, industrialists and academic institutions joined together to promote a new policy that would lead to an increase in the number of students and in the budgeting of technological education (Vurgan and Nathan 2008). Their efforts have recently culminated in the adoption of a program aimed at increasing the number of students in technological education to 50% of all high school graduates by 2024 (Koren 2014, October 26). In recent decades, however, we have witnessed not only the ad hoc interactions between the government on one hand, and non-governmental and non-profit organizations concerned with specific education policy issues on the other, but rather permanent networks that reflect a profound change in the relations between the government and other players in matters of policy. In the past, in most Western countries, there has been a model of centralized control over decision-making (the bureaucratic model). In recent decades, however, there has been growing recognition that some independent players operate to a certain extent alongside the state, and therefore, the government is forced to engage with them to advance its policy. In this post-bureaucratic model, the decision-making process takes place in a polycentric environment, where many groups and organizations are involved in influencing the feasibility of implementation of the policy (Savage 2014). The interactions between the public sector, the business sector, and non-governmental organizations and foundations, and the influence of such interactions on policymaking caused the shift of many policy researchers’ focus from the study of government to the study of these interactions, their

28

2  The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

motives, and their implications (Ball and Junemann 2012). When these relationships become institutionalized, a network of government, non-­governmental, and private entities is created, which coordinates strategic and economic activities in the sphere of education (Ball 2009). Some associate the rise of this phenomenon with the withdrawal of the state in Western countries from the provision of services and the rise in power of social groups and business corporations in these arenas (Bache 2003). This new network structure may have a significant effect on the policies that education policymakers formulate regarding the nature and attainment of goals. Coburn’s (2005) study exposes the mechanism of action and the effects of this phenomenon. Coburn conducted a comparative historical study that focused on how teachers in primary schools in California responded to changes in the reading policy of the state between 1983 and 1999. The study found that teachers were connected to the policy messages both through mechanisms of the formal system (state and district documents, professional development activities, etc.) and non-governmental actors (professional development bodies and providers of private study materials, or non-profit organizations that supported educational reform). Coburn (2005) showed that teachers were more likely to react to policy messages of non-government actors and make changes in response to them than to the policy messages of the government. According to Coburn, the messages of non-governmental actors were more powerful than those of the government because they were more relevant to practice, and more detailed. Coburn (2005) also maintained that the public system constantly interacts with non-governmental actors at different stages of the policy-making process. Initially, these actors promote the legitimization of specific ideas, until over time, and with the expansion of legitimacy, these ideas are adopted by the public system. Then, in the implementation stage, non-governmental actors directly influence teachers and their classroom practices by connecting them with the messages. Coburn also recognized that in many cases, teachers’ contacts in schools with these non-governmental actors are mediated and encouraged by school administrators and local authorities, which form a critical junction that regulates access to teachers. Eden (2012) examined the effect of non-governmental organizations on education policy in Israel, which has become more significant in the twenty-first century because of reduced government funding and increased community involvement in the provision of educational services (Yemini et al. 2018). This research examined 12 non-governmental organizations operating in Israel, and showed that advocacy organizations that seek policy changes clash with the system, which responds through either bargaining or disregard, depending on the education minister’s ideology. Organizations that support the policy of the ministry on pedagogical issues or values ​​end up forming collaborations with the government and working on the implementation of policies in schools, under the supervision of the ministry (Yemini 2018; Yemini and Sagie 2015). The formation of a permanent network of non-state actors that influence Israeli education policy raises questions about the responsibility of the state to promote social goals, such as equality (Berkovich and Foldes 2012; Tamir and Davidson 2020; Tamir et al. 2019). Resnik (2011, 2012) also recognized the increasing involvement of philanthropic entrepreneurs in the shaping of an education policy that has led to the adoption by the educational system

2.2 Key Players and the Social Construction of the Target Population

29

of values ​​and practices from the businesses world. An extreme expression of the post-bureaucratic model adopted in Israel has to do with the trend of policymakers transferring responsibility for shaping public policy entirely to non-governmental organizations (Vigoda-Gadot et  al. 2014). For example, Vigoda and colleagues noted that in 2011, the Prime Minister’s Office engaged the RAND Corporation to design a socioeconomic strategic plan for Israel. While some researchers focus on players trying to affect education policy, other researchers turn their attention to the characterization of policy shaped by the adoption of a social construction approach. According to the constructivist approach, people’s interpretation shapes social reality (Schneider and Sidney 2009). Scholars of this school believe that policymakers and the general public have a deep-rooted understandings of the subjects of policy, which are regarded as “truths.” These interpretations play a central role in shaping the image of the subjects of the policy, the associated problems, and the information about them. Such interpretations contribute to the formulation of policy that strengthens and perpetuates these social constructions. One of the main theories associated with the constructivist approach to policy research is Schneider and Ingram’s (1993) social construction theory of target populations. Social constructions are a sort of stereotype of national and ethnic groups that live independently from a social or geographic standpoint, or alternatively, a grouping of individuals with a common denominator such as poverty, single parenting, and even driving under the influence. The essence of the theory is that policy does not only determine which problems require change or which goals need to be achieved, but rather assigns or associates the problems and goals with specific population groups. The social construction of target populations affects both policymakers and the public. Policymakers are under constant pressure to produce policies that benefit the country. Therefore, a policy proposal is dependent not only on the power of the target population, but also on the degree to which policy can be approved of by the general public. The social construction theory of target populations offers four “ideal types” that represent the construction of groups: (a) those who have an advantage—strong groups with a positive image; (b) contenders—strong groups with a negative image; (c) dependents—helpless groups with a positive image; and (d) deviants—helpless groups with a negative image. In general, policymakers will seek to gain political capital by providing benefits to groups with an advantage, or alternatively by promoting punishment of groups perceived as deviant. Studies indicate a connection between the level of power and the image associated with certain groups and the benefits they enjoy (or the burdens placed on them) in policy processes. Some social constructions, such as that of criminals, may be highly stable over time, but others may be dynamic. Studies show that groups can act strategically to change a negative image to promote certain policy objectives. In a given society, certain social constructions may be controversial, and public clashes may cause policymakers to make more subtle distinctions within a target population to define who is eligible for benefits and who is not. Often, policy processes themselves challenge existing perceptions because policymakers want to justify the distribution of benefits or of burdens to specific groups. An

30

2  The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

example of how social construction of the target audience affects policy is the perception of struggling schoolchildren. In the past, students with learning disabilities were perceived negatively and assigned to professional tracks outside the academic system (as part of the “deviants” group). Today, students with learning disabilities are perceived positively and receive additional support (as part of the “dependents” group). These two constructions have different implications for the policy designed for the target population.

2.3  D  ecision-Making Processes and Ethical Aspects of Decision-Making In this section, we focus on aspects related to decision-making in education policy, the complexity of the issues discussed, and the ethical aspects involved. First, we discuss the rational conception of decision-making. This approach perceives the decision-making process as a sequence of logical steps, beginning with the definition of goals and identification of relevant alternatives, assessment of the consequences of various alternatives, and selection of the best option in view of the goals defined (Kørnøv and Thissen 2000). The rational model of decision-making is related to the idea of the “economic ​​ man,” which operates optimally according to the rules of economic rationality. The rational element in decision-making is expressed both in procedural rationality (i.e., the way the logical procedure is maintained and implemented, exhaustive information is gained about the problems and alternatives, and the deciding parties act on the basis of purely rational motives) and in fundamental rationality (the choice of the best alternative). This model of decision-­ making is normative, in other words, it represents an ideal norm that claims to lead to the best result when implemented. Nevertheless, a long list of research findings in the fields of psychology, organizations, and policy has led to the realization that processes of decision-­making do not fully embody rational principles. Given this evidence, researchers have drawn attention to the understanding of bounded rationality and the formulation of descriptive models that, contrary to the rational model, purport to represent actual decisionmaking (Simon 2000). According to the theory of bounded rationality, one of the central limitations of rationality in problem solving has to do with people’s limited cognitive capacity. This limitation is expressed in the inability to cope with a large amount of information and to process it efficiently. Therefore, in decision-­making processes, the way in which people can examine a wide range of alternatives, analyze their implications, and choose the best alternative is limited. Decision-­making inevitably combines degrees of uncertainty and risk. Another limitation of human rationality in problem solving stems from behavioral biases. Among the biases affecting decision-making processes are habits and traditions, the expectation of what others would do in a similar situation, the repetition of previously adopted solutions, and the imitation of processes that are considered successful. Therefore,

2.3 Decision-Making Processes and Ethical Aspects of Decision-Making

31

the theory of bounded rationality holds that the goal of decision-makers is to reach a satisfactory solution. Because of the complexity of the issues discussed, policymaking is a process that combines cognitive challenges. For example, policymakers are required to ask themselves daily: “What costs shall we count? And whose shall we ignore? Whose count fully, and whose are to be discounted?” (Shue 2008, p. 709). Winship (2008) claimed that the challenge of policymakers solving public problems parallels the challenge of solving a puzzle: the problem is made up of innumerable parts, and the person who approaches the problem must formulate a strategy (for example, to group together all the blue parts) to be able to proceed. More often than not, the actors think that they know what the picture will look like at the end, but they ultimately find themselves forced to correct their understanding of the final product as they face the various components of the plan while formulating the solution. According to some researchers, the nature of the problems discussed in education policy is often more complex than in other areas of public policy. For example, Rittel and Webber (1973), who addressed social planning, distinguished between two types of problems: “wicked” and “tame.” The distinction is relevant to understanding education policy issues, many of which are perceived as wicked. Wicked problems have several characteristics (Rittel and Webber 1973): (a) there is difficulty in defining and distinguishing a given problem from other social aspects; (b) any wicked problem may be perceived as a symptom of another problem; (c) the problematic issue cannot be clearly defined, and therefore often different explanations are possible for the same issue; (d) there are many solutions to a given problem that are neither “good” nor “bad,” and determining the quality of the solution is directly related to how the problem is defined; (e) there is no end point for determining when the implemented solution has achieved the goal; and (f) any wicked problem is unique, and each application is a one-time solution, therefore it is not possible to make use of prior knowledge in trial and error (trying many solutions until the appropriate one is found). Up to this point, we discussed decision-making mainly at the individual level. Let us now turn to decision-making in multi-player situations. In the process of making collective decisions, there are often differences in the expectations and preferences of the players. The various participants do not hold similar values or ​​ information, and therefore do not agree on the problems, goals, or means (Fast 2016). Various decisionmaking models have been developed to characterize multi-­player decision-making processes. Here we discuss two relevant issues for understanding policymaking processes in education. One is the “garbage can model,” which was originally designed by Cohen et al. (1972) to describe multi-­player decision-making within organizations. The model focuses on a certain type of organizational environment called “organized anarchy.” According to the researchers, organizations or systems are organized anarchy because of a combination of three characteristics: 1. Problematic preferences, evident when there is a lack of clarity regarding problems and objectives: members of the organization are not sure about the challenges they face and what they consider to be a target.

32

2  The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

2. Unclear technology, which exists when the behavior of the organization (with its various components, including rules, structures, methods, and processes) cannot be clearly defined by the members of the organization. Note that the term “technology” here does not represent literal objects but techniques and procedures. 3. Fluid participation, expressed by a change in the panel of the decision-makers, in such a way that at any given time a different group of people is involved in formulating a decision or its various aspects. The combination of these three factors, that is, organizations where preferences and technology are unclear and participation is fluid, creates a special pattern of decision-making that researchers have designated as “the garbage can.” The ambiguity and disorder that govern organized anarchy create a situation in which opportunities for discussions, problems, solutions, and participants exist independently of one another, and therefore researchers refer to them as “streams.” For example, solutions are ideas that can be matched to problems when the opportunity arises, and are not closely related to specific purposes. In this sense, the solutions are “looking” for problems to answer. In contrast to the rational approach, which sees problem identification followed by adoption of the solution as the optimal processes, the “garbage can” model recognizes that, in practice, the discussed problem is not related to its importance, but rather to the actor or actors active in focusing the debate on it, and thus the solution adopted for each problem depends on the dynamics of the discussion. The connection between problems and solutions is therefore determined by chance, owing to problems and solutions being discussed at the same time. Decision-makers play a key role in tying together problems and solutions, therefore it is important to know the identity of the decision-­ makers. The researchers liken this situation to a garbage can that is filled with papers with various problems and solutions listed on each, and which are picked at random. John Kingdon (2010) made three major adjustments to the garbage can model to explain policy decision-making: 1. Narrowing the four streams in the model (problems, solutions, participants, and opportunities) into three streams by combining the stream of participants and the stream of opportunities into what he refers to as the “stream of politics.” In Kingdon’s view, the identity of the participants is important only at the time of the decision-making. 2. Kingdon added the terms “policy windows” and “policy entrepreneurs” to the model. He defined a policy window as a situation that allows an issue to reach a government decision. There are two types of policy windows: one has to do with problems originating from an external source (economic crisis, war, etc.); the other with political matters (elections, budget approval, etc.). Kingdon argued that for policy change to occur in a particular window of opportunity, “policy entrepreneurs” must be present to assign problems and solutions. He stressed that the problems and solutions to be adopted are not necessarily related to the reason for the creation of the window. 3. Kingdon also proposed an evolutionary approach to policy, and argued that the resolution also includes a rewording of the solution. Political alternatives may

2.3 Decision-Making Processes and Ethical Aspects of Decision-Making

33

change and merge. Therefore mutations and the reassembly of an old policy may create new alternatives. Whereas the garbage can model addresses the way decision-making processes take place within public systems, the neo-institutional theory explains the way decisions are made by organizations in the arena in which they operate. Neoinstitutional theory, also known as a sociological institutional theory, emphasizes the normative cultural pressures exerted on organizations by the organizational field in which they operate, which may limit their autonomy in decision-making. The theory states that a variety of cultural scenarios can influence the behavior of organizations and make them adopt methods similar to other organizations (Meyer and Rowan 2006). According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983), after a period of time in which a new field of organizational activity forms, it becomes more structured, creating a situation in which a particular organizational model is perceived as preferred over others. For example, in the field of software engineering, a startup organizational model has become a predominant. When an organizational model becomes institutionalized in a given arena, an entire set of norms, values, and ​​ technical knowledge is created, which are then expected of any new organization operating in the field. Compliance of the organization with these expectations gives it legitimacy, that is, trust and confidence on the part of the public, which is even more important than compliance with technical constraints or efficiency. According to the researchers, once a structured organizational field is created, organizations become dependent on “approval” of other organizations in the field to maintain their legitimacy and to be considered successful or innovative by the relevant organizational reference group. As a result, there is a process of isomorphism in which the processes or structures of one organization become similar to those of other organizations. DiMaggio and Powell argued that organizations change to meet the accepted norms in the environment in which they operate as a result of one or more of the following processes: 1. Coercive isomorphism: a process that occurs when the information or budget of one organization is dependent on another, which leads to official or unofficial pressures on the organization to change. 2. Mimetic isomorphism: a process that results from unclear goals or a dynamic environment in which the level of uncertainty is high. Because it is not always clear what leads to success, an organization that seeks to be perceived as successful in its environment emulates organizations that are considered successful. 3. Normative isomorphism: a process that takes place following professionalization processes occurring in a particular field, where people in different organizations have identical norms because they have been similarly trained, and their perceptions of what is considered professional produces similarities between organizations. Structured organizational fields (within a country or between countries) contain institutional pressures that may influence the shaping of national education policy. For example, in the national arena, institutional processes may work when ideas in

34

2  The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

scientific-professional discourse become institutionalized and are therefore perceived as contributing to innovation or system efficiency (Burch 2007). Under these circumstances, ideas may become official public policies, which the authorities themselves adopt as binding procedures. This point is further elaborated upon by Burch (2007), who examined reforms in mathematics and literacy in the US and presented the institutional influences that shaped them. This research presented changes in the educational field in the US as a result of the entry of powerful nongovernmental organizations into the educational arena, and how this change in the field went hand-in-hand with the establishment of new cultural values and ​​ norms that influenced the design of reforms at various levels: national, local, or school. Burch concluded that these broader cultural forces “help define what is meant by good mathematics or literacy instruction and what counts as a ‘significant effect’ on student achievement” (Burch 2007, p. 91). Researchers argue that there are also international institutional pressures shaping national policy, and policymakers often borrow policies from other countries (Nir et al. 2018; Phillips and Ochs 2003). This trend has intensified since the early 2000s, and researchers have pointed out that various educational systems around the world are mimicking each other, partly as a result of processes that DiMaggio and Powell would call coercive and imitative. Although various forms of comparative international achievement tests have existed since the mid-1980s, success in these tests has become a key indicator of the success of education systems and of policymakers around the world only since the 2000s. The most famous international tests are the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS)). All of this is due to the intensifying process of globalization, which creates a global organizational field of education systems (Berkovich and Benoliel 2019, 2020a, b). Phillips and Ochs (2003) proposed four stages in the process of borrowing education policy: 1. Cross-national attraction to policy. At this stage, different motivations for change are accumulated, such as dissatisfaction with national education, negative international assessment, economic competition, and political change. Out of genuine concern or exploitation of the situation, policymakers seek to adopt international models. There are six foci of attraction: moral philosophy of policy, goals in specific areas, systemic strategies, financing and management structures, labor practices, and regulation and teaching techniques. 2. Decision to adopt the policy. At this stage, the process of change is created. The type of decision affects the nature of the process. Among the most common types of decisions are: (a) a declarative theoretical decision that conveys priority in government policy; (b) a bogus decision, in which imported ideas are presented that cannot be implemented; (c) a realistic decision that involves successful ideas that can be adopted in the local context despite cultural differences; (d) a quick

2.3 Decision-Making Processes and Ethical Aspects of Decision-Making

35

fix, where ideas adopted locally are not appropriate (this type of decision reflects a process similar to the one described in the garbage can model above). 3. Implementation of the policy. This stage is contingent upon a strong belief of the administration in the need for change and in widespread agreement on the preferred solution. Implementing an imported policy requires its adjustment to the local reality. The scope and duration of the change may vary widely and depend to a great extent on the players involved and on the power relations between them. 4. Assimilation of policy within the local context (indigenization). At this stage, the imported policy becomes an integral part of the local system. The success in internalizing the policy is reflected in a change in existing patterns of action, in the adoption of external indicators, and in the synthesis of policy into the general strategy of the system in a way that enables evaluation.

The Education System in Singapore Singapore is an example of the effects of policy borrowing from other countries. Singapore has spent years pursuing an ethos of excellence and achievement in its education system. Part of this ethos has to do with the application of a rigid classification policy, already in primary education. Students in grade 4 are assigned to study tracks at various levels (excellent, regular, and weak). At the end of elementary school, tracking tests are conducted (Primary School Leaving Examination: PSLE), and the track has a significant effect on the students’ future (Volansky 2002). For years, the state has even published the names of students who excelled in the PSLE ​​test, and these students have become celebrities in the media (Maor and Dattel 2013, August 7). In international achievement tests, this small country of several islands in Southeast Asia was ranked among the leaders, but in 2004 Singapore chose to make a broad systemic change in its education system. This reform, called Teach Less Learn More, sought to shift the emphasis from “quantity to quality,” and allowed teachers time and space for reflection, self-expression, and innovation (Ng 2008). The underlying assumption behind the change was that it would lead to the development of more entrepreneurial and creative students, who can promote Singapore in global competition (Maor and Dattel 2013, August 7). The change in the education system of Singapore, and the skills it is trying to develop in students are driven largely by the perception of what skills are required in the twenty-first century (Fogarty and Pete 2010). There are those who identify the inspiration for this reform in education policy of Finland, although there are considerable differences between Finland and Singapore in culture (Western vs. Eastern) and cultural diversity (mono-cultural vs. multicultural) (Lee et al. 2013).

36

2  The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

2.4  Summary of the Chapter The linear representation of the policy cycle might mislead us into thinking about policy as a sequence of controlled and predictable events, but complexity theoreticians warn us against adopting this premise. These scholars argue that educational reformers’ claims of control and ideal solutions are based on reductionist thinking and closer to myth than to reality (Bates 2016). In their view, complexity is inherent in social life. As factors work synergistically, history sets in motion sequences of events, but the future is emergent, and context shapes desires, processes, and outcomes (Boulton et  al. 2015). Thus, instead of assuming a clockwork operation of the social world, we should adopt a broader compound view and multifaceted outlook of situations and problems (Boulton et al. 2015). Chapter 2 focused on the complexity of designing an education policy. First, it discussed issues related to power, setting the agenda, and the centrality of the media in defining the political agenda. Next, it reviewed the key players influencing policymaking, and presented several theories explaining the influence of different players on public policy. The chapter also addressed changing public governance patterns in education, as a result of which the government becomes one in a network of entities shaping education policy. It also addressed the manner in which the social construction of the target population of the policy dictates the nature of the policy and the type of benefits and sanctions to be applied toward this population. Finally, it emphasized that decision-making in the area of ​​education policy is a cognitive and ethical challenge because of issues related to the “bounded rationality” of decision-­ makers, the management of a system of organized anarchy, and activities in an environment subject to institutional pressures. The chapter addressed the connection between these challenges and the practice of borrowing policies from other education systems around the world.

References Avigur-Eshel, A., & Berkovich, I. (2017). Using Facebook differently in two education policy protests. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(4), 596–611. Avigur-Eshel, A., & Berkovich, I. (2018). Who ‘likes’ public education: Social media activism, middle-class parents, and education policy in Israel. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(6), 844–859. Bache, I. (2003). Governing through governance: Education policy control under new labour. Political Studies, 51(2), 300–314. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M.  S. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57(3), 632–642. Ball, S.  J. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the ‘competition state’. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83–99. Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: Policy Press. Bates, A. (2016). Transforming education: Meanings, myths and complexity. London: Routledge.

References

37

Ben-Bassat, A., & Dahan, M. (2014). Reforms, politics and corruption. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute. [in Hebrew]. Berkovich, I. (2011). No we won’t! Teachers’ resistance to educational reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), 563–578. Berkovich, I. (2020). Defensive citizenship in Europe: Definition and measurement. Political Studies Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920906996. Berkovich, I., & Avigur-Eshel, A. (2019). Digital protest and activism in public education: Reactions to neoliberal restructuring in Israel. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2019). Understanding OECD representations of teachers and teaching: A visual discourse analysis of covers in OECD documents. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(2), 132–146. Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2020a). Marketing teacher quality: Critical discourse analysis of OECD documents on effective teaching and TALIS. Critical Studies in Education,  61(4), 496–511. Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2020b). The educational aims of the OECD in its TALIS insight and lesson reports: Exploring societal orientations. Critical Studies in Education, 61(2), 166–179. Berkovich, I., & Foldes, J. V. (2012). Third sector involvement in public education: The Israeli case. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(2), 173–187. Berry, J. M. (1977). Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest groups (Vol. 95). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Biskupic, J., Roberts, J., & Shiffman, J. (2014 December 8). At America’s court of last resort, a handful of lawyers now dominates the docket. Reuters. Retrieved from: http://www.reuters. com/investigates/special-­report/scotus/ Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., & Bowman, C. (2015). Embracing complexity: Strategic perspectives for an age of turbulence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burch, P. (2007). Educational policy and practice from the perspective of institutional theory: Crafting a wider lens. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 84–95. Carstensen, M.  B., & Schmidt, V.  A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of EuropeanPublic Policy, 23(3), 318-337. Coburn, C. E. (2005). The role of nonsystem actors in the relationship between policy and practice: The case of reading instruction in California. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 23–52. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25. Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215. Dal Bó, E. (2006). Regulatory capture: A review. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22(2), 203–225. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). “The iron cage revisited” institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Eden, D. (2012). “Whose responsibility is it?”: The third sector and the educational system in Israel. International Review of Education, 58(1), 35–54. Fast, I. (2016). Understanding educational policy formation: The case of school violence policies in Israel. Sociology of Education, 89(1), 59–78. Fogarty, R., & Pete, B. M. (2010). The Singapore vision: Teach less, learn more. In J. Bellance & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 97–116). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Fung, A. (2012). Continuous institutional innovation and the pragmatic conception of democracy. Polity, 44(4), 609–624. Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(03), 564–581.

38

2  The Policy Process: The Design of Education Policy

Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2006). Theory of the policy cycle. In Fischer & G.  J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 43–64). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Kingdon, J. W. (2010). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Pearson. Koren, A. (2014, October 26). The goal of the Ministry of Education: By 2024, 50% of students will study in vocational-technological education. The Marker. Retrieved from http://www.themarker.com [in Hebrew]. Kørnøv, L., & Thissen, W. A. (2000). Rationality in decision-and policy-making: Implications for strategic environmental assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 18(3), 191–200. Lee, S. S., Hung, D., & Teh, L. W. (2013). Moving Singapore from great to excellent: How educational research informs this shift. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 10(2), 267–291. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view (Vol. 1). London: Macmillan. Maor, D., & Dattel, L. (2013, August 7). The secret recipe for success at school: Teach less, learn more. The Marker. Retrieved from http://www.themarker.com [in Hebrew]. Mawhinney, H. B. (2001). Theoretical approaches to understanding interest groups. Educational Policy, 15(1), 187–214. McCombs, M. (2013). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. New  York, NY: Wiley. McDonnell, L.  M., & Weatherford, M.  S. (2013). Organized interests and the common core. Educational Researcher, 42(9), 488–497. McQuail, D. (Ed.). (1994). Mass communication theory: An introduction. London: Sage. Meraz, S. (2014). Media agenda setting in a competitive and hostile environment: The role of sources in setting versus supporting topical discussant agendas in the Tea Party Patriots’ Facebook group. In T. J. Johnson (Ed.), Agenda setting in a 2.0 world: New agendas in communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Meyer, H. D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In H. D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Myers, N. R., & Cibulka, J. G. (2014). Religious faith and policy in public education: A political and historical analysis of the Christian right in American schooling. In B. S. Cooper, J. G. Cibulka, & L. D. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 232–245). New York, NY: Routledge. Ng, P. T. (2008). Educational reform in Singapore: From quantity to quality. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 7(1), 5–15. Nir, A., Kondakci, Y., & Emil, S. (2018). Travelling policies and contextual considerations: On threshold criteria. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(1), 21–38. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of group. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451–461. Raichel, N. (2008). The story of the Israeli educational system. Tel Aviv/Jerusalem: Magnes and Mofet. [in Hebrew]. Rasch, B. E., & Tsebelis, G. (Eds.). (2013). The role of governments in legislative agenda setting (Vol. 71). New York, NY: Routledge. Resnik, J. (2011). The construction of a managerial education discourse and the involvement of philanthropic entrepreneurs: The case of Israel. Critical Studies in Education, 52(3), 251–266. Resnik, J. (2012). The transformation of education policy in Israel. In G.  Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2012: Policy borrowing and lending in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Planning problems are wicked. Polity, 4, 155–169. Savage, G. C. (2014). Reconstituting the public through national reform, a reflection on the development of the common core state standards. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 11(1), 40–43.

References

39

Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2–3), 297–316. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(02), 334–347. Schneider, A., & Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 103–119. Shue, H. (2008). Ethical dimensions of public policy. In M.  Moran, M.  Rein, & R.  E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 709–728). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Simon, H. A. (2000). Bounded rationality in social science: Today and tomorrow. Mind & Society, 1(1), 25–39. Soroka, S.  N. (2003). Media, public opinion, and foreign policy. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(1), 27–48. Tamir, E., & Davidson, R. (2020). The good despot: Technology firms’ interventions in the public sphere. Public Understanding of Science, 29(1), 21–36. Tamir, E., Yemini, M., & Tucker, K. (2019). NGO–school interactions as portrayed by elite and popular press in Israel and England. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(4), 361–375. Turin, O. (2012). Changes in the construction of teachers portrayal in Israeli printed news. Study and Research in Teacher Education, 13, 232–260. [in Hebrew]. Vigoda-Gadot, E., Cohen, H., & Zalmanovitch, Y. (2014). Does the privatizing of policy formation threaten democracy? Arguments from the Israeli experience. Policy Studies, 35(5), 484–497. Volansky, A. (2002). Singapore  – To be the first in the world: The educational characteristics and costs of being a leading education system. Jerusalem: Israeli Ministry of Education. [in Hebrew]. Vurgan, J., & Nathan, G. (2008). Vocational and technological education in Israel and around the world. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Winship, C. (2008). Policy analysis as puzzle solving. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 109–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yemini, M. (2018). Conceptualizing the role of nonprofit intermediaries in pursuing entrepreneurship within schools in Israel. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(6), 980–996. Yemini, M., & Sagie, N. (2015). School–nongovernmental organization engagement as an entrepreneurial venture: A case study of sunlight’s engagement with Israeli schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(4), 543–571. Yemini, M., Cegla, A., & Sagie, N. (2018). A comparative case-study of school-LEA-NGO interactions across different socio-economic strata in Israel. Journal of Education Policy, 33(2), 243–261. Zuckerman, E. (2014). New media, new civics? Policy & Internet, 6(2), 151–168.

Chapter 3

The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

After focusing on the first stages of the policymaking process, in which policymakers define issues and construct educational priorities, this chapter draws attention to later stages of the process, including policy implementation and evaluation (Jann and Wegrich 2007). Research on these topics focuses on the instruments employed by policymakers, and the effects of these instruments on implementation and the evaluation of the results of policy programs. In this chapter, we focus on several issues relating to the implementation of education policy: (a) we discuss the manner in which policymakers choose policy instruments and deploy supervision to make sure that strict implementation of the goals is carried out; (b) we delve into how participants in the implementation of education policy at the bottom of the hierarchy are involved in the development of the applied policy, and how their actions shape the nature of the policy at the institutional and national levels; (c) we discuss the various functions that the evaluation of a policy executes; and (d) we discuss the manner in which systemic changes and reforms in recent decades have amounted to a central strategy in the implementation of education policy.

3.1  Policy Instruments Policy instruments are tools used by the government to promote desired outcomes. Therefore, they convert policy objectives into government structures, rules, and processes. There are different types of policy instruments, at different levels of abstraction (Howlett 2009). At one end of the spectrum, there are the general and abstract ones, which may be no more than a symbolic statement of the state about its aspirations (e.g., improving education by establishing a directorate for the promotion of quality education); at the other end, there are concrete and specific ones, which may be quite focused (e.g., raising the average matriculation grades by 5% by budgeting © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Berkovich, Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century, Policy Implications of Research in Education 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_3

41

42

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

for additional hours of student practice). Howlett (2009) argued that governments have four main types of governance resources for promoting policy objectives: information control, power control, funding control, and organizational control. Information as a governance resource is manifest in training, reporting, and evaluation surveys that enable the administration to change the behavior of individuals. Power as a governance resource is expressed in licenses, usage fees, regulation, vouchers, and quotas that enable the government to enforce compliance. Funding control takes the form of subsidies, grants, loans, and the financing of projects that enable the government to exert influence. Organizational control is exercised through public initiatives and bureaucratic power that enable the government to put ideas into practice. Note that policy instruments usually derive their power from several governance resources, but each instrument has a main resource on which it is based. Policy instruments are perceived by researchers as the technological core of policy because they translate goals into concrete actions (McDonnell and Elmore 1987). McDonnell and Elmore (1987) identified four types of policy instruments: 1. Mandate, which includes rules governing the behavior of individuals and organizations, and also includes penalties for non-compliance with the rules (e.g., law or administrative regulation). This instrument is effective mainly when trying to introduce uniform behavior, with political backing and enforcement. 2. Inducement, which includes the transfer of material or other resources to individuals and organizations in exchange for performing an action or creating a product. This instrument is based on voluntary compliance and therefore it is not effective in encouraging uniform behavior. 3. Capacity building, which includes the transfer of funds for investment in the development of material, intellectual, or human resources. Unlike incentives, this instrument is not intended for a temporary change in behavior, but it is a long-term strategic investment designed to produce a significant and permanent change in the functional capacity of individuals or organizations. One of the risks involved in using this device is that, because of the prolonged period, political support may weaken and the process may not be completed. 4. System change, which includes the transfer of authority between individuals and organizations. This instrument combines legislation that formally regulates the reallocation of powers, and is intended to encourage new behavior by the relevant parties. Helgøy and Homme (2006) divided the range of instruments available to implement the education policy into two main categories: input and accountability tools. In the category of input tools, the researchers included legislation, guidelines, resource allocation, and funding. The issues that these instruments address include a balance between centralization and decentralization of decision-making, the nature of the national curriculum, the scope of standardization (of the required uniformity) in the management of teaching and timetables, salary, individual bonuses and sanctions, and project financing. In the category of accountability tools, researchers include knowledge-based instruments for audit and control purposes.

3.1  Policy Instruments

43

These instruments are generally used for obtaining information on performance (students, teachers, or schools), training of personnel aimed at developing norms of accountability, accounting reports, evaluation systems, and quality control. In this sense, accountability tools in the field of education aim to direct behavior by the indirect means of output control. Often, research on public policy instruments adopts a functionalist view. Such research identifies certain types of instruments as an indication of government activity in regulating society and the market, but fails to discuss critically the reasons for choosing these devices. Such a functional discussion of policy instruments incorporates several assumptions (Lascoumes and Le Gales 2007): (a) policymakers are practical, and they choose instruments primarily from a technical point of view; (b) there is a series of “natural” instruments that have intrinsic advantages and disadvantages, and the challenge is to choose the right instrument for the right task; (c) instruments have fixed efficiency and effects; and (d) the pursuit of new instruments as an alternative to the existing ones is practical. According to advanced functionalist models, the effectiveness of policy instruments is a question of context. According to these models, policymakers must take into account the nature of the policy and the situation in which the policy instrument is implemented and adapted. One of the theoretical models that can be identified as an advanced functionalist model is the Matland’s (1995) ambiguity-conflict model. This model describes two axes: one deals with ambiguity regarding policy, the other deals with the level of the existing conflict. According to Matland, ambiguity in policy stems from an inability to define measurable goals or the means required to achieve these goals. This ambiguity makes it difficult to implement a uniform policy and creates a problem in supervising its implementation. Matland argued that conflict in the context of application occurs when the players disagree about goals and develop a sense of “all or nothing.” According to Matland, compromises can be reached occasionally, but ethical debate may not be possible to resolve. The two axes create a matrix that dictates different implementation processes. Matland identified four sets of circumstances, and for each one recommended an appropriate implementation strategy (and policy instruments): 1. In a state of low ambiguity and low conflict, clear goals and means can be established, and therefore it is proposed to promote an authoritative administrative policy that uses the instruments of laws and regulations. 2. In a state of low ambiguity and high conflict, disagreements about clearly defined objectives or measures create conflict, and therefore a policy that uses incentives and sanctions is recommended. 3. In a situation of high ambiguity and low conflict, the results of the vague policy depend on the field personnel, and there may be great differences between sites. Therefore, the recommended implementation strategy is an experimental one that uses ongoing coordination and learning. 4. In a state of high ambiguity and high conflict, a vague policy is intended to ratify old values ​​or to designate new ones, but the policy conflict inevitably leads to its non-implementation by opposing groups. Therefore, the recommended implementation strategy is symbolic and declarative.

44

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

The Integration Reform in Israeli Jewish State Education At the time of the founding of the State, the Jewish population was largely homogenous, with 80% originating from Europe. With successive waves of mass immigration, however, the distribution of students to various streams became also an ethnic division (Swirski and Dagan-Buzaglo 2009). The immigrants from Asia-Africa were, for the most part, directed to cooperative Israeli communities and small towns in the periphery, or to neighborhoods on the fringes of cities. In elementary schools they attended together with native-­ born students, separate classes were created for the immigrants from Asia-­ Africa. The phenomenon was also partially related to differences in formal education between immigrant groups. The Labor Force Survey of 1954 shows that among immigrants from Asia-Africa, 22.5% of men and 58.7% of women did not attend primary school, whereas among immigrants from Europe, it was 2.6% of men and 6.3% of women (Sicron 1986). As a result, in 1952, about 85% of the children of immigrants, the majority from Asia-Africa, learned separately from children born in the country or from European families (Swirski and Dagan-Buzaglo 2009). At the same time, with the expansion of the elementary education system, in 1955 the Ministry of Education established the “survey tests” to determine whether 12–13-year-olds were suitable for general secondary education or for vocational education (the latter provided students with technical skills for the job market) (Tzameret 2005). By the late 1960s, about 59% of the students from the general track, who took the matriculation exam, were of European origin, and 27% of Asian-African origin, whereas students in the vocational tracks, who did not take the matriculation exam, formed a mirror image of the general education track, with 46% of Asian-African and 23% of European origin (Shavit 2013). The focus of the Israeli integration reform adopted by the State in 1968 was the change of the two-part structure (elementary and high school) to a three-stage structure (elementary, middle, and high school), and the integration of Asian-African and European students in secondary school. The reform progressed slowly because it faced local pressure and organized opposition mostly from the veteran European population. Consequently, in 1992, 24 years after the initiation of the reform, only 59% of students in Israel studied in a three-stage schooling systems (Resh and Kfir 2004). These early differences in education levels were exacerbated by informal inclinations and formal policies of native-born or long-time residents of European origin to remain separate from new immigrants from Asia-Africa because of cultural differences and biases. These cemented a stratified socioeconomic structure in Jewish society along ethnic lines.

3.1  Policy Instruments

45

A similar study on the effectiveness of policy instruments based on their compatibility with the context of their application was conducted by Gaziel (1994), who analyzed the implementation of the integration reform in Israel. The researcher found that during the implementation of this reform (in which policy objectives and measures were clearly defined and unambiguous), in areas of high conflict, the Ministry of Education turned to the practical side of negotiations and economic incentives to overcome strong objections by local authorities and parents to reform. The critical school of policy research opposes this functional discussion in policy instruments, and maintains that the perception that an instrument is “most appropriate” for a particular situation is wrong, and that in most cases different policy instruments can be used to address public problems (Howlett 2009). According to researchers of the critical school, instruments are not “neutral,” they have specific effects unrelated to the purposes attributed to them, and in practice they construct a certain type of public policy. Lascoumes and Le Gales (2007) noted three types of policy instruments: 1. Policy instruments with inertia that can overcome pressures or political changes, for example, by institutionalizing the technical practice of legal advice as a central part of decision-making. 2. Policy instruments that convey a particular representation of the subject matter under consideration, for example, by creating a simple  standard index that reflects a complex social phenomenon such as unemployment. 3. Policy instruments that make the issue problematic, for example, by creating a causal explanation that ties together different variables, such as juvenile delinquency and immigration. Howlett (2009), who is one of the critics of the functionalist approach to the understanding of policy instruments, argued that the use of policy instruments should be examined from a viewpoint that allows one to assess them in the context of broader government logic. According to Howlett, the choice of goals and instruments varies from issue to issue, but the various choices are not random, and they are made in a way that expresses the preferences of policymakers. In any given period, we witness the preference of certain types of policy instruments because government arrangements are the result of a relatively stable socioeconomic system (e.g., Avigur-Eshel and Berkovich 2019). In this sense, the selected policy instruments are a representative feature of the local and temporal context, similar to architectural styles. This is in accordance with Ward et  al. (2016) “Because policy is bound up with a discourse of the state and the exercise of political power, education policy discourses that are supported by governments (either directly or indirectly) tend to dominate debate and prevail” (p. 45). Howlett (2009) identified four types of governance modes in liberal-democratic countries, reflecting different perceptions of state-society relations. He argued that each type derived from different political goals, and therefore different policy instruments were needed to realize it. Among the governmental arrangements mentioned in the literature (Howlett 2009) are:

46

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

1. Legal governance, which focuses on promoting social law and order through legislation and regulations. In the field of education, this governance may be expressed in the legislation of a core curriculum. 2. Corporate governance, which focuses on the control and balance of socioeconomic development through programs and negotiations with other social players. In the field of education, this governance can be expressed in the supply and regulation of public education from a social-democratic perspective, such as the promotion of teacher unions, budgeting compensations for poor populations, etc. (Dadon-Golan et al. 2019). 3. Market governance, which focuses on cost-effectiveness and promotes competition and innovation through tenders, contracts, subsidies, and taxes. In the field of education, this governance can be expressed in the privatization of educational services, parental involvement in school choice etc. (Addi-Raccah and Grinshtain 2018). 4. Network governance, which focuses on cooperation between the various players by establishing voluntary cooperation in the provision of services. In the field of education, this governance may be expressed in cooperation with non-­ governmental organizations in the provision of public education services. In the context of education, researchers have noted the rise of market governance. Moreover, since the 2000s, there has been an increase in a form of governance not discussed by Howlett: informational governance, which focuses on control through evaluation and statistics (Lingard 2011). The study of policy instruments reflects a top-down approach to the implementation of a policy, assuming that policymakers have the power to create clear goals and to control what is happening in the field (Pülzl and Treib 2007). The need for an alternative to the top-down approach becomes clear when participants at all levels of the hierarchy in top-down centralized educational policies express a desire for autonomy and for influencing policies (Reingold and Avidov-Ungar 2018). The bottom-up approach to policy implementation presents theories about the degree of freedom that policy implementers have, or about the need to provide opportunities for those in the field to find solutions (e.g., Gu et al. 2018). Bottom-up theories of policy implementation are discussed in detail in the next section.

3.2  Field Effects on Implementation A central approach in the literature of policy implementation is the bottom-up approach, which regards field personnel as a significant factor in implementing and reshaping existing policies (Pülzl and Treib 2007; Schechter and Shaked 2017). This approach presupposes the existence of “degrees of freedom” by policy implementers (Bialik et al. 2018; Shaked and Schechter 2017). Policymakers tend to use the top-down approach to understand policy implementation, but researchers and policy analysts often favor the bottom-up approach. One of the main theories

3.2  Field Effects on Implementation

47

concerning the degrees of freedom in organizational systems is Weick’s (1976) loosely coupled system theory. According to its classic definition, an organization is a social unit of structured human interactions striving to achieve certain goals. The assumption is that organizations or organizational systems include a set of interdependent parts that are required to advance these objectives. Despite this assumption, Weick focused on claims that the interdependence need not be tight, and may also be loose. According to Weick, the “glue” that connects the parts of the organization together (tightly or loosely) is often the result of a technical characteristic (such as production technology) or an administrative characteristic (such as hierarchical classification). Some organizations have tight couplings, others looser ones. In a loosely connected system, the players or subunits are largely autonomous, and the organizational mechanisms used as a “glue” are relatively weak. In Weick’s view, this organizational structure is both effective and essential for the survival of organizations operating in an environment characterized by uncertainties. In such organizations, alongside their structure, goals, and formal activity, there is also a measure of prescribed, recognized organizational disorder. Systems with loose couplings have many advantages (Orton and Weick 1990): (a) they can sustain their objectives even if the population resists some of their actions, and even if they face inefficiency and failures in some parts of the system; (b) they are more sensitive to changes in the environment than are systems with tight coupling; (c) they are capable of responding to local needs without requiring a change in the entire system; (d) they enable innovative and creative solutions to a greater extent than do systems with tight couplings; (e) they allow for self-determination of the players; and (f) coordination costs are lower than in systems that are tightly coupled. Note, however, that such a system structure also has disadvantages: (a) it may be overly-sensitive and respond to short-lived trends; (b) the loose connections between players and subunits may make it difficult to disseminate good ideas through the system; and (c) the loose connections may make it difficult to introduce massive organizational change (such as reform). Weick (1976) studied the education system in the US and found loose couplings between various players and different levels of the organizational hierarchy. He noted that education systems are loosely coupled because in education, different means can lead to the same result, educational activities cannot be fully standardized, and monitoring is difficult because of slow feedback mechanisms for activities that take place in the organization. Some researchers have argued that the perception of the education system as being composed of loose connections has an important implication for policy management (Goldspink 2007). According to these authors, such systems cannot be guided by means of formal or bureaucratic control, but need a different form of management, which enables their unique advantages to be realized and their shortcomings to be reduced. Loose couplings are influenced not only by structural-technological aspects (such as hierarchy and job isolation), but also by cognitive ones. According to the cognitive approach to policy implementation, each of the agents (people—teachers, principals, etc., and organizations—schools, education departments, etc.) that comprise the system have an understanding of the rationale of their role and the

48

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

contribution it makes to the organization. The understanding of each agent, however, is not only personal, but according to researchers, it rests in part on collective schemes, which are the result of the institutional field in which the organization operates (Mizrahi-Shtelman 2019; Spillane et al. 2002). Scholars defined the cognitive approach to the application of education policy as “sensemaking” related to how people pay attention to information, select it, and formulate understandings based on it (Ganon-Shilon and Schechter 2019; Ganon-Shilon et al. 2020; Rom and Eyal 2019; Spillane et  al. 2002). According to Coburn (2005), whose work also draws on this approach, schools develop and shape their culture based on such meanings. Therefore, principals who wish to succeed in implementing changes in their school, such as a new reform, must provide access to the basic reform ideas for the teachers, so that they may understand and participate in the interpretation of the underlying change. The presence of degrees of freedom does not necessarily require large gaps between a formal policy and its implementation in the field. Two research theories to this matter have sought to explain the wide gap between policy and its realization in the field: the functionalist and the political approach. One of the most best-known concepts in the functionalist approach was formulated by Lipsky (2010), whose research dealt with public service officials in peripheral units, who are responsible for the implementation of government policy, including police, social workers, teachers, and others. According to Lipsky, such units contain a built-in paradox: on one hand, those who employ them are required to provide uniform government service to all citizens, but on the other hand, they are required to meet the unique needs of individual citizens. Lipsky (2010) called people in these positions “street-­level bureaucrats,” and saw them as key players in policy implementation. According to the literature, these officials often determine a new policy or provide a vastly different interpretation of existing policy, hence the wide gap between the policy dictated and the one implemented (Gassner and Gofen 2018; Gofen et al. 2019). Lipsky (2010) provided a functional explanation for this phenomenon, relating it to the uncertainty and stress faced by officials at the street level, as they are required to provide appropriate services to the public. Policymakers declare policy but do not deal with its implications, whereas street-level officials must meet the public directly and daily, therefore the declared policy needs to be changed in the course of implementation. Hupe and Buffat (2014) noted that pressure on street level officials has a cumulative effect, and may result from one or more sources, such as managerial requirements, professional norms, and social influences. Three methods were suggested for managing these pressures: (a) personal coping, where the bureaucrats accept the pressure of the work as a given, and try to make the best of the existing situation; (b) group response, in which the officials establish a professional network to compensate for the pressure through collaboration with colleagues, setting collective goals, and providing mutual feedback; and (c) activist response, when officials do not accept the coerced policy but rather fight to change it. There is yet another danger in coercing policy on the field: creating a gap between the policy imposed and the preferences of street-level bureaucrats. This gap may create a psychological detachment from the implemented policy, also known as “policy alienation,” which is

3.2  Field Effects on Implementation

49

likely to be reflected in the interaction between bureaucrats and those receiving their services (Tummers 2013). Lipsky considered the officials’ discretion regarding policy as an existing and even desirable state. He argued that street-level officials deal with complex tasks that cannot be foreseen, and therefore, the nature of the work requires them to create adjustments for the public that consumes these service. Other researchers presented a more reserved approach to this phenomenon. O’Leary (2010), for example, called public servants, who, for strategic reasons, act against the wishes of their superiors, “guerilla government,” a term that emphasizes the negative aspect latent in this phenomenon. In a detailed analysis of this debate, Gofen (2014) studied the attempt to change the accepted Israeli reading curriculum in elementary education, the “phonetic approach,” to a new one, referred to as “language as a whole.” The research suggests that to promote the implementation of the program, budgets and pedagogical guidance were offered to the schools, and yet some teachers and schools did not implement the new curriculum. According to the study, principals and teachers thought that the program was inefficient and caused many students to fail to learn to read. The study also noted that the teachers said that they collaborated with the pedagogic training process and seemed to have fully adopted it, whereas in practice they continued to teach the program according to the old phonetic approach. Gofen (2014) stressed that this was not an isolated decision, and that the teachers reported having exchanged information and coordinated their actions. After some time, the information about the shortcomings and limitations of the new program was conveyed by the teachers to the Ministry of Education. As a result of feedback from the field, the policy was changed, and schools were given the freedom to choose the reading program they preferred. The conclusion of the study was that when the deviation from the implementation of a new policy is collective, transparent, and backed by professional legitimacy, it is positive and can lead to a change in policy. The second approach that attempts to explain the wide gap between policy and what happens in reality is the political one. This view holds that the various players in the education system have different interests, and as a result, political processes affect the policy being implemented. Bjork and Blase (2009) conducted a decade-­ long case study focusing on principals and supervisors in an education district in the US (a mid-level unit responsible for managing and supervising a large number of schools), at a time when decentralization initiatives were being promoted and decentralized leadership encouraged. The researchers used a political approach to reforms that examined how the political forces and the interests of various actors lead to conflicts or to cooperation with others as part of their goal to resist or promote change. According to Björk and Blase, periods of large-scale reform and change involve increasing ambiguity and uncertainty, as well as a widening of the gap in the interests of the various players. Consistent with this view, the researchers found that district administrators and supervisors felt that decentralization initiatives ignored their knowledge and expertise, reducing their role to bureaucratic functionaries and posing a threat to their employment, resulting in an increase in intra-organizational micro-politics (Bjork and Blase 2009).

50

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

Four Sub-Systems in Israeli Education The Israeli education system today contains four separate sub-systems: Jewish state-secular, Jewish state-religious, Arab state, and Jewish “independent” (ultra-Orthodox). These differ considerably in their administrative and operational arrangements, as well as in the extent to which they are supervised by the state. 1. The Jewish state-secular stream was designed to develop knowledge, skills, and values that suit the lifestyle in the spirit of state, without affiliation to any party, ethnic or otherwise. It serves 44% of the student population (Central Bureau of Statistics 2011). 2. The Jewish state-religious stream was designed to develop knowledge, skills, and values that fit the religious lifestyle. It has considerable independence on issues related to pedagogy and ideology. It serves 14% of the student population (Central Bureau of Statistics 2011). 3. The Arab state stream is referred to as “Arab education,” a term often used to include all non-Jewish sectors (Central Bureau of Statistics 2014): the Arab sector (which accounts for about 72% of the non-Jewish population), the Bedouin sector (20% of this population), the Druze sector (about 7.8% of this population), and the Circassian sector (about 0.2% of this population) (Weissblei 2013). Those associated with state Arab education can also be divided according to religion (Central Bureau of Statistics 2014): 84% Muslims, 8% Christians, and 8% Druze. It serves 27% of the student population in Israel (Central Bureau of Statistics 2011). Approximately 20% of Arab students in Israel attend the Arab education system in East Jerusalem (Choshen and Korach 2014). In the 1990s, the education system in East Jerusalem moved from the Jordanian curriculum (until the 1967 war, East Jerusalem was a Jordanian territory) to the Palestinian curriculum. Most students take the matriculation exams of the Palestinian Authority (Tawjia) (Vurgan 2010b), and about 5% take the matriculation exams in the Israeli education system (Hasson 2015, April 30). 4. The independent Jewish ultra-Orthodox education stream was designed to develop knowledge, skills, and values in accordance with the ultra-­ Orthodox religious way of life. The ultra-Orthodox community is a collection of religious Jewish communities that display common patterns of thinking and behavior, but are separate from each other in other significant ways (Perry-Hazan 2015). Ultra-Orthodox schools separate between boys and girls (Vurgan 2007). In 2010, about half of the students in ultra-­ Orthodox schools, mostly girls, studied at institutions that take the matriculation exams (Weissblei 2013). The rest, mostly boys, finish their education without gaining basic knowledge in mathematics, sciences, and the English language. It serves about 16% of the student population (Central Bureau of Statistics 2011).

3.3  Evaluation of Education Policy

51

In Israeli education policy, there are also those who identify the political effects of various interests on the implementation of policy. For example, Dror (2006) discussed two significant reforms in the history of the Israeli education system: the integration reform and the school autonomy reform. The integration reform included a structural change that established middle schools between elementary and post-­ elementary education. In the process, it integrated students of various ethnic origin. Incentives were used to encourage the implementation of the structural change, but the integration was carried out only by local authorities that agreed to it. As a result, the reform progressed slowly over the course of several decades. The autonomy reform was fundamentally different from the integration reform, because it did not involve a single step enshrined in legislation; rather it entailed a process that was developed from the late 1970s onward, through a series of experiments, research teams, think tanks, committees, and regulations. The reform included the establishment of community schools, granting flexibility to schools to influence the curriculum, enabling parental choice, and supporting school-based management experiments. Despite the great difference in the nature of the reforms, Dror recognized that in both cases, the interests of key players in the Israeli arena have greatly influenced the advancement of the reforms. Among these players were teachers’ unions, local authorities, special education sectors (such as the Jewish state-­religious stream and the cooperative Israeli communities), powerful parents, and academia. Another example of the power of politics and interests concerning changes in education in Israel is the “core curriculum,” a framework for building a curriculum that defines binding content and topics. Since the beginning of the 2000s, the idea of instituting a core curriculum has been raised in professional and political discussions in Israel. A core curriculum embodies a national community model whose social character is planned by the state (Yonah and Shenhav 2005). Some portions of Israeli society regard the core curriculum as embodying the values, knowledge, and skills required of citizens of the state, whereas other groups, such as the ultra-­ Orthodox Jews and the Arabs, may view it as cultural coercion (Katzir and Perry-­ Hazan 2019; Markman and Yonah 2009). There are those who argue that implementation of the core curriculum without consent will not succeed because teachers belonging to groups that do not support it will not implement it in the classroom. For example, in the Jewish ultra-Orthodox education system for boys, which is funded by the state and committed to a limited portion of the core curriculum, “the scope, quality and quantity of core studies depend on the management of the education institution, its orientation, and even the particular teacher who teaches the subject” (Weissblei 2012, p. 4).

3.3  Evaluation of Education Policy Assessment of education policy is defined as a systematic investigation, using research methods and standards, of the degree to which policy has achieved its objectives (Vedung 2017). Systematically generated research knowledge is intended

52

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

Methodologies of Policy Studies • Quantitative evaluation involves collecting numeric data (e.g., test scores, number of participants, dropout rates, teachers’ sense of competence, student motivation, parental satisfaction, etc.) and conducting statistical analysis. Quantitative research is often (but not always) deductive, and it is intended to test theory (Sadovnik 2006). Often, such research adopts an experimental design and examines the differences between an organization that participated in a program and one that did not. Quantitative assessments have several important advantages for policymakers, including a high level of reliability and generalization; it is a rapid process, with relatively low cost. Quantitative methods help judge complex issues and gain public legitimacy for them because they “enable citizens and clients to see the benefit and risks of policy alternatives with mathematical eyes” (Yang 2006, p.  365). The main drawback of quantitative evaluation is that the design and research questions are predetermined, and therefore it is impossible to answer relevant questions that were not asked in the first place. • Qualitative evaluation focuses on collecting verbal data (e.g., through personal interviews, focus groups, observations, diaries, administrative and legal documents, textbooks, etc.). Qualitative researchers can also collect visual data (e.g., drawings or photographs). The use of qualitative tools in policy evaluation studies is not new, it has become common practice with the introduction of transparency procedures that enhance the trustworthiness of analyses (Yanow 2006). Furthermore, high-quality research aims to collect and compare several types of data, in a process called triangulation (Golafshani 2003). In qualitative research, scholars are not detached from the subject matter, but are active in building on the collected data, formulating now concepts and interpretations of it (Sadovnik 2006). Qualitative assessment is particularly effective in situations where a new policy is considered or tested as a pilot. Qualitative assessment can provide in-depth insights into experiences, feelings, and views, which quantitative assessment is less adept at. Qualitative evaluations have several drawbacks, however, in relation to policy: this type of research cannot be generalized in a way that quantitative research can. The research process may take longer and cost more. And for various reasons, the public attributes greater credibility to quantitative data than to the findings of interviews and observations. • Mixed-method evaluations are based on an integrated methodology that incorporates quantitative and qualitative components. Such studies can provide a broad perspective on the observed phenomena, because the combination of approaches maximizes the advantages of the two methods and minimizes their shortcomings (Creswell and Clark 2017). But an integrated assessment usually involves a longer and more expensive process than either of the other approaches alone.

3.3  Evaluation of Education Policy

53

to help make policy decisions. The methods used for policy assessment may be quantitative, qualitative, or mixed. Hanberger (2001) argued that a policy evaluation includes several aspects: (a) the problem, which includes the context, the stakeholders, the definition of the problem, and the relevant variables; (b) the proposed policy, that is, objectives, action theory, policy tools, and assessment of intervention; (c) the implementation, including the line of action, organization and capabilities, resources, and unexpected problems; and (d) results and implications, which refers to the achievement of goals, unwanted results, and effects. Despite the theoretical separation between the aspects and their presentation as part of a chronological continuum, the process of evaluation of the various aspects often occurs simultaneously, and the information on all aspects is collected together. The roots of the policy evaluation process already take hold at the beginning of the policymaking stage, because at this stage the goals of the policy are usually defined, together with criteria for their evaluation. Next, policy evaluators select or develop unique data collection tools. After the data are collected, they are analyzed and used to produce an evaluation report. Four types of evidence can be used to assess public policy (Berriet‫־‬Solliec et al. 2011): (a) evidence of a problem, which describes the context and verifies the facts used to create agreement between players; (b) causal evidence, confirming cause-and-effect relationships between an event or a situation and the outcome variables, which therefore may be able to predict the effects of policy plans; (c) evidence of effectiveness, that is, of the relationship between policy actions and desired outcomes; and (d) evidence of harmlessness, in other words, of the absence of adverse effects or side effects of the policy. The literature recommends that some considerations be taken into account using evaluation (Patton 1987; Vedung 2017): the usefulness of the assessment (whether it will be carried out by competent authorities, including the relevant stakeholders, collect significant and practical data, and produce specific recommendations); its feasibility (regarding time ranges, funding, and political opposition); validity of the evaluation (ethically and legally); accuracy of the evaluation (whether the research report will be detailed and reasoned to allow the assessment of the quality of the research). The positivist approach to policy evaluation studies suggests that the knowledge that expert researchers produce using systematic research tools can gauge the effect of the policy, and that these tools can communicate knowledge to policymakers, who in turn can use it to solve problems (Shulock 1999). Shulock presented an alternative approach, according to which data collected in policy studies are more relevant to the democratic process than to problems and their solutions. According to this view, the use of the information acquired in policy assessment is intended for several purposes: (a) to provide a language for framing the political discourse; (b) to support legislative actions that are being delayed or resisted; and (c) to serve as a symbol of legitimate government conduct in a society that values ​​rationality. Policy assessment has a functional role to examine whether objectives have been achieved and whether adjustments and improvements are necessary, but at the same time it also has a political aspect. The evaluation of policy plans is political for

54

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

several reasons (Bovens et al. 2008): (a) public projects are the product of a policy process involving political dynamics; (b) evaluation results can influence the continuation and financing of the policy; and (c) the evaluation results may affect the personal career and professional reputation of politicians and professionals. As a result, there may be pressures from various stakeholders who would prefer that the assessment report produce only positive findings, which may cause the evaluation process to be conducted in an improper manner. The various biases can create a pseudo-evaluation that is not conducted according to accepted ethical research standards (Madaus et al. 2000). One type of such study is “politically controlled research,” where information gathering and report publication are controlled to create the desired impression of the policy. Another type of pseudo-evaluation is the “public relations assessment” aimed at creating a positive public image of the organization or program. Pseudo-evaluation can be the result of proactive assessment pressures dictating in advance what the findings should be, or of pressures of policy implementers in the field, especially those who lead it at the local and school levels. Furthermore, the target population of the policies may also desire a positive report. Parents may want the policy to continue because it provides special benefits for their children. Finally, researchers involved in pseudo-evaluation may avoid reporting negative findings, so that they would not be classified as controversial or unprofessional, and risk harming future job opportunities. These biases may lead stakeholders to perform various maneuvers aimed at preventing the presentation of negative findings, or paint a more positive picture than what exists in reality. Maneuvers can include denial of access or providing partial access to the research sites, changes in the design of the evaluation criteria in a way that ensures the desired results, and discrediting the researchers. In many ways, policy evaluation is designed to determine the success of a policy. McConnell (2010), however, suggests that policymaking should be seen as a phenomenon consisting of three distinct areas: (a) process, (b) programs, and (c) politics. According to McConnell, a certain policy may succeed or fail in more than one area. The process focuses on identifying problems, examining alternatives to the solution, and making decisions. This involves obtaining information, consultation, and rational weighing of the pros and cons of different solutions. The scope of the programs focuses on the translation of policy statements into concrete outlines, listing all the aspects related to the practical application, including the resources allocated and the policy instruments to be promoted (laws, incentives, etc.). The politics focuses on the political implications of the policy, including the timing of the decision, its symbolic aspects, and the implications of the decision for the image of politicians and their chances of reelection. McConnell suggests developing a more varied perception of success and failure of public policy. According to this view, together with sweeping success and failure, there may be hybrid forms of policy success that also include internal contradictions (McConnell 2010): (a) successful process and unsuccessful programs, (b) successful politics and unsuccessful programs, and (c) successful programs and bad politics. According to McConnell, these hybrid successes are highly common in public policy.

3.4  Systemic Change and Education Reforms

55

3.4  Systemic Change and Education Reforms Reform is a change in one or more aspects of the education system that is implemented on a systemic scale (or on a large scale) to achieve a defined goal. Three main types of education reforms are noted in the literature (Fullan 1992): (a) curricular reforms aimed at influencing student achievement by changing the content being studied; (b) pedagogical or instructional reforms aimed at influencing student achievements by changing the way in which the content is presented, by changing how students are being taught, and by changing the teachers’ training and development processes; such reforms are often directed at changing both the theoretical and the curricular aspects (Zohar 2013); and (c) structural or managerial reforms aimed at influencing student achievement by restructuring the authority and responsibility at different levels of the education system and the school staff (Elmore 1995). At times, these reforms intend to influence the education arena through market-based elements deriving from the business world and the economic market. Fullan (2000) identified three types of large-scale reform: (a) change applying to a geographic-administrative area and all the schools included in it; (b) change in hundreds of schools and an attempt to adopt a certain model; and (c) change at the national level, in which all schools are involved. Cohen (1995) argued that reforms usually include two components: the creation of new policy instruments (e.g., legislation) and the removal of regulatory and bureaucratic barriers that may obstruct the reform. The idea of legislation as an instrument for reforming education policy has a special status because the first education reforms (i.e., desegregation and affirmative action), carried out in the US in the 1960s to promote integration, were based on legislation and case law (Gibton 2003). According to Gibton (2003), legislation has several advantages as a tool for shaping education policy: (a) it redefines the balance of power between stakeholders in education, and allocates responsibility with regard to the obligations and authority of various government bodies; and (b) it informs the public of the new arrangement, and encourages public discussion of the phenomenon and the arrangement. But Gibton also identified shortcomings in legislation: (a) it is general and does not specify complex arrangements, and at times, the obligations set forth in the legislation are not provided with the means necessary to enforce them; and (b) the public debate it triggers creates factors that inhibit change. Gibton argued that despite the special status of legislation and of court rulings, until the early 2000s, most comprehensive and long-term education reforms in Israel were accepted and carried out without legislation. This description of a lack of legislation in education reform in Israel contrasts greatly with the situation in the UK and the US, were education reforms are often accompanied by extensive legislation and case law. According to Gibton, in Israeli practice, legislation does not mark the beginning of a process but the end. Therefore, it is possible that in the Israeli education system, the impact of reform by law is negligible because of the lack of follow­up and the loose norms that have developed over the years.

56

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

Despite the focus of reforms on policy instruments, many have sought to change teaching, and as a result, have produced changes in student learning. Generally, reforms seek to increase coherence in policy, assuming that they are promoted by state authorities over many years, and that the ideas will percolate down to the field level (Cohen 1995). In practice, however, many recognize a gap between the goals of declared reforms and the results on the ground. Scholars argue that although policymakers speculate that teaching is a simple and uniform system that can be shaped by a small number of policy instruments, in practice teaching is a complex system that includes knowledge, skills, values, professional commitments, and social resources for teachers (Cohen 1995; Cohen and Mehta 2017). Reforms often focus only on the technical aspects (knowledge and skills), and neglect the other aspects, and because the relationship between the two aspects is not closely related, there is no single force that can lead to significant change in teaching. Hess (2010) argued that leading a significant reform in an education system while having to maintain many of its current bureaucratic and operational aspects (e.g., job descriptions, managerial practices, wage and compensation system, licensing procedures, etc.) is doomed to failure. Coburn (2003) suggested an alternative conceptualization of how we think about scale in the context of education reforms. According to Coburn, most of the ideas about the scale of education reforms focus only on quantitative aspects, such as “number of schools” that have replicated or adapted changes within a geographic space, but do not deal with qualitative aspects related to changes. The researcher proposed a multidimensional conceptualization to understand the “scale” involved in reforms. It enumerated four dimensions that define the scale of systemic change: 1. Depth, relating to the ability of the reform to significantly change not only superficial aspects having to do with teaching (such as learning materials, classroom organization, or activities), but also teacher values, teacher beliefs, and the norms of social interaction between teachers and students. 2. Sustainability, relating to the creation of significant change over time. Innovation can be adopted only symbolically, or applying it superficially. Moreover, systemic innovations are usually observed while they receive the attention of policymakers, but they are abandoned fully or partially after policymakers no longer show interest in the policy. 3. Spread, relating to the way in which beliefs and norms spread not numerically or horizontally (by including more education systems), but vertically, with respect to policy, procedures, and teaching and vocational training practices. This dimension deals with the degree to which the reform motivates widespread change in the core processes of the systems it affects. 4. Shift in reform ownership, relating to the granting of authority to create the sense that the use and change of external reform is in the hands of local authorities and teachers. In contrast to many cases in which the information and authority on innovations is left to institutions outside the schools that are responsible for the implementation of the reforms, in the case of transfer of ownership, a r­ egenerative capacity is created (i.e., the ability to maintain and renew the reform after the cessation of central support).

3.4  Systemic Change and Education Reforms

57

Coburn (2003) argued that there is a built-in tension between the quantitative volume of schools involved in systemic reform and the dimensions of the qualitative standards that characterize it. For example, often, following a deep reform, the ability to expand the scope of its implementation is limited. Additionally, most reforms detailing knowledge and guidelines reduce the need for costly training, but undermine the sense of ownership of the reform. Scholars noted the attempts to introduce computers into schools in the 1990s and the 2000s as an example of how reforms are widely distributed, but do not affect the dimensions of teaching (Coburn 2003; Slakmon 2017). Cuban et al. (2001) have identified the problem with policymakers’ assumption that distributing computers to schools would lead to widespread classroom use by teachers and students, and to improved teaching and learning processes. A qualitative study of two high schools in the heart of Silicon Valley, in California, found that access to computers does not guarantee their use, and that their presence has not changed the patterns of teaching and learning. The researchers argued that when reforms do not go far enough with respect to the way schools organize the allocation of time and teacher training, “new technologies will, paradoxically, sustain old practices” (p. 830). The same results of a similar technological reform could be observed in Israel as well. In 1993, the Ministry of Education issued a plan to computerize the education system in order to close the “digital divide” between population groups that have different access to technology (Vurgan 2010a). But the reform has produced meager changes in the patterns of teaching and learning in schools. Aflalo (2012), who interviewed 47 teachers in Israel about the way computer technology is implemented in their pedagogic work, found that most teachers believed that computer technology was not necessary for meaningful learning, and that the primary use of computers was for basic applications. Gaziel (2010) proposed various theoretical explanations for the failure of education reforms, including a sociological and an economic explanation. The prevalent sociological approaches often focus on explaining the failure of education reforms from two perspectives: of social equilibrium and of social conflict (Gaziel 2010). The equilibrium perspective argues that social systems tend to prefer functional integration, harmony, and stability, and therefore the timing and focus of education reform is derived from a new functional social need, for example, related to technological-­employment change. According to this approach, reform is expected to fail when it does not represent a natural evolution of the social system, and therefore does not provide a functional solution to the existing need. By contrast, from the perspective of social conflict, social systems are not stable, and there is always friction and competition between social groups over values, the distribution of resources, and power. According to this approach, education reform is the result of social tensions and conflicts when different groups accumulate enough power to advance their interests or try to influence the interests of other groups. Therefore reform is destined to fail when certain groups accumulate or exert enough force to prevent its implementation. The economic explanation for the failure of education reforms focuses on balancing the distribution of costs and benefits. According to this approach, the failure of a reform depends on the distribution of costs and benefits

58

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

(Gaziel 2010): a broad reform that benefits many actors but its costs are born by a small number of actors (citizens or interest groups) creates a situation where actors who bear the costs have a stronger incentive to oppose reform than those who support it, and therefore the reform is likely to fail. Consequently, high-quality reforms designed to improve the efficiency of the inputs to the education system and to increase productivity and academic performance are more likely to fail because the benefits they offer are scattered, whereas the burden of implementing it rests on a small number of players (for example, teachers whose workload is expected to increase). By contrast, access reforms designed to expand the services of the education system, which are decentralized by nature, are less likely to fail because they offer benefits to all players and their costs are small and decentralized. Sarason (1982) drew the attention of policymakers to organizational and behavioral regularities in schools, arguing that the identification of regularity is essential for the effective implementation of changes in the school environment. Regularity refers to a pattern or patterns that can be identified by objective observation and documentation. For example, the pattern of school and vacation days amounts to organizational regularity; the small talk of students in class is behavioral regularity. Sarason argued that after regularity has taken root in the education system, it becomes an ideal, but many of the regularities are not related to educational goals, and therefore are not effective. Eisner (1992) identified two organizational regularities in schools that do not contribute to learning. According to him, the disciplinary separation of subjects makes it difficult for students to understand the connections between the different subjects they are learning. Similarly, the organizational isolation of teachers during working hours denies teachers the opportunity to be exposed to other teachers’ studies and to reflect on their performance. According to Sarason (1982), an attempt to reform the education system requires a change in existing arrangements, the removal of some of them, or the creation of new ones. Reforms often result in changes in the organizational arrangements of schools, aimed at changing the occurrence and frequency of behavioral patterns in teacher-student relationships. Eisner (1992) argued that change requires effort and time to learn, but often when implementing reforms, teachers find it difficult to carry out the changes because of the difficulty in meeting the requirement to learn new practices in parallel with the continuation of routine school activities. Eisner (1992) considered schools to be institutions “resistant” to change. He argued that teaching is one of the professions that involves a long process of socialization. On one hand, children meet with teachers at a very young age and learn by observation what teaching is in the context of the learning experience. Thus, every future teacher holds a cognitive pattern of “what a good teacher is,” based on experiences of the past. On the other hand, the majority of the public is conservative and willing to accept only limited changes in the education system. In practice, most parents prefer to stick to the familiar model, with some improvements, rather than take part in a radical educational experiment whose results are unknown. Because of this, Eisner (2000) argued that in initiating a reform, a holistic approach to school ecology must be considered in a way that includes many aspects, such as the goals of the school, its organizational structure, the emphasis of the curriculum, the

3.4  Systemic Change and Education Reforms

59

quality of the teaching, and the forms of evaluation. Schools are durable institutions; any attempt to change them requires attention to all the elements that make up the institution, and the initiation of a simultaneous, orchestrated change. In his article, “Reforming again, again, and again,” Larry Cuban (1990), a historian of education, offered a different understanding of the many reforms that education systems are subject to. He reviewed retrospectively the waves of reform in the US. For example, he described how for a hundred years, the concept of the classroom and of the interactions between teacher and student have been moving back and forth between conservative reforms that support the approach of the teacher at the center (the knowledge is presented to the learner), and progressive reforms that support the student-centric approach (the learner discovers knowledge). Cuban discussed the conventional claim that the waves of repeated reforms are the result of rational processes. According to him, proponents of the rational explanation of the waves of reforms described dynamics: (a) the reforms attempt to balance excessive drift to either the conservative or progressive side of the spectrum, and finding an exact balance is difficult (the pendulum explanation); (b) reforms are the result of a society that tries to address social changes after the fact. Following a social change, a new government is elected, which proposes immediate solutions. But by the time the new regime puts processes into action, they become irrelevant, resulting in a renewed demand to replace the regime with another, which again proposes new reforms. Cuban rejected these accounts, arguing that they are not backed by evidence, and proposing two other explanations, which he considered to be more reasonable: (a) the political explanation, according to which, in times of economic instability and excessive conflicts regarding values, politicians turn to the education system as a solution to ethical issues because the general public views education as a reliable tool for improving society; and (b) the institutional explanation, which views schools as organizations that depend materially on public funds and public support for their existence and for the continuation of their activity. Therefore, public loyalty to the system and support for the political establishment are more important than aspects of effectiveness. Schools are sensitive to pressures of change, and respond to them quickly and at times superficially, to be considered legitimate and deserving. Despite the waves of reforms, the classroom and its programs remain almost unchanged. In another article, Cuban (2006) illustrated how the emergence of reforms inspired by the market economy, are linked, from an international perspective, to institutional processes. In his analysis, Cuban connected the rising popularity of national reforms focused on funding and school management from the early 1980s with the intensification of economic and institutional globalization processes. Berkovich (2017) applied Larry Cuban’s notion of reform waves to explore why the dynamic of Israeli educational reforms in the twenty-first century cycled between conservative and liberal agendas. The analysis detected a dynamic of reform waves and extended Cuban’s theory by identifying internal and external catalysts (i.e., political instability, institutional processes initiated by international agencies, and the formation of a semi-peripheral status owing to the rise of the European Union). These pushed reform waves into hyperdrive and created hyperwaves.

60

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

3.5  Summary of the Chapter Chapter 3 continues the discussion of the policy process we began in Chap. 2, but focuses on aspects of implementation. First, the chapter described a top-down approach to implementing policy, and reviewed a list of common policy instruments discussed in the literature, aiming to establish whether certain policy instruments fit given issues. It also addressed the question of how the use of policy instruments reflects logic in governance. Second, the chapter assessed the bottom-up approach to implementing policy. It introduced the theory of loosely coupled systems and the concept of sense making to indicate characteristics that may result in a gap between a planned policy and an applied one. It also described the educational challenge of “street-level bureaucrats” who introduce changes in planned policy during implementation. Third, the chapter presented how education policy is being assessed and the ways in which evaluation plays functional and political roles at the same time. Finally, it made reference to the practices of systemic changes and reforms that have become common in education systems in the second half of the twentieth century, although the success of most reforms remains questionable.

References Addi-Raccah, A., & Grinshtain, Y. (2018). Teachers’ capital in view of intensive parental involvement in school: The case of teachers in high socio-economic status schools in Israel. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 599–619. Aflalo, A. (2012). Contradictions in teachers’ perceptions: The hidden barrier to the assimilation of computer technologies. Dapim, 54, 167–139. [in Hebrew]. Avigur-Eshel, A., & Berkovich, I. (2019). Introducing managerialism into national educational contexts through pseudo-conflict: A discursive institutionalist analysis. International Journal of Educational Development, 68, 1–8. Berkovich, I. (2017). Educational reform hyperwaves: Reconceptualizing Cuban’s theories of change. Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 413–438. Berriet-Solliec, M., Labarthe, P., Laurent, C., & Baudry, J. (2011, February 17–18). Empirical validity of the evaluation of public policies: Models of evaluation and quality of evidence. 122nd EAAE Seminar: Evidence-Based Agricultural and Rural Policy Making: Methodological and Empirical Challenges of Policy Evaluation, Ancona, Italy. Bialik, G., Gibton, D., & Dror, Y. (2018). Now you see it, now you don’t: Understanding high conflict and high ambiguity as core policy dimensions through field-level leaders’ perspectives. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(1), 52–77. Bjork, L. G., & Blase, J. (2009). The micropolitics of school district decentralization. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(3), 195–208. Bovens, M., Hart, P., & Kuipers, S. (2008). The politics of policy evaluation. In M.  Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 319–335). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Forecast for additional classrooms in schools, 2012–2016. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2014). The face of Israeli society report, No. 7. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew].

References

61

Choshen, M., & Korach, M. (2014). Jerusalem: Facts and trends 2014. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research. Coburn, C.  E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.  Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 11–31. Cohen, D. K., & Mehta, J. D. (2017). Why reform sometimes succeeds: Understanding the conditions that produce reforms that last. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 644–690. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13. Cuban, L. (2006). An international and historical perspective on national education reforms. In D. Inbar (Ed.), Towards educational revolution? (pp. 22–34). Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Van Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad. [in Hebrew]. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834. Dadon-Golan, Z., BenDavid-Hadar, I., & Klein, J. (2019). Equity in education: The Israeli case. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(7), 1670–1685. Dror, Y. (2006). Past reforms in the Israeli education system: What history can teach us about the Dovrat report? In D. Inbar (Ed.), Towards educational revolution? (pp. 35–39). Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Van Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad. [in Hebrew]. Eisner, E. W. (1992). Educational reform and the ecology of schooling. Teachers College Record, 93(4), 610–627. Eisner, E.  W. (2000). Those who ignore the past…: 12 ‘easy’ lessons for the next millennium. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 343–357. Elmore, R.  F. (1995). Structural reform and educational practice. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 23–26. Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and beyond. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large‫־‬scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 5–27. Ganon-Shilon, S., & Schechter, C. (2019). Shared sense-making processes within a national reform implementation: Principals’ voices. Leadership and Policy in Schools. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2019.1696370 Ganon-Shilon, S., Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2020). Principals’ voices pertaining to shared sense-making processes within a generally-outlined pedagogical reform implementation. International Journal of Leadership in Education.  Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2020.1770864 Gassner, D., & Gofen, A. (2018). Street-level management: A clientele-agent perspective on implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 551–568. Gaziel, H. H. (1994). Implementing reforms in a centralised education system: The case of Israeli education. Oxford Review of Education, 20(2), 237–252. Gaziel, H. H. (2010). Why educational reforms fail: The emergence and failure of an educational reform: A case study from Israel. In J.  Zajda (Ed.), Globalisation, ideology and education policy reforms (pp. 49–62). Dordrecht: Springer. Gibton, D. (2003). Autonomy, anomie, integration and anarchy: Legislation and adjudication as devices for executing educational reforms and implementing educational policy. In Y.  Dror, D. Nevo, & R. Shapira (Eds.), Turns and returns in Israeli education policy guidelines for the 2000s (pp. 407–454). Tel Aviv: Ramot. [In Hebrew]. Gofen, A. (2014). Mind the gap: Dimensions and influence of street‫־‬level divergence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 473–493.

62

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

Gofen, A., Sella, S., & Gassner, D. (2019). Levels of analysis in street-level bureaucracy research. In P.  Hupe  (Ed.),  Research handbook on street-level bureaucracy  (pp. 336–350). London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–606. Goldspink, C. (2007). Rethinking educational reform: A loosely coupled and complex systems perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(1), 27–50. Gu, Q., Sammons, P., & Chen, J. (2018). How principals of successful schools enact education policy: Perceptions and accounts from senior and middle leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(3), 373–390. Hanberger, A. (2001). What is the policy problem? Methodological challenges in policy evaluation. Evaluation, 7(1), 45–62. Hasson, N. (2015, April 30). Sixty percent increase in 4 years in Israeli matriculation exams in East Jerusalem. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il. [in Hebrew]. Helgøy, I., & Homme, A. (2006). Policy tools and institutional change: Comparing education policies in Norway, Sweden and England. Journal of Public Policy, 26(02), 141–165. Hess, F. M. (2010). The same thing over and over. Cambrige, MA: Harvard University Press. Howlett, M. (2009). Policy analytical capacity and evidence-based policy-making: Lessons from Canada. Canadian Public Administration, 52(2), 153–175. Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street‫־‬level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569. Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F.  Fisher, G.  J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 43–62). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Katzir, S., & Perry-Hazan, L. (2019). Legitimizing public schooling and innovative education policies in strict religious communities: The story of the new Haredi public education stream in Israel. Journal of Education Policy, 34(2), 215–241. Lascoumes, P., & Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments – From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21. Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355–382. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street‫־‬level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th Ann. ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M., & Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Markman, N., & Yonah, Y. (2009). Nationalism, multiculturalism and core curriculum in Israel: Between inclusion and exclusion. Alpayim, 34, 65–81. [in Hebrew]. Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. McConnell, A. (2010). Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy, 30(3), 345–362. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. Mizrahi-Shtelman, R. (2019). Role identity and sensemaking as institutional mechanisms for policy translation: The case of school principals and education reforms in Israel. Leadership and Policy in Schools. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2019.1638422 O’Leary, R. (2010). Guerrilla employees: Should managers nurture, tolerate, or terminate them? Public Administration Review, 70(1), 8–19. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223. Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

References

63

Perry-Hazan, L. (2015). Court-led educational reforms in political third rails: Lessons from the litigation over ultra-religious Jewish schools in Israel. Journal of Education Policy, 30(5), 713–746. Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2007). Implementing public policy. In F. Fisher, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Reingold, R., & Avidov-Ungar, O. (2018). ‘There should be more cooperation in setting the policy’: Israeli stakeholders’ perceptions of their appropriate role in implementing a new educational reform. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 22(6), 731–748. Resh, N., & Kfir, D. (2004). Educational integration in Israel: Thirty years of hesitant policy in view of changing ideology. Megamot, 43(1), 63–33. [in Hebrew]. Rom, N., & Eyal, O. (2019). Sensemaking, sense-breaking, sense-giving, and sense-taking: How educators construct meaning in complex policy environments. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 62–74. Sadovnik, A. R. (2006). Qualitative research and public policy. In F. Fischer & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 417–427). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Schechter, C., & Shaked, H. (2017). Leaving fingerprints: Principals’ considerations while implementing education reforms. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(3), 242–260. Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2017). School principals as mediating agents in education reforms. School Leadership & Management, 37(1–2), 19–37. Shavit, Y. (2013). Vocational / technological education on second thought. Jerusalem: Taub Center. [in Hebrew]. Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), 226–244. Sicron, M. (1986). Mass immigration- its dimensions, characteristics, and influence on the Israeli population structure. In M.  Naor (Ed.), Immigrants and transit camps (pp.  1948–1952). Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. [in Hebrew]. Slakmon, B. (2017). Educational technology policy in Israel. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 25(1), 137–149. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. Swirski, S., & Dagan-Buzaglo, N. (2009). Differentiation, inequality and loose control. Tel Aviv: Adva Center. [in Hebrew]. Tummers, L. (2013). Policy alienation and the power of professionals: Confronting new policies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Tzameret, Z. (2005). Zalman Arran and the ‘productivization’ of the Oriental Jews. In A. Barley, D. Gutwein, & T. Friling (Eds.), Society and economics in Israel: A historical and contemporary view (pp.  326–295). Jerusalem and Kiryat Sde-Boker: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and the Ben Gurion Institute for Israel Studies. [in Hebrew]. Vedung, E. (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. New York, NY: Routledge. Vurgan, Y. (2007). The education system in the Jewish ultra-Orthodox sector – Situation report. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Vurgan, Y. (2010a). Computers in schools – Situation report. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. Vurgan, Y. (2010b). Claims about ethnic discrimination in admission to the recognized unofficial educational institutions. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Ward, S. C., Bagley, C., Lumby, J., Hamilton, T., Woods, P., & Roberts, A. (2016). What is ‘policy’ and what is ‘policy response’? An illustrative study of the implementation of the leadership standards for social justice in Scotland. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 43–56. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.

64

3  The Policy Process: Implementation of Education Policy

Weissblei, E. (2012). Core studies in the Jewish ultra-Orthodox educational system. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. Weissblei, E. (2013). Israeli education system- Major issues discussed by the Education, Culture and Sport Committe. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Yang, K. (2006). Quantitative methods for policy analysis. In F.  Fischer & G.  J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 349–368). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Yanow, D. (2006). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fischer & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 405–415). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Yonah, Y., & Shenhav, Y. (2005). What is multiculturalism? The politics of difference in Israel. Tel Aviv: Babel. [in Hebrew]. Zohar, A. (2013). Grades aren’t everything: Revamping pedagogic discourse. Tel Aviv: Hapoalim. [in Hebrew].

Chapter 4

The Policy Process: Contextual Factors

An education policy is formulated in a certain social environment, which is shaped by several contextual factors. To be able to drive processes effectively to their limits, policymakers need to be aware of these factors to understand the context in which they operate. In this chapter we discuss some of the contextual factors mentioned in the literature as challenging educational structures and affecting the functioning of educational systems, including: (a) economic and demographic aspects of the state, (b) features of political culture regarding stability and degree of corruption of the political system, and (c) aspects of national culture and social cohesion.

4.1  Demographic and Economic Aspects Demographic data provide important information to consider when forming an education policy, because demographic developments are thought to be relatively unchanging and therefore useful for long-term planning (Siegel 2001). Berkovich (2013) suggested three kinds of demographic evidence relevant when formulating education policy: (a) population distribution by age and gender, (b) population distribution by economic activity and profession, and (c) immigration and spatial distribution of the population. Demographic information on population distribution by age and gender is vital for estimating the scope of public services. For example, the total fertility ratio (average number of live births per woman) is an indicator of the size of expected educational age groups, and therefore it can help set in motion new educational institutions, or the reduction and elimination of unnecessary ones (Berkovich 2013). A reduction in fertility ratio will have short-term effect on kindergarten and elementary school education, and long-term effect on high school education. Relevant demographic information also includes life expectancy and death rates. In © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Berkovich, Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century, Policy Implications of Research in Education 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_4

65

66

4  The Policy Process: Contextual Factors

Israel, similarly to other developed countries, the percentage of the elderly (age 65 and over) in the general population is growing. This trend could lead to growing enrollment of the elderly in colleges and universities, in numbers that may create demand for more institutions of higher education. Furthermore, demographic information on population distribution by age is critical for estimating the financial burden on the productive population in the country, and the number of educators needed. Distribution by age in a given population is often presented in a graph using the age pyramid. There are several typical age pyramids: (a) stationary pyramid, representing a society in which fertility and mortality rates are fixed; (b) expansive pyramid, representing a society in which fertility rate is high and the percentage of elderly low (wide base that expresses large numbers of children, and sharp vertex expressing high mortality rate and low life expectancy); (c) constrictive pyramid, representing a society in which the rate of young people is lower than that of the adult, working-age population (the base is narrower than the body of the pyramid, characteristic high life expectancy and low birth rate). The age pyramid may be used to estimate the ratio of dependence in the population between the productive (working age) and the dependent (children and elderly) members. The ratio serves as an indication of the revenues the state can expect from taxes on one hand and of its expected spending on public services. A crucial parameter affecting the quality of educational services is the amount the system invests per student. When the number of school children in the population is relatively low, the quality of the educational services is expected to increase (Berkovich 2013). For adequate management of the teaching force, accurate information is needed concerning the age distribution of the population. For example, in the 2000s, large part of the teaching population in many European countries (e.g., France) belonged to the post-World War II baby boom generation, and as a result, irrespective of the status of the teaching profession, there was an abundance of teachers. Additionally, demographic information on external migration (between countries) and internal migration (inside the country) is highly relevant for understanding the nature of education policy issues the state must face. Immigration increases the ethnic and economic diversity of the population in a manner that produces complex social challenges. These include (a) immigrants’ need to acquire the local language and integrate into society (the mother tongue plays a key role at home and in the community, and there is a will to preserve the unique culture and its values, which are distinct from those of the host society); and (b) the high poverty rate in immigrant groups, which correlates negatively with perseverance and educational achievements. Another demographic aspect, related to internal migration, is the spread of the population over the geographic space. Most of the population in the world today is concentrated in urban regions. There is a process of expansion of the urban metropolitan regions across the globe. This process is manifest both in internal migration, from small towns and rural areas to metropolitan areas, and in the increasing urban sprawl of the cities, with residents relocating to cities in the vicinity of a main city, expanding it. This process has particular consequences for certain population groups. The demographer Haroland Hodgkinson (2001) noted that

4.1  Demographic and Economic Aspects

67

ethnicity, religion, wealth, and even fertility and age differences are not distributed randomly in space, but grouped in homogeneous clusters. This phenomenon is important for education policy, especially for the differentiation in policies aimed at promoting certain population groups. Another important aspect that policymakers should consider when making policy choices is the local economy (Berkovich and Bogler 2019). Critical scholars have argued that the economy is the driving aspect of the social environment, and all else in society is a consequence of this aspect. Two focal economic characteristics are the economic production of the country and the economic inequality in it. One of the popular measures used to represent economic production is the gross domestic product (GDP). The GDP represents the value of total goods and services created by a nation in a particular year. A derivative of this measure is GDP per capita, an index of financial strength that takes into consideration the population size and the level of prices in the country. GDP per capita attests to the quality of life of the average citizen in the state. According to scholars, these measures capture the potential of a nation to finance public education, and they have shown the positive correlation with the quality of national education (Nir and Sharma Kafle 2013). Another economic aspect that characterizes countries is inequality. Inequality in income distribution has a large effect on the social environment in which the education system operates (Nir and Sharma Kafle 2013). One of the common measures used to represent income inequality is the GINI index, which assess inequality between individuals in a given society in a certain trait (in addition to income, it can be used to measure inequality in property ownership, years of education, housing density, etc.) (Dadon-Golan et  al. 2019). The GINI index is usually presented on a scale between 0 and 1, where a score of 0 stands for total equality in income (everybody makes exactly the same amount), and the highest possible score of 1 stands for total inequality in income (one person holds the entire income of the state and the rest make no money). A study conducted by the OECD concerning the effect of various economic factors on educational success found that in countries of average GDP per capita (midlevel wealth), there is a strong correlation between economic strength and student performance on PISA tests. By contrast, above a certain level of GDP per capita (high-level wealth), this correlation no longer holds (OECD 2012). The conclusion of the OECD researchers was that in high-level wealth countries the determining factor in PISA achievement was not the level of investment in education but how it was used. There is built-in tension in considerations regarding allocation of limited resources between economic needs and political demands to support services for a wide range of population groups. This tension is manifest in the economic constraints that are an integral part of public policy, for example, in the task of balancing the state budget (Quiggin 2008). The limitations on a balanced budget are imposed by the difference between revenues of the state (which originate mostly in taxes) and state spending. Politicians and the public tend to favor expanding public spending, whereas conservative economists advise against it. Nevertheless, it is possible to create temporary deficit in the budget if the gap can be closed in the future with

68

4  The Policy Process: Contextual Factors

expected revenues, but forecasts are generally uncertain. Therefore, states seek not to create long-term budget constraints. For example, in periods of recession, which are not always predictable, revenues from taxes are likely to decrease, while public spending (for example, unemployment benefits) increase. The literature mentions several strategies that decision-makers face as a result of limitations imposed by the need to balance the budget (Quiggin 2008). In any given budget, several trade-offs are possible between various items. The budget can be expanded in several ways: (a) printing money by the government; (b) privatization and the sale of state property (although it is possible that the loss of future income from the property will exceed the present profit from the sale); and (c) increasing the deficit or the debt. Educational reform occurs almost entirely during prosperous economic periods (Berkovich and Bogler 2019). When policymakers perceive the country to be expanding economically, they believe the time to be right for making broad changes in education policy. At such time, policymakers identify available public resources and national optimism, which make it easier to persuade others to support their policy plans. Therefore, during periods of economic growth it is more likely for a reform to be approved and funded. Economic climate, however, is dynamic, and at times changes such as a financial downturn can happen on short notice. Berkovich and Bogler (2019) argued that the predictability of economic developments is limited, and therefore financial conditions create high uncertainty for politicians hoping to design a long-term education policy. An example can be seen in the statements of Israeli Minister of Education, Gidon Sa’ar, in 2009, in the Education Committee of Israel’s parliament, in a debate on the “New Horizon” reform program, which came right on the heels of the global recession, in 2008. The minister noted that we have reached an absurd situation where to finance a reform that includes private lessons, the Ministry of Education has to cut hours of frontal teaching because the ministry is short of resources to fund the reform (Zelikovich 2009, May 11). There are two financial approaches to dealing with recessions: the first one, originating in Keynesian economic theory, prefers to increase public spending and create jobs to stimulate the economy; the second prefers to keep the budget balanced and use “the golden rule,” that is, keep public spending a constant percentage of the GDP.  Since the beginning of the century, Israel has gone through two economic recessions, the first in 2002 (considered to be related to a local downturn), the second in 2008 (considered to be related to the global downturn). For example, the budget of the Israeli Ministry of Education per student, as a percentage of the government budget, has increased persistently since the early 2000s, but as a percentage of the GDP it decreased after the cutbacks in public services at the end of the recession of 2002, from about 17% to about 15%. Since then, despite the economic growth in the country, spending did not return to its level before the recession (Blass and Cogan 2014). In this way, the economic recession of 2002 set the background to a new “golden rule” for educational budget, lower than its predecessor.

4.2  Political Culture

69

4.2  Political Culture Two aspects of the political culture are of interest for our discussion: political stability and government corruption. We begin with political stability. Some have identified a tension between the tempo of the political and of the educational processes (Nir and Sharma Kafle 2013). In a representative government regime, policymakers occupy political offices for a limited period of time, and often the identity of the position holders changes following an election. At the same time, pedagogical and didactic processes in education are sluggish and complicated, and take a long time to be established and show success. Therefore, political continuity is crucial for promoting certain goals and implementing educational reform (Nir and Sharma Kafle 2013). Political stability and socioeconomic characteristics are interrelated (Nir and Sharma Kafle 2013). For example, countries with frequent government changes are characterized by low economic growth (GDP), whereas high economic growth reduces the chances of government change. A similar reciprocal effect is present between political stability and wage distribution inequality (Gini index). The literature mentions a few benefits of political stability for the public education system (Nir and Sharma Kafle 2013): (a) nations with strong political stability can adapt more easily to global economic pressures, and therefore their national education systems can make the necessary adjustments more readily; (b) in nations with strong political stability, the right to free or subsidized high-quality education can be exercised more effectively; (c) nations with strong political stability are more careful and thoughtful in developing infrastructures, appointing high-quality teachers, and using high standards in training the teaching staff; (d) in nations with strong political stability, political uncertainty is reduced, therefore it is possible to set long-term goals and develop an intermediate and long-term education policies; and (e) in nations with strong political stability the trust in government is higher, making it easier for policymakers to gain legitimacy to initiate changes in the system. In a secondary data analysis conducted by Nir and Sharma Kafle (2013) on data concerning 47 countries from such international organizations as the World Band and the UN, the authors found that the ability to estimate completion rate of elementary schools (those who finish sixth grade of those who started first grade) depends significantly on political stability, which accounts for 52% of the variance between education systems. When the researchers examined the effect of GDP per capita on the additional explained difference of the survival rate, beyond political stability, they found that GDP per capita added only 4% to the explanation of the difference in survival rates. The authors inferred that political stability is more important than financial constraints when assessing desirable educational outcomes. In Israel, political stability has been essential for understanding the success and failure of public and education policy procedures in recent decades. Barnea et al. (2013) investigated political stability in Israel, using a historical perspective and international comparison with other democratic, parliamentary countries in Europe and the world. The researchers found that since the early 1990s, government stability

70

4  The Policy Process: Contextual Factors

in Israel has been disrupted, which is expressed mostly in changes in the composition of the government and short tenures of ministers. Since the early 1990s until the beginning of 2015, 15 Ministers of Education served in Israel. The four ministers who had the longest term were: Limor Livnat (5  years), Gidon Sa’ar (4  years), Amnon Rubinstein (3  years), and Yuli Tamir (3 years). Zevulun Hammer served twice, for 2 years and 1.5 years, with a gap of four years between the two terms. Half of the rest of the ministers served between one and two years, and the other half between a few days and a few months. For the sake of comparison, Zalman Aran served as Minister of Education in the 1950s and 1960s for two consecutive terms, for a total of 11 years. Another significant characteristic of the political culture is corruption. Some argue that political corruption is endemic in every form of government. Political corruption can manifest in two ways: (a) use of managerial authority to transfer public funds and resources into the official’s private possession, and (b) use of managerial authority to affect the distribution of public money in a way that preserves and expands the official’s political power (Berkovich 2016). Government corruption has a negative effect on education. Heyneman et al. (2008) found that political corruption has a deleterious effect on education. According to the authors, under widespread political corruption, in high-income countries educated individuals earn less, and in low-income countries they are generally poor. Even a perception of a system being corrupt is harmful to education, because the social and economic benefits of education are eroded (Heyneman 2013). Berkovich (2016) distinguished two levels of political corruption: 1. Sporadic corruption occurs when state individuals act separately or in coordination in a corrupt way. Corruption of individuals (sometimes called “rotten apples”) is considered to correlate with low integrity and low morals, whereas group corruption (sometimes called “rotten barrel”) is a cultural characteristic of a group in which immoral behaviors spread through social learning and imitation. In this way, social legitimacy for corruptive behavior is formed. At this stage, corruption is usually covert and occurs at the periphery of the education system. 2. Institutionalized political corruption is more invasive than sporadic one, and it redesigns the entire public system (sometimes called “rotten industry”). This can happen, for example, when corrupt politicians give incentives to their supporters by appointing them to public positions (jobs), creating a social network of corrupt exchange relations, a network referred to in the literature “patronage politics.” Berkovich (2016) researched the effects of different levels of political corruption (sporadic and institutionalized) on the effectiveness of the education system. He used international achievement tests in mathematics of students in elementary school as an indicator of the effectiveness of the education system. According to research findings, in countries where corruption is sporadic, a positive correlation can be found between a rise in the percentage of public allocation to education and

4.3  National Culture and Social Cohesion

71

academic achievement. By contrast, in countries where corruption is institutionalized, a similar increase showed a negative correlation. In countries with institutionalized corruption, the study named this phenomenon after the well-known optical illusion, the “wagon-wheel effect,” suggesting that policy intended to improve the quality of public service leads to its deterioration.

4.3  National Culture and Social Cohesion Let us now consider the links between the cultural and societal aspects of education policy. Cheong (2000) defined “culture” as a set of shared values, customs, behaviors, and rituals in a given social collective, typically a community or a nationality. Cultures are an important component in the permanence and resilience of social systems. They foster group members’ identity, reinforce their commitment to the group, and guide members in their general conduct and performance (Oplatka and Arar 2016). In the area of education, Cheong (2000) identified a hierarchy of nested cultures, starting with the national culture, which contains the various community cultures, which in turn contain the school cultures, and finally the classroom cultures. Each culture has its own set of values and norms that partially determine which cultures are nested within it, so that the more homogeneous a culture is, the smaller the diversity of its subordinate cultures. For example, the diversity of minority cultures is smaller in the case of more uniform national cultures. The presence of conflicting sub-cultures can reduce cohesion and solidarity at the higher level. Culture acts as a foundation that affects the performances of teachers and students in the education system because of several reasons (Cheong 2000): (a) it creates an environmental stimulant that influences directly or indirectly the opinions and behaviors of people; (b) it responds to personal characteristics: a student with a strong personality, who objects to strict school policies, may be tagged as a rebel and become a target of social boycott or oppression by the authorities; (c) it shapes collective action; in the presence of a strong culture, when group members hold similar values and assumptions, day-to-day schooling is more focused and more efficient; (d) it has a motivational influence, as culture ascribes importance to certain topics, and creates a desire to work hard for given goals; (e) curricular, structural, and organizational properties that are affected by culture can in turn affect performances in the education system. One of the researchers who compared national cultures was Geert Hofstede. Hofstede (1997) surveyed values regarding labor in 50 countries in three regions, and mapped differences in value patterns across five dimensions: 1. Individualism–collectivism: the degree to which relations between individuals in a society are loose (besides family ties) or tight and include mutual concern and responsibility.

72

4  The Policy Process: Contextual Factors

2. Short term-long term orientation: the degree in which the short term is being accentuated to provide quick results and a positive image, as opposed to accentuating long term thriftiness, restraint, perseverance, and work ethic. 3. Power distance: the degree to which society legitimizes differences in power and wealth between its members. This dimension reflects the relations between supervisors to subordinates; the greater the distance, the deeper the disparities are. 4. Masculinity-femininity: in a society high in this dimension, men adopt the male stereotypes (assertiveness, competitiveness, and connection to possessions), and women adopt the female stereotypes (sensitivity and kindness); in a society that is low on this measure, both genders can adopt properties different from common gender stereotypes. 5. Uncertainty avoidance: the degree to which a society accepts conditions of uncertainty, opacity, and risk, or prefers rules defined in advance. The discussion about the influence of national culture on student achievement at present focuses on comparative international tests. Supporters of such tests, especially of international tests such as PISA, adopt the “policy and structure assumption” (Feniger and Lefstein 2014). According to this assumption, the differences between countries in academic achievements are due mainly to differences in the policy processes and the structural aspects of their educational systems. Critics of the use of global comparative tests, however, offer an alternative explanation, the “cultural-historical assumption” (Feniger and Lefstein 2014). This explanation holds that the differences between countries in academic achievements stem from historical differences between countries that have shaped a unique social, economic, and educational fabric, as well as from differences in values and cultural practices (Benoliel and Berkovich 2018). Hagedorn and Purnamasari (2012) investigated the relations between the five dimensions of Hofstede and the PISA exam scores (on reading, math, and science) in 33 countries. The researchers showed evidence that two cultural dimensions were relevant for predicting achievement: individualism–collectivism and short term-long term orientation, so that achievements are higher in countries in which the culture accentuates individualism and long-term preparation. Cheong (2000) pointed out a logic failure in many comparative studies, where researchers often assume the existence of strong cultural homogeneity in the country they discuss, and based on this assumption, they ignore differences between communities and schools, taking into account only the “average” cultural profile, at the state level. Feniger and Lefstein’s (2014) study shows that the scores of Chinese students who immigrated to New Zealand and Australia on the PISA tests were more similar to those of students in Shanghai, China, than to those of students in Australia and New Zealand. According to these researchers, it is the cultural background of the individual student that explains the achievements of Chinese immigrant students, rather than being part of the education systems of Australia and New Zealand. This finding contradicts the “policy and structure assumption” of those supporting comparative international tests.

4.3  National Culture and Social Cohesion

73

The nature of national society is important in liberal democracies because wide heterogeneity makes it more difficult to create social agreements. The consensus theory assumes that it is possible to reach a minimal value agreement in a liberal, democratic society, which allows society to handle conflicts and at the same time remain stable (Mann 1970). Social cohesion characterizes a nation in which connections and relationships are present between social units, such as individuals and groups, as well as between territorial units (Berger-Schmitt 2000). The sociologist Emile Durkheim was the first to introduce the idea of social cohesion as a trait of a society that reflects mutual concern, loyalty, and solidarity. Social cohesion is a multi-dimensional variable (Novy et al. 2012). According to Woolley (2003), social cohesion is a function of three features: (a) the absence of social exclusion, (b) the relations between individuals, within their social network and between networks, based on their social capital, and (c) values and communities formed on a sense of identity. Jenson (1998) introduced a definition of social cohesion paralleling Woolley’s, but breaking down the lack of social exclusion into three factors: inclusion that represents the level of equality in opportunities, recognition that attests to the level of respect and social tolerance, and legitimacy that attests to the level of perception of political institutions as fair mediators in social conflicts. Kearns and Forrest (2000) added also a property of low socioeconomic differences to the definition of social cohesion. Janmaat and Green (2013) noted political citizenship involvement, trust, shared goals, and personal security. Some recognized that the various aspects of social cohesion correlated with one another. Putnam (2000) argued that the deterioration of social cohesion harms the success of societies, especially in the economic domain, and that non-­ governmental organizations can create teamwork, promote trust, and restore social cohesion. A cross-country comparison study found some basis for the argument that citizenship involvement increases trust in society, but found no evidence that it helps economic performance (Knack 2003). In a multi-cultural society, it is not possible to avoid ethical conflicts between various groups (Perry-Hazan 2013). In such societies, formulating long-term educational policy is hampered by contest for political power and by generally unstable regimes. In a study examining the correlation between social cohesion, institutional quality, and economic growth, Easterly et  al. (2006) found that politicians must often advocate policies they know are less than optimal because of fundamental social constraints that curtail their ability to lead reforms. These constraints are usually rooted in social and economic differences and in the ethnic diversity of the population. According to the authors, it is not possible to initiate and see through reforms without the long-term trust of the public, because reforms often have adverse effects in the short term, and it may take a long time before benefits are felt. Their research findings illustrate that societies with higher levels of social cohesion (measured by low inequalities and language homogeneity) have better institutions, which in turn, lead to economic growth. Because a comparative cross-­ country study is not appropriate for inferring causal relations, the researchers cautiously acknowledged that the relations between the variables are probably reciprocal: the state can increase social cohesion by a policy of inclusion and

74

4  The Policy Process: Contextual Factors

legislation against discrimination, and at the same time, social cohesion affects the ability of the state to lead policy reforms. Janmaat and Green (2013) argued that social cohesion does not influence citizens in a uniform way, so that lack of cohesion does not make everyone fail or succeed together. Researchers analyzed time series data from the UK and found downward trends in public trust, a rise in crime rates, and a decrease in support for democracy by low-earnings citizens. According to them, these trends are a threat to the stability of the liberal-democratic system in UK, and proposed investing in adult education to reduce the education gap and employment differences between social groups. According to Mann (1970), examination of democracies like the UK and the US leads to the conclusion that the agreement between members of society is lower than suggested by some political scientists. Therefore, he does not regard all members of society as partners of one social contract. Based on this critical analysis, Mann suggested that social cohesion in a liberal democracy is maintained in a paradoxical way by lack of consistency in commitment to the core social values on one hand, and thanks to the pragmatic approach of individuals, especially those from the lower classes, on the other. In a multi-cultural society, curriculum reform has often been used as a means for strengthening social cohesion. An example can be found in the writings of Banks, a prominent researcher of multi-cultural curriculum in education. Banks (1997) identified four ways of designing the curriculum in a multicultural society: (a) the contribution approach, in which the contributions of members of minority groups to knowledge and society are noted in a minor and anecdotal manner; (b) the additive approach, in which the works and content produced by minority groups are studied directly as an addition to the hegemonic curriculum; (c) the transformative approach, offering an alternative curriculum in which multicultural logic is a constitutive principle; and (d) the social action approach, in which concrete issues of social inequality in the students’ world are discussed. In Israel, different thinkers have proposed educational models that, in their view, can provide a response to multiculturalism in Israeli society. Tamir (1998), for example, proposed to include content of a different nature within the framework of public education in a manner that simultaneously promotes uniformity and diversity. The proposal includes the introduction of core studies focusing on the development of knowledge and skills related to democratic citizenship, the inclusion of study hours focusing on the specificity of each group and on multicultural education, in which each group is exposed to the cultural knowledge of other groups. Tamir’s proposal follows the logic of the additive approach to curriculum. Findings show that the power of extracurricular programs is limited and ineffective (Reingold 2005). Paradoxically, in a multicultural society where fragmentation is high, there is significant difficulty in promoting inclusive narratives that contain multicultural aspects. The reasons include the low status of teachers, which makes them avoid controversial topics, and teachers from separate, disconnected communities who oppose the national narrative and in practice teach a counter-curriculum (Ichilov 2003; Pollak et al. 2018; Tamir 2015).

4.3  National Culture and Social Cohesion

75

Perry-Hazan (2013) argued that it is possible to have a different political and public debate using the standard of “the right to education” in international law. The primary benefit of these standards is that they allow a liberal country to cope with un-liberal groups living in it. In recent decades, the view of legal mechanisms as protectors and promoters of individual and minority rights has become common (Gibton 2003). Mead (2009) maintained that legislation and rulings impose limits on policymakers, school authorities, and teachers. According to Mead, the law answers two types of questions: “May we?” and “Must we?” Therefore, it assists policymakers and implementers in understanding the limits of their discretion. Many have argued that the legitimacy of the courts comes from legislative principles rather than from ethical or political considerations (Klarman 2005), but research findings show that these claims are problematic. In an empirical study, Segal and Cover (1989) examined the way in which the opinions and values of the US Supreme Court judges reflect their rulings. The researchers used an external information source to determine the personal opinions of the judges, and applied content analysis to opinion articles that the judges posted in four leading daily newspapers in the US, before their nomination to the Supreme Court. The research found a strong correlation (.80) between the judges’ opinions in favor of civil rights before their nomination to the Supreme Court (i.e., their liberal rulings in favor defendants who were charged or convicted of a felony, in favor of civil rights, in favor of minority rights, and against government interference in matters of due process and privacy) and their rulings on the Supreme Court. Yet, not only personal values but also political considerations play a part in court rulings. Many findings suggest that there is a conservative bias in court rulings. For example, Gross (2012) reviewed Supreme Court rulings in Israel between 1995 and 2004, and found that for the possible pairings (individual-individual, individual-­ authority, authority-individual), the highest chance of a petition being granted is that of an authority against an individual (67%). Gross also found that when an individual is petitioning against an authority, his or her chances are lowest (35%). Gross noted that the data were slightly different from his previous research on Supreme Court rulings in Israel, addressing the rulings from 1948-1994, when the chance of a petition by an authority against an individual to be granted stood at 61%, and the chance of an individual’s petition against an authority was 31%. Gross called this phenomenon the “authority advantage,” which according to him, represents the limited liberalism of the Supreme Court in Israel. Another example of the conservative approach in the legal system emerges from studies based on the critical school of thought dealing with the US Supreme Court ruling, in 1954, determining that racial discrimination between blacks and whites in the education system was illegal (Brown vs. Board of Education). This ruling was criticized for its judicial activism, that is, for intervening in the actions of the legislative and executive powers (Klarman 2005). According to Klarman’s historic analysis of Supreme Court rulings in the US on controversial issues (including Brown vs. Board of Education), the legitimacy of the rulings did not derive from the law but from the contemporary public opinion. Klarman noted that Supreme Court

76

4  The Policy Process: Contextual Factors

judges identify changes in public opinion, as these transpire from political debates and voting patterns, lower-court rulings, and the opinions of the young population, which all together indicate to them that it is time for a change of direction in the rulings. These findings paint a conservative picture of the actions of the courts regarding the protection of civil and minority rights. Other researchers have also identified contradictory rulings of the Supreme Court regarding the protection and expansion of minority rights in the US, and they saw a connection between this lack of consistency and the support of the courts for the privileged rights of white groups (Willie and Willie 2005).

4.4  Summary of the Chapter Chapter 4 pointed out a series of contextual factors that influence the functioning of education systems. It addressed demographic aspects and their importance in estimating the scope of the supply of services and professionals required, in estimating economic dependence on the productive population, and in estimating the cultural-economic complexity in facing the geographic spread of the challenges arising from these aspects. The chapter also addressed economic aspects related to the economic strength of the state (GDP and inequality), the budget, and the relationship between economic growth and reforms (and alternatively, between economic crisis and budget cuts). We also discussed aspects related to political culture, including government stability and political corruption, and their effect on the functioning of public systems in general and of education systems in particular. The chapter described the influence of cultural characteristics and social cohesion on the ability to instigate policy changes, implement them, and derive the expected benefit from them. Lastly, we discussed the central role that the legal system plays in the shaping and implementation of education policies in a heterogeneous society.

References Banks, J.  A. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. New  York, NY: Teachers College Press. Barnea, S., Dryshpitz, S., & Kenig, O. (2013). Stability of governments. In R. Gideon, S. Barnea, O. Kenig, & C. Friedberg (Eds.), Reforming Israel’s political system (pp. 514–471). Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute. [in Hebrew]. Benoliel, P., & Berkovich, I. (2018). A cross-national examination of the effect of the Schwartz cultural dimensions on PISA performance assessments. Social Indicators Research, 139(2), 825–845. Berger-Schmitt, R. (2000). Social cohesion as an aspect of the quality of societies: Concept and measurement. Mannheim: ZUMA. Berkovich, I. (2013). A multidimensional approach in international comparative policy analysis based on demographic projections. Population Research and Policy Review, 32(6), 943–968.

References

77

Berkovich, I. (2016). The corrupted industry and the “wagon-wheel effect”: A cross-country exploration of the effect of government corruption on public service effectiveness. Administration & Society, 48(5), 559–579. Berkovich, I., & Bogler, R. (2019). DESCP factors: The “invisible” impediments to reforms in education. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 51(3), 239–255. Blass, N., & Cogan, Y. (2014). Budget of the Ministry of Education, 2000–2001: Trends and issues. Jerusalem: Taub Center. [in Hebrew]. Cheong, C. Y. (2000). Cultural factors in educational effectiveness: A framework for comparative research. School Leadership & Management, 20(2), 207–225. Dadon-Golan, Z., BenDavid-Hadar, I., & Klein, J. (2019). Revisiting educational (in) equity: Measuring educational Gini coefficients for Israeli high schools during the years 2001–2011. International Journal of Educational Development, 70, 102091. Easterly, W., Ritzen, J., & Woolcock, M. (2006). Social cohesion, institutions, and growth. Economics & Politics, 18(2), 103–120. Feniger, Y., & Lefstein, A. (2014). How not to reason with PISA data: An ironic investigation. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 845–855. Gibton, D. (2003). Autonomy, anomie, integration and anarchy: Legislation and adjudication as devices for executing educational reforms and implementing educational policy. In Y.  Dror, D. Nevo, & R. Shapira (Eds.), Turns and returns in Israeli education policy guidelines for the 2000s (pp. 407–454). Tel Aviv: Ramot. [In Hebrew]. Gross, M. (2012). Pluralism and liberalism in decision making in Israel’s Supreme Court: Has anything changed? A quantitative and comparative analysis of Supreme Court decisions in the years 1995 to 2004 concerning the past. Hapraklit, 2(2), 627–589. [In Hebrew]. Hagedorn, L. S., & Purnamasari, A. V. (2012). The role of culture in predicting students’ achievement: International perspectives. International Journal of Global Education, 1(1), 65. Heyneman, S.  P. (2013). Higher education institutions: Why they matter and why corruption puts them at risk. In Transparency International (Ed.), Global corruption report: Education (pp. 101–108). Oxon: Routledge. Heyneman, S. P., Anderson, K. H., & Nuraliyeva, N. (2008). The cost of corruption in higher education. Comparative Education Review, 52, 1–25. Hodgkinson, H.  L. (2001). What should we call people? Race, class, and the census for 2000. In H. Goulbourne (Ed.), Race and ethnicity: Debates and controversies (pp. 19–20). London: Routledge. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New  York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ichilov, O. (2003). Teaching civics in a divided society: The case of Israel. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 13(3), 219–242. Janmaat, J.  G., & Green, A. (2013). Skills inequality, adult learning and social cohesion in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(1), 7–24. Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research. Ottawa: Renouf Publishing Co., Ltd. Kearns, A., & Forrest, R. (2000). Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban Studies, 37(5-6), 995–1017. Klarman, M.  J. (2005). Brown and Lawrence (and Goodridge). Michigan Law Review, 104(3), 431–489. Knack, S. (2003). Groups, growth and trust: Cross-country evidence on the Olson and Putnam hypotheses. Public Choice, 117(3-4), 341–355. Mann, M. (1970). The social cohesion of liberal democracy. American Sociological Review, 35, 423–439. Mead, J. F. (2009). The role of law in educational policy formation, implementation, and research. In G. Sykes, B. L. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of educational policy research (pp. 286–295). New York, NY: Routledge.

78

4  The Policy Process: Contextual Factors

Nir, A. E., & Sharma Kafle, B. (2013). The effect of political stability on public education quality. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2), 110–126. Novy, A., Swiatek, D. C., & Moulaert, F. (2012). Social cohesion: A conceptual and political elucidation. Urban Studies, 49(9), 1873–1889. OECD. (2012). Does money buy strong performance in PISA? Paris: OECD. Oplatka, I., & Arar, K. H. (2016). Leadership for social justice and the characteristics of traditional societies: Ponderings on the application of western-grounded models. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(3), 352–369. Perry-Hazan, L. (2013). Values education in the Israeli education system and the place of education for values: Adopting legal narratives. In O.  Brandes & R.  Issachar (Eds.), Value-­based education in a changing world – Collection of position papers (pp. 114–109). Jerusalem: The Initiative for Applied Research in Education. [In Hebrew]. Pollak, I., Segal, A., Lefstein, A., & Meshulam, A. (2018). Teaching controversial issues in a fragile democracy: Defusing deliberation in Israeli primary classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(3), 387–409. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Quiggin, J. (2008). Economic constraints on public policy. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reingold, R. (2005). Curricular models of pluralistic multicultural education – Four case studies from the US academia. Dapim, 40, 131–108. [In Hebrew]. Segal, J. A., & Cover, A. D. (1989). Ideological values and the votes of US supreme court justices. American Political Science Review, 83(02), 557–565. Siegel, J. (2001). Applied demography, applications to business, government, law and public policy. New York, NY: Academic Press. Tamir, Y. (1998). Two concepts of multiculturalism. In A. Sagi, M. Mautner, & R. Shamir (Eds.), Multiculturalism in a democratic and a Jewish state (pp. 92–79). Raanana: Ramot. [In Hebrew]. Tamir, Y. (2015). Teachers in the social trenches: Teaching civics in divided societies. Theory and Research in Education, 13(1), 121–136. Willie, C., & Willie, S. (2005). Black, white, and brown: The transformation of public education in America. The Teachers College Record, 107(3), 475–495. Woolley, F. (2003). Social cohesion and voluntary activity: Making connections. In  L.  Osberg (Ed.), The economic implications of social cohesion (pp.  150-182).  Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Zelikovich, Y.  M. (2009, May 11). Saar: The realization of the New Horizon reform in the proposed budget will lead to collapse. YNET. Retrieved from: http://www.ynet.co.il [In Hebrew]

Chapter 5

Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

Up to this point, we have assessed research on the design of education policy, its implementation, and various contextual factors relevant to these processes. In addition to these topics, a considerable part of the literature on education policy deals extensively with the unique problems that education systems are forced to address today. The problems in education systems regarding structural failures, processes, and outcomes pose a significant challenge to policymakers worldwide. The discussion in this chapter addresses two focal points. First, we discuss the fragile state of education. In the public discourse, problems are not perceived as operational issues that need to be solved to improve the system, but as a fundamental flaw in the public education that undermines its legitimacy and requires a comprehensive change in the system. Second, we discuss in depth three main types of problems that arise frequently in discussions of policymakers and researchers: (a) problems related to the central bureaucratic structure of educational systems and the lack of effectiveness identified with them; (b) problems relating to inadequate professionalization of teaching staff in the areas of knowledge and training; and (c) problems related to the perceived inequality created in education systems.

5.1  Public Education in Crisis Some claim that public education systems today are in a deep crisis. This diagnosis plays a significant role in the perception that these systems need to change and in the sense of urgency associated it. According to this view, the perception of crisis in the public education system is a reflection of the faulty functioning of the system. Those who claim that there is a crisis in public education point to insufficient achievements despite large economic investment and structural reforms. Criticism in this spirit is common in many Western countries. For example, it has been argued © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Berkovich, Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century, Policy Implications of Research in Education 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_5

79

80

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

that in the US, between 1980 and 2005, public expenditure per student increased by 73%, and the ratio of students to teachers decreased by 18%, but the achievements of students in mathematics in 2005 improved only slightly compared with 1980 (McKinsey and Company 2007). Similar claims have been made regarding the UK education system. Critics have argued that between 1948 and 1996, far-reaching reforms were instituted in budgeting, supervision, study programs, examinations, relations between the central government and the local authorities, and yet no significant change occurred in the achievements of students in primary education in reading, writing, and math (McKinsey and Company 2007). A similar discussion is being held regarding the state of the Israeli education system. Some argue that the state of the education system has deteriorated in recent decades, as reflected both in the decline in relative ranking of the country in international tests and in the decline in the level of students entering the higher education system. According to critics, this decrease in the effectiveness of the system is especially troubling given the high economic investment that the state makes in education. For example, Ganel (2008) stated: National expenditure on education in Israel reached 8.5% of the GDP in 2003, while the average of the OECD countries was 6.3% of the GDP […however…] In mathematics, Israel reached 31st place in 2002, and in 2006 it was ranked 40th out of 57 (pp. 1–2).

In contrast to these claims, which suggest a crisis in education, some critics disagree with the interpretation of the data which, in their opinion, should be analyzed appropriately and in the right context. For example, Berliner and Biddle (1995) found that despite the perception that education spending in the US is quite large, by international standards it is merely average. In a later work, Berliner and Glass (2014) discussed the status of public education in the US and argued that the decline in achievement in entrance exams to institutions of higher education is not proof of the failure of the education system. According to them, the decline stems from the fact that new population groups have entered the higher education system because of scholarship programs and changes in the labor market, which makes increasing use of higher education certificates for screening candidates. Similar criticism of claims of a crisis is evident in Israel as well. Blass et al. (2012) have argued that such criticism ignores some of the unique characteristics of the system, which should be taken into account when assessing the achievements of Israeli students. Among these characteristics are the security challenges of the country, large-scale immigration absorption, demographic changes, the increase in the ratio of students from a low socioeconomic background, and the expansion of economic gaps. Blass et al. (2012) examined data on completion of high school and matriculation eligibility. The data show that the percentage of those graduating from high school (completing 12  years of schooling) in Israel is about 90% of the age cohort, compared with an average of 76% in OECD countries. Since 1965, the percentage of those entitled to a matriculation certificate has tripled, and between 1995 and 2009, the percentage of those eligible for matriculation increased by 41%. Moreover, Blass and colleagues have noted that when examining eligibility for matriculation of the entire age group at the end of high school, the ratio stands at 46%, but when

5.1  Public Education in Crisis

81

examining eligibility for matriculation eight years after completing high school, we see that 60% of the students are entitled to a matriculation certificate. The data also show that since 1995, there has been an increase in the percentage of students who complete a “high quality” matriculation exam in scientific subjects (between 1% and 5% in various subjects), and that the rate of rejection of applicants to university dropped from 31% in the 1970s to 22% in 2006. According to the researchers, these figures attest to the rise in the level of graduates of the Israeli education system. The researchers also note that although the gap in Israel between strong and weak students on the PISA test is relatively large compared to the OECD countries, it has narrowed over the past decade, whereas in most OECD countries it remained constant. In contrast to this fundamental discussion of the existence or non-existence of a crisis in the education system, the critical school of education policy offers two more political explanations related to the image of crisis that has been superimposed onto the education system: the explanation of crisis as a strategy, and the explanation of crisis as a tactic. The explanation of a crisis as a strategy is that the crisis in the system stems from a deliberate strategy of dominant groups in society aimed at preserving their status and interests (Berliner and Biddle 1995). Glass (2004) recognized that the label “crisis” has been linked to the state of the public education system in American discourse since the 1980s, mainly because of a decline in the birth rate among the hegemonic groups in the US, and the increase in the percentage of minorities, which are poorer owing to immigration and high birth rates. According to Glass, this demographic change has led to a decline in the commitment to public education of the hegemonic groups, which he generally calls “An aging, wealthy, property-owning white middle class” (p. 3). The Japanese Education System The collectivist Japanese society, which emphasizes interdependence between people, considers dedication and diligence to be basic values ​​ for the individual’s conduct in society. Therefore, the schools implement a strict educational regime, where teachers have extensive responsibilities and stay in school until the evening hours (Volansky 2001). In the last two decades of the twentieth century, the Japanese education system was recognized internationally as an expression of educational excellence (Takayama 2007). Yet, despite the international recognition that the system had, dissatisfaction with the system within the country has increased, in part because of the growing popularity of individualistic concepts that emphasize freedom, choice, and creativity (Cave 2001). In 1998, a series of reforms were announced (Volansky 2001): changes in teaching (from teaching facts to the development of critical thinking and teaching with computers), changes in assessment (assimilation of practices for evaluating achievements), changes in the school-home interface (increased parental involvement), changes in resource allocation (reduction in the number of students per class), and (continued)

82

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

changes in school autonomy (authority to adapt the school to the needs of students and the community). In 2002, a reform was introduced in the national curriculum and related standards (Aranil and Fukaya 2010). Since then, dissatisfaction among researchers, politicians, and the Japanese public regarding the education system has grown into a sense of crisis, and claims of school violence and teachers’ loss of control have become routine (Takayama 2007). Takayama believed that the increased perception of the crisis in Japanese education is primarily the result of “borrowing” the crisis discourse from the US. According to Takayama, in the 1980s, in the US, the Japanese system symbolized educational excellence in a romanticized, idealized manner that was cultivated by conservatives. In this way, American conservatives manipulatively used the Japanese education system as a tool to portray the failure of the education system in the US and to promote changes in the American system (Takayama 2007). Two decades later, Japanese conservatives manipulated the recovery of the American education system to paint an unflattering picture of Japanese education, and motivate changes aimed at adopting what they call as “real” Japanese education (Takayama 2007). In the face of the conflict between socioeconomic and ethnic groups, some researchers have identified the source of the perception of crisis in gender conflict. Herzog (2010), for example, argued that the image of the teaching profession in Israel reflects gender power relations and serves to  legitimize  these relations. According to Herzog, most of the positions in the education system are filled by women, and in recent decades there has been a cutback in transfers of state funds to social and educational systems where there is a female majority, while public budgeting for masculine systems, such as security, infrastructure, and industry have increased. Herzog’s feminist analysis of the current situation shows that presenting the education system as a failure, largely because of the functioning of the teachers, enables the hegemonic masculine groups to blur the way in which social policy causes harm to Israeli women. In contrast to the explanation of the use of the crisis in the education system as a planned strategy of social groups, according to another critical explanation, the crisis perception of the education system is a tactic used by politicians for their political survival, against the background of the destabilization of the political system in many Western societies. In the first half of the twentieth century, democratic governments and politicians enjoyed widespread trust and support, but in time, the public became skeptical of them. Surveys of public attitudes in the US show that since the 1960s, the public has reported less trust and more “cynicism” regarding the administration, and there has been a decline in trust in the education system (Weiler 1983). According to Weiler, the loss of the legitimacy of the modern government is, in part, undermining the status of public education. Vigoda-Gadot and Mizrahi (2013) examined the performance of the Israeli public sector and found that the trust of the Israeli public in Israel’s parliament

5.2  Bureaucratic Structure and Central Government

83

and in the political parties has been extremely low since the 2000s. At the same time, researchers point out that the satisfaction of the Israeli public with schools and educational institutions has been increasing steadily since the mid-2000s. Although trust and satisfaction differ from each other, there is a great deal of overlap between them, and therefore it is possible to argue that, at some level, the Israeli public is more satisfied with the education system (satisfaction level of 3.2) than it is with Israel’s parliament (trust level of 2.45) and with politicians (trust level of 2.29). The literature discusses the crisis perception of public systems as a tactic by politicians to succeed in their position and survive politically. Hood (2010) argued that responsibility attribution processes are central to understanding political conduct in the present era because they can influence re-election, promotion, and reputation. This political tactic involves two sides: on the one hand, politicians and governments are trying to communicate progress and improvement in the areas they are responsible for, to associate these advances with their capabilities and efforts, minimizing the importance of environmental conditions and of random luck to take credit for successes; on the other hand, the political parties seek to avoid being blamed during their tenure and even after it. Nir (2014) noted that “in recent years, the [Israeli] education system has become the punching bag of Israeli society, and a target for most social frustrations” (p. 9). But few empirical studies have attempted to map the source of the damaged image of education in Israel. One such study, by Yemini and Gordon (2017), found that the Israeli media surveys Israeli performance on international tests more frequently than on national tests. Another study suggests that the centrality of global competition, at least in the eyes of the media, plays a significant role in creating a perception of crisis in education (Pizmony-Levy 2018). Additional data raise questions about the crisis in the education system, specifically whether the crisis is substantive or the product of strategic and tactical political activity. For example, a survey conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics (2011b) shows that over 75% of the respondents reported that they were satisfied with the educational frameworks in which their children were studying, but the same survey found that the education system received the most severe criticism of all government services: 47% of respondents stated that it needed improvement, and only 21% that it was good. The gap between the subjective experience of the respondents and the image of the system as a whole in their eyes raises questions about the origin of the perception of crisis in education in the consciousness of the Israeli public.

5.2  Bureaucratic Structure and Central Government In this chapter, we discuss criticisms of the bureaucratic structure of the education systems, which some of the researchers have claimed to be associated with poor functioning. A centralized bureaucratic structure of control is an integral part of the

84

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

classic conception of public administration (Denhardt and Denhardt 2000). Denhardt and Denhardt described the characteristics of the classic public administration as having a concept of government as responsible for the direct supply of public services, a preference for a centralized organizational bureaucratic structure for operations, a basis for top-down control mechanisms, an inclination to limit the decision-making of implementers and maintaining political neutrality, and a focus on learning that is disengaged from external and civil realities. This model of classic public administration was adopted by many education systems worldwide. According to Tyack (1993), the proponents of centralized control of the education system maintain that the concentration of powers in the hands of a specialized professional body creates a professional responsibility that is missing in a more fragmented system. They also argued that the application of uniform bureaucratic standards raises the level of the system as a whole and promotes equality, which enables the creation of a common cultural base for a diverse population. Opposing the proponents of a centralized control of educational are the critics of the centralized bureaucratic model, primarily because of issues of efficiency and democratization. Critics of efficiency argue that the achievements of the education system are in decline because centralized bureaucracy created an organizational situation that resembles a monopoly and operates defensively (Tyack 1993). These critics also maintain that the centralized model for managing the education system is not effective because it funds the high overhead costs of the central bodies (Elmore 1993). Critics also argue that government officials take control of the surplus of public resources. For example, Duncombe et al. (1997) maintained that the decision-­ makers in the public sector are motivated to increase the budget under their control, to which end they manipulate information about the need for services and the related expenses to receive a budget that is higher than necessary. In Israel, too, some identify the school system as a centralized bureaucratic one and argue that this organizational structure has a great influence on the performance and quality of educational institutions (Nir 2012). This phenomenon manifests itself in a rise in education spending relative to the low satisfaction with its output. Blass and Cogan (2014), who analyzed trends in the education budget since the early 2000s, indicated that, in general, the education budget and its implementation budget have grown between 2000 and 2014 by about 50%. Critics of output sought to find a corresponding ratio in educational results, but when considering, for example, the rate of 17-year-old students who obtained a matriculation certificate, they found that it increased from 40.8% in 2000 to 53.4% in 2013, so that the resources that were invested have led to an increase of only 30% (Hai 2014 September 2; Swirski and Schwartz 2005). Another criticism of the centralized bureaucratic control of education points to this structure as the source of the anti-democratic nature of public education and its lack of relevance, which are associated with several causes (Nir 2012): (a) policymakers tend to promote their own political agendas to ensure their reelection; (b) the centralized system is aimed at the average student, and therefore, it is less sensitive and flexible to individual needs and local circumstances; (c) uniform bureaucratic regulations limit the ability of those on the ground to act and respond

5.2  Bureaucratic Structure and Central Government

85

to local needs. Cultural researchers from the critical stream have claimed that the centralized bureaucratic model promotes a “melting pot,” which aspires to funnel subcultures into one unified culture (Banks 2001), a practice that in reality promotes the cultural superiority of one group over the others, and prevents sociocultural diversity. The literature identifies the centralized bureaucratic structure of education as limiting pluralism in education (Yonah 1991), whether it is the pluralism of individuals, which grants individuals the opportunity to develop their personality and talents according to their will, or cultural pluralism, which provide the opportunity for each culture to express its unique values and the lifestyle of its community. Studies from the critical stream support these claims. In Canada, for example, although the centralized administration allows every district to manage its own pedagogical-ideological conceptions in autonomous fashion, the national policy still limits this autonomy and guides it to stress aspects that are harmonious with multi-culturalism, ignoring conflicting dimensions (Bickmore 2006). According to some, the criticism about the lack of efficiency and democratization in the management of the public system can be applied to the entire system of public education governance. Hill (2014) considered that the bureaucratic governance of public education creates a disconnect between the goals of education and the practicalities on the ground. He claimed that bureaucratic rules designed by governing bodies dictated the training and licensing of the teachers, set their wages and their promotion ladders in a collective way, determined how teachers would be distributed between schools, how schools would use their budget and the teachers’ time, and how the activities of schools would be evaluated. Hill considered the centralized bureaucratic structure to be problematic because the link between the rules and educational effectiveness was weak, and as a result, for example, talented people who wanted to be teachers could not work in schools, and schools were obligated to carry out activities that did not contribute to their students. Hill argued that this bureaucratic mode of governance created an absurd situation in which professionalism and discretion were unwanted in the system and even considered threatening. Elmore (1993), in contrast, argued that debates on education governance were ultimately not around their essence, but about power, because they were about “who should have access to and influence over decisions, not about what the content and practice of teaching and learning should be or how to change these things” (p. 40). Discussing the roots of the governance of the education system in the US, Hill (2014) believed that it is the result of accident rather than rational design. The foundations of education governance in the US can be traced to national history and to the overall governing structure that was redesigned from scratch and patched up many times by initiatives and political opportunism in response to crises (Hill 2014). According to Hill, these processes created a chaotic management structure of control that is manifest in various government agencies adding their own layers of regulation regarding the use of funds, curriculum, school schedule management, and the physical infrastructure of schools. Gibton (2011) argued that a combination of circumstances created an opening for an unplanned change in the governance of the Israeli education system in the

86

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

early 2000s. This included, among others, the basic rules formulated at the establishment of the state, the demographic processes of immigration and the growth of different population groups in Israel, the strengthening of sociopolitical processes that focus on the right to self-definition, the increasing criticism of the failure of public education in Israel, and competition. As a result of this combination of circumstances, two systems of education governance were created in Israel (Gibton 2011): (a) formal, legislation-based uniform, and centralized governmentcontrolled schools that are publicly owned and funded; and (b) an informal and unregulated system, in which various actors attempt to gain control, and schools constitute autonomous units. Gibton recognized that in these power struggles, ideological groups, religious groups, parent groups, and educational networks run by non-governmental organizations are more dominant, and that the principals of primary and secondary schools face a complex, fuzzy, and unpredictable work environment. According to Gibton (2011), the State of Israel has effectively waived the formulation of agreed values in favor of the separatism and autonomy of various groups and sectors. Thus, the unplanned change in Israeli governance has transformed public education into a multi-cultural and multi-curricular system, with a pronounced class stratification. Dery (2002) identified a fuzzy pattern of control in Israeli public administration, where the formal rules are not applied or applicable in many of the cases, but for various reasons they cannot be modified. The author argued that in an administrative system of this type, breaking the rules is at times essential for organizational efficiency. Dery named four key variables that affect fuzzy control in Israeli public administration: (a) extreme concentration of power in the hands of the central government; (b) political tradition of government instability; (c) persistent security challenges; and (d) professionally and politically weak civil service. As part of the discussion on system structure of control, some argue that we should understand the criticism about the ability of the education system to provide satisfactory services in a broader context, because it is related to the basic characteristics of all public goods. Wolf (1987) argued that public services such as education, which is financed by the public but free to the users, has several features that create an inflationary demand that is too broad for the government to meet: (a) the demand for the public service depends greatly on an awareness of the failure of the market to deal with problems (monopoly recognition, externalities and an overload of private agencies); (b) an increase in the demand for public services depends on the increasing ability of disadvantaged groups to mobilize, organize, and demand government intervention in market failures; and (c) there is a built-in disconnect between the rights and the duties of citizens, so that those who pay for these services do not necessarily benefit from them, and the extent of consumption of services is not related to the extent of payment for them. These characteristics create a rising demand for public services, while the human resources, time, and knowledge of public institutions remain limited. As a result, a widening gap is formed between allocated resources and public demand (Hupe and Buffat 2014). Wolf (1987) claimed further that the supply of public services is inherently characterized by features that create the potential for public dissatisfaction,

5.3  Poor Professionalization in Teaching

87

including: (a) often, these services have difficulty defining and measuring outputs; (b) the services typically have a single source of monopolistic production, which is protected by legislation or regulations, and makes it difficult to assess the quality of the products; (c) the services are characterized by technological uncertainty, so that it is not known whether given actions will inevitably lead to the desired results; and (d) the services have no termination mechanism in the event of failure or success, and therefore, it is difficult to halt their activities.

5.3  Poor Professionalization in Teaching Below we consider the criticism of the professionalism of the teaching staff. We begin by discussing the concept of “profession.” Avidov-Ungar (2013) argued that the distinction between occupation, which is an occupational activity aimed at providing a livelihood without requiring extensive training, and profession, which is an occupational activity that requires extensive training, has to do with the distribution of three main components: (a) the scope of the demand of the job, that is, the normative job requirements that are expected of the worker; (b) the scope of discretion in the job, or the worker’s personal freedom of expression and initiative; and (c) the boundaries of the job, in other words, the constraints and limitations associated with the worker’s role. According to the author, a job is referred to as an occupation when it has task requirements that clearly stem from the characteristics of the situation. The characteristics of the situation can be identified, and the constraints operate on all workers across the board. By contrast, in the case of professions, the task requirements do not stem from the characteristics of the situation, which cannot be identified unambiguously, and the constraints are not the same for all workers. In the case of occupations, the external standardization imposed on the job is broad, whereas the workers’ discretion and the space of the boudaries of the job are relatively limited. By contrast, in the case of professions, the demands of the job are limited, whereas the space and choice available for operation are broader. Hativa (2003) identified ten characteristics of professions: (a) they focus on functions of social importance; (b) they require mastery of a body of knowledge and a given set of skills; (c) the body of knowledge and the skills are not final, but evolve with new theories and studies; (d) the theoretical knowledge becomes professional after it is successfully applied in the field; (e) the learning is not only collective but also personal, and the professional is continually learning from experience; (f) for the purpose of obtaining a body of knowledge, there is training that includes experience and socialization; (g) the professional commits to serving the society; (h) the domain deals with complex problems and therefore expert discernment is essential; (i) there is a professional community that shares a common identity and assumes the main responsibility for developing and disseminating the knowledge; and (j) a professional code of ethics is formulated and the community receives the authority for enforcing it.

88

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

These distinctions and definitions explain why teaching is at times perceived as a semi-profession, situated somewhere between an occupation and a profession (Acker 1983; Lortie 1969). On one hand, teaching contains the characteristics of the profession: it is an essential social service; teachers are required to have content knowledge and skills and are engaged in learning from experience while performing their function; and it is common to regard teaching and educational situations as complex, requiring discretion. On the other hand, the body of professional knowledge is criticized by its lack of empirical foundations and its inability to develop systematically, and the community of peers is neither central nor responsible for the quality of teaching and the development of professional knowledge. The variance between teacher training programs reflects the lack of agreement over unified principles of thinking and action related to teaching. Other researchers have argued that the conception of teaching as a semi-profession is intended in part to justify gender domination and exploitation of a professional group composed mainly of women (Acker 1983). Tubin (2010) identified several approaches in the literature to conceptualizing the “good” teacher. According to Tubin, one approach sees teachers as representatives of society and agents of socialization whose job is to train the next generation. Under this approach, the role of teachers is to develop in the students those skills and attitudes that will help them integrate into society and maintain its stability. This concept is associated with a teaching policy that makes the state responsible for recruiting and training teachers and directing the national curriculum: teachers serve society and their measure of success involves meeting the expectations of society and helping students reach the expected performance. Another approach presented by Tubin regards the ideal teacher as an expert in learning. Under this approach, teachers have professional knowledge in the field of learning sciences and have the ability to use this knowledge for the purpose of promoting students’ learning. This concept is associated with a teaching policy where teaching involves a broad and deep base of knowledge in the field of learning sciences: members of the profession define the content of certification exams, professional activities are regulated by an ethical commitment to the students, and the teachers define the educational process and the expected educational outcomes. According to Tubin, the first approach was the dominant teaching model for most of the twentieth century, but the time has come for another model, which is based on expertise. A similar argument has been raised by Mehta (2013), who conducted a critical reflective analysis of the American educational system. Mehta argued that the attempt to solve the problems of the public education system by means of legislation that focuses on the structure of the system and the responsibility of teachers is incorrect because the problems of the system are caused by poor professionalism. In the American education there is no selective recruitment of teachers with high academic abilities, the training that teachers receive is limited, and therefore their knowledge is low. American teachers’ work is more difficult than that of teachers in other countries because the rate of poor children is higher owing to the minimal welfare policy (Mehta 2013). Mehta claimed that a vicious circle has been formed, where low professionalism and poor performance lead to increased

5.3  Poor Professionalization in Teaching

89

regulation, making the teaching profession less attractive to talented people, resulting in low professionalism, and so on. According to Mehta (2013), the American education system was established as a bureaucratic one, in which workers were considered interchangeable, and uniform rules of action were introduced. According to Mehta, this bureaucratic conception produces a strong organizational imprint, which over the years has shaped the thinking and work patterns that govern multiple levels of the system, including the state level (policymakers and managers), the level of knowledge producers (universities and colleges of education), and the level of professionals (teachers). The bureaucratic work model does not correspond to the true nature of the teaching work, however, which is not routine, requires high skill and expertise, and requires making thousands of independent and unique decisions every day. Therefore, the required reform in American education should involve a profound change in the teachers’ work, from a bureaucratic model to a professional one (Mehta 2013). Discussion on the existence or nonexistence of a core professional body of knowledge that forms the basis of the teaching profession is a at the heart of the argument about the professionalism of teachers. Tubin (2010) argued that recognition of core professional knowledge and the need to master it justifies the existence of the profession. Recognizing an activity as a profession dictates the need for a lengthy preparation and licensing of those exercising it, granting them independent decision-making and autonomy in recruiting others, and the need for creating an ethical code as a guide. Those who criticize the professionalization of education claim that basic problems in the professional knowledge of teaching prevent it from becoming a “true” professional knowledge (Tubin 2010). These include the fact that (a) the science is not properly developed theoretically or it is too narrowly defined, and (b) it is difficult to translate knowledge into a protocol of action and a protocol of assessment, and to establish indicators of success for professional actions. As part of this critique, there have been repeated claims in the last decades in the literature that the body of expert knowledge required for the teaching profession needs to be broadened to include additional emphases, beside technical knowledge. Shulman (1986) presented a model of seven types of knowledge required for teachers: (a) content related to the subject (the dimension of “what” in teaching) and in other types of knowledge; (b) general pedagogic knowledge relating to classroom management and effective presentation and communication of content; (c) curricular knowledge related to the understanding of the use of study materials as professional tools; (d) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) related to methods of teaching specific topics and understanding the difficulties in learning this content; (e) knowledge about learners and their characteristics; (f) knowledge about the variety of educational contexts (group, class, district policy, community, and culture); and (g) knowledge of the goals and values of education and philosophy, and the history behind them. The literature reinforces Shulman’s arguments. For example, Torff and Sessions (2005) explored 242 high school principals in the US regarding the causes for the ineffectiveness of teachers. The most common findings involved defects in pedagogic knowledge associated with managing interactions with students (implementing lesson plans, making a positive connection with students,

90

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

and managing discipline and order in the classroom), and defects concerning the lesson plans. The researchers found that subject knowledge was rarely a cause identified by the principals. Similarly, researchers have noted the need to include topics about cognitive and learning processes in teacher certification programs, which would enable applying knowledge in a practical way (Eyal 2006; Tubin 2010).  The authors have pointed out that the basis for the relevant teaching knowledge exists (for example, clear protocols for testing and dealing with learning deficiencies), but they are not studied in an integrated way in the teacher certification programs (Eyal 2006). Similarly, Tschannen-Moran (2009) argued that the profession is characterized by the ability to apply professional judgment in non-­ routine circumstances. To this end, to make effective decisions, professionals must rely on the common knowledge base built on reliable and consistent evidence. This enables them to identify the problems of their clients and to choose the correct professional strategy that is best suited for meeting their clients’ needs. The discussion about the body of knowledge needed for teaching is part of the wider  discussion about the role of education  in the twenty-first century. Andreas Schleicher (2011), Director for Education and Skills at OECD, has argued that “We live in a fast-changing world […] Today, because of rapid economic and social change, schools have to prepare students for jobs that have not yet been created, technologies that have not yet been invented and problems that we don’t yet know will arise” (p. 43). Some have suggested that the focus of teaching should be about thinking, and emphasized the role of the teacher as a guide and director of learning processes (Zohar 2013). According to Zohar, the professional teacher sets thinking challenges, uses classroom discourse and research projects as pedagogy, and fosters meta-cognitive thinking (thinking about thinking). Therefore, the debate about the body of the professional knowledge required of teachers is fed and fuelled by the debate about the irrelevance of the current school curriculum, and by uncertainty about the skills that will be required of graduates in the future. The Education System in Finland With the rise of international discourse in education and the increasing awareness of policy ratings in international achievement tests, countries that are leading these rankings have become “reference societies” (Sellar and Lingard 2013). One of the most prominent reference societies since the beginning of the 2000s has been Finland, which has led the rankings in international tests and is a symbol of education adapted to the challenges of the twenty-first century. Researchers argue that the success of the Finish educational system is rooted in the measures taken by the state in the 1980s. Western countries, such as the US and UK, have adopted a policy that combines (a) rigid standards as a way to improve results; (b) focus on literacy and basic knowledge in reading, writing, mathematics, and natural sciences; and (c) responsibility for student achievement through close supervision, rewards, and sanctions. By contrast, Finland has adopted a different policy. Its principles are related to (a) (continued)

5.3  Poor Professionalization in Teaching

91

the existence of loose standards enabling school-­level accommodations and school support mechanisms; (b) emphasis on thorough learning of a wide range of knowledge and skills; and (c) “intelligent accountability” that is related to cultivating professionalism and trusting teachers (Sahlberg 2007). Hargreaves (2014) pointed to several practices that, in his view, contributed to the success of Finnish education: (a) Finland developed a local vision rather than borrowing one from another country; (b) the education system relies on excellent teachers, with a master’s degree and comprehensive training, and teaching is perceived as a social calling; (c) the state has a broad concept of special education, with about half of the students in the country receiving special support at critical ages, until the end of middle school; (d) teachers have the capacity and authority to develop curriculum and coordinated assessments of students; and (e) the state has promoted social cohesion and multicultural integration, with the intention of creating a shared community. Criticism of the lack of professionalism in teaching is not only academic, and does not focus merely on the base of professional knowledge; rather, it is often directed at the practitioners themselves. Herzog (2010) noted that part of Israeli policymakers, academic researchers, and media representatives portray teachers as a mediocre or inferior workforce. For example, some have stressed the fact that most student teachers have a psychometric score that would not gain them acceptance to the universities (Cohen Mohaliver 2006), despite the fact that both male and female teachers have psychometric scores that match or surpass those of other employees hired in the private and public sectors. They also disregarded the fact that the quality of those entering the profession today, as measured by matriculation exams and psychometric scores, is higher than it was in the past (Blass and Romanov 2010). Critics of teacher professionalism often identify the teacher unions as one of the main causes of the low level of teacher professionalism. Teacher unions influence the shaping of education policy both through collective bargaining with the government and by implementing changes in the schools and classrooms by mobilizing the teachers (Berkovich and Markman 2010). Some critics of the professional level of teaching have argued that teacher unions are committed primarily to issues of employment, to matters concerning wages and working conditions, and to preserving their authority as representatives of the teachers. Therefore, from the critics’ point of view, the unions oppose reforms and changes designed to promote professionalism in teaching. Professional associations of teachers engaged in the development of curriculum, professional knowledge, and professionalism are regarded positively, although overlaps between teacher unions and associations of teachers often make it difficult to distinguish between them (Bascia 2009). Some have criticized the teacher unions for perpetuating the low quality of the system by delaying necessary reforms (Saporta 2009). Other researchers, however, disagree. For example, Tamir (2017) has argued that despite the criticism of teacher unions, these organizations represent a stabilizing force in a

92

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

political reality in which the educational agenda alternates periodically. According to Tamir, the ability of these organizations to sustain themselves in an era when other trade and professional unions are collapsing, and at the same time, gradually acting to improve teachers’ salaries and working conditions together teacher professionalism, is an indication of their success. The national concern with the lack of teacher professionalism is largely associated with the growing global discourse about education policy. Notable aspects of this debate are the international comparisons of education systems. To understand the factors that help educational systems “come out on the top,” the consulting firm McKinsey assessed 25 education systems around the world, including the best in the world and those that are improving at a fast pace, based on the results of the PISA international achievement tests and their relative benchmarks (McKinsey and Company 2007). One of the main conclusions of the study, which received a great deal of attention, was that “the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers” (p. 19), a statement attributed to the Minister of Education of South Korea. The criticism over the lack of professionalism of the teaching staff pertains not only to the quality of professional knowledge, of the teaching candidates, and of their training, but also to a historical context related to organizational processes in education, and to broader social-political processes. Hargreaves (2000) argued that there are four historical phases in the perception of teacher professionalism: (a) the pre-professional age, during the early formation of the public education system, when the teaching profession was perceived as demanding but technically straightforward, and instruction was carried out through practical initiation and trial and error; (b) the age of the autonomous professional, in which the teaching profession was perceived as a critical occupation that valued the teacher’s situational judgment ability as the best way of supporting students. The newly-founded teacher training academies reinforced the perception of teachers’ expertise, and supported teachers’ claims about their need for autonomy; (c) the age of the collegial professional, in which experiments were conducted in an effort to establish a cooperative teaching culture to replace individual models; these efforts led to the rise in the importance of professional development initiatives within the school community; and (d) the post-professional or post-modern age, beginning in the 1970s, when the teaching profession began to undergo a process of de-professionalization following the attack on the effectiveness of the training institutions, the efficiency of teachers, and their autonomy. Hargreaves connected criticism of the lack of teacher professionalism, not with the promotion of professionalism in veteran teachers or with better training for new teachers, but with a post-modern society that is “kicking out” canonical institutions, and whose attacks delegitimize the teaching profession.

5.4  Inequality in Education

93

5.4  Inequality in Education Tyler (2012) described several philosophical perspectives on inequality in education: (a) the “meritocratic” model, which identifies inherited abilities (such as intelligence) as the main factor that generates inequality in education; (b) the model of “class conflict,” which considers material and cultural resources as factors that lead to inequality in education; (c) the “conservative” model, that points to genetic factors and environmental influences as creating inequality in education; (d) the “liberal evolutionary” model which similarly to the meritocrac one, identifies a genetic component in the creation of inequality, but it also points to a weak correlation between the development of intelligence and family background; and (e) the “liberal compensatory” model, which suggests that access to education and the achievement of educational qualifications (specifically, certificates and diplomas that are required to be admitted to the next education levels) can significantly improve the chances of success of children from the lower classes. The perception of inequality as a problem that the education system has to deal with is first and foremost  grounded in liberal democratic humanistic values. Proponents argue that a fair social order is required to maximize one’s ability to determine one’s fate through one’s talents and choices, which is done by reducing the influence of the factors that are beyond one’s control (Klinov 2010). In other words, inequality is perceived as legitimate when it is due to differences in individual features and capabilities, but not when it originates from group influences (Blass 2009). Inequality in education is considered illegitimate when it is connected with race, religiosity, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, locality, or gender (Blass 2009; Perry-Hazan and Perelstain 2018; Perry-Hazan 2019; Weissblei 2006). It is common to see education as an important area that plays a role in reproducing social inequality on one hand, and reducing it on the other (Berkovich 2014). Recognizing inequality as an issue that requires the attention of policymakers is not only related to liberal democratic humanistic perceptions, but also economic considerations (Dahan 2014). For example, Wolf (1987) argued that there are several market failures related to public services that may lead to the state intervening, including: 1. Market failure associated with externalities and public goods. Public goods (such as national security, firefighting services, infrastructure, education, health, etc.) produce benefits and include prices that cannot be collected from individual people. Education is a kind of public product that on one hand offers an advantage to the educated person, but on the other, it significantly benefits the national economy. Therefore, the government tries to promote education by directly supplying it or by supporting it with subsidies. 2. Market failure related to market imperfections. The way pricing, information, and mobility behave in a market of public services differs significantly from the open market. When consumers do not have equal access to opportunities, or when the ability of consumers to respond to information is limited, there is need for government intervention. Government policies aim to increase the availability

94

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

of information, remove obstacles hindering new service providers from entering the market, and enhance clients’ ability to switch between providers. In this section we discuss three key aspects of education that according to researchers reflect inequality (Crittenden 1977; Resh and Blass 2019): (a) inequality in opportunities (also called inequality of inputs), (b) inequality of outcomes (also called inequality of outputs), and (c) inequality in access to school programs (also called curriculum differentiation). Blass (2009) defined inequality of inputs as the differential allocation or access to resources, including budget, hours of study, quality of teachers, and infrastructure. According to the literature, there are two main ways of examining the inequality of inputs (Blass 2009): (a) formally, by comparing the amount of resources allocated to groups of a certain population with their relative presence in the population, and (b) realistically, by comparing the resources allocated to certain population groups with the needs of these groups. The second approach assumes that often the socioeconomic gap has become so wide that even a formally equal allocation is not sufficient for closing the gap (for example, if we allocate resources equally to immigrant and veteran students, or to poor and rich ones). Therefore, the analysis of realistic inequality relates to the policy of “compensatory allocation,” which assigns additional resources to disadvantaged students. In Israel, providing equal opportunities for children is one of the main goals of the education system (Weissblei 2006). To understand the issue of inequality of inputs as a result of differential government allocation, it is important to distinguish between the original budget (the budget approved by Israel’s parliament) and the actual budget (the budget after changes are made, including additions, surpluses, and reserves that are approved by the Ministry of Finance and the Finances Committee of Israel’s parliament). Blass and Cogan (2014) identified discrepancies between the original and the actual budget. During the period under examination, the actual budget was larger than the original budget by 20% on average. The researchers also found that over the years the activity of Jewish independent ultra-­ Orthodox educational institutions (affiliated with the ultra-Orthodox political parties), had an actual budget that was twice the original budget allocated to it. Moreover, the actual use of allocated funds does not necessarily match the budget items and their stated goals (Blass and Cogan 2014). In light of these complexities, many researchers are turning their attention to the actual budget, trying to calculate the allocation that will be received by the end units (usually a school, class, or student). These analyses, which examine education budgeting in Israel, often point to inequality in the budgeting of the education system. An analysis of the actual budget for elementary education (which, in addition to standard hours, also features purchases, allocations, transfers, and payments) suggests the existence of formal inequality and a budget hierarchy in which Jewish state-religious students are allocated more per year (~USD 7359) than Jewish state-secular students (~USD 6755), and all students in the Jewish education systems are allocated more than students in the Arab state education system (~USD 5727) (Dattel 2013, 18 July).

5.4  Inequality in Education

95

Klinov (2010), who examined teaching hours that were actually allocated in primary education between 2003–2008, found that in the official state educational institutions in the Jewish sector, there was progressive budgeting (i.e., affirmative action reflecting the students’ socioeconomic background) of teaching hours, whereas in the Arab state sector, and the recognized non-official institutions of the Jewish sector (mostly ultra-Orthodox) progressivism was reduced or non-existent. Because these schools constitute 70% of total schools in the four lowest socioeconomic percentiles, the policy of affirmative action in Israel did not work for the majority of the population in question. The Arab Education in Israel: Caught in Cycles of Conflict and Normalization In the pre-state era, under the British mandate, the education of children lasted about eight years and parents had to pay for it. In 1935, in the Jewish population (mostly urban) the proportion of students in the relevant age group was 81%, and in the Arab population (mostly scattered in the villages) 20% (Al-Haj 1991). At the end of the British mandate in the region, a war broke between the Jewish population and the Arab population, the latter reinforced with the armies of other Arab nations in the Middle East. After the Jewish victory, a military government was created to manage the political and economic aspects of the daily life of Arabs living in the new state. As a result, Arab education has remained a separate system, although still under the centralized management of the Israeli Ministry of Education, which was in charge of recruiting personnel authorized by security officials, overseeing the system, and developing curriculum (Arar 2012). Among the events that changed the Arab education system were a large increase in the number of Arabs in Israel as a result of territories seized (West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip) in the Six Day War in 1967 (Sicron 2004; Rebhun and Malach 2008). In addition, the end of the military government, in 1966, which governed most of the Arabs localities within the pre-Six Day War borders, marked the beginning of a new phase in the management of political and economic life of Arabs in Israel, including education (Arar 2012). The extent of state-level resources allocated for the benefit of the Arab public increased. Following these events, the median number of years of education in the Arab population rose from five years in 1970, compared with 9.3 years in the Jewish population, to 9.1 years in 1990, compared to 11.9 years in the Jewish population (Arar 2012).

The literature also attempts to map the share of non-governmental sources (parents, local authorities, and non-profit organizations) in funding teaching hours. These sources often contribute to extra hours of schooling in public schools, a phenomenon known as “gray education.” In Israel, the concept of gray education represents an additional study program (curriculum or enrichment program in a

96

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

limited scope), which the Minister of Education can authorize parents or local authorities to fund at an official state educational institution. The content of such programs is entirely determined by the providers of the funds (The State Comptroller of Israel 1996). Klinov (2010) argued that despite the extensive attention paid to the sources of non-governmental funding in education in the public discourse, the role of these sources in primary and middle education, as manifest in teaching hours, is relatively small. Blass et al. (2011) indicated that the non-governmental sources are responsible for about 10% of the total teaching hours. Zussman (2014) suggested that in primary education, “the authorities provide financing for more hours to schools with strong backgrounds than to weak schools (2.4 versus 0.7 hours per week per class),” and “parents from strong socioeconomic backgrounds fund more hours than do parents from weak backgrounds.” By contrast, “non-governmental organizations use corrective affirmative action policies” so that overall, “the non-­ governmental funding of teaching hours in primary education is regressive,” in other words, it is lower for the disadvantaged populations (p. 38). Other findings raise questions about Zussman’s conclusion regarding non-governmental organizations as an effective tool for achieving affirmative action. A survey of the activities of philanthropic organizations and foundations in the field of education showed that less than a quarter of the organizations define the narrowing of social gaps as a formal goal (Weinheber et  al. 2008). Berkovich and Jonathan Foldes (2012) found in a case study that the funding model of non-profit organizations operating in public education (which relies on matching funding between associations and local authorities or parents) is a significant component affecting the geographic distribution of activities in a way that effectively creates inequality in education services. Given that a large proportion of the funds of Israeli non-profit organizations originate in transfers from the Ministry of Education budget, this finding should be understood in a critical context, as the Ministry does not regulate funding sufficiently to ensure affirmative action. Another aspect of the inequality of inputs is access to different quality of teachers. Blass et al. (2008) researched the characteristics of the teaching population in Israel and the way it is distributed throughout the system. The researchers found that the percentage of teachers with a bachelor’s degree was higher in the Jewish state education sector than in the Arab state education sector (about 33% vs. 23%). Blass and colleagues also found that in both Jewish state and Arab state education systems, stronger schools employed fewer teachers without a university degree, and that conventional indicators of the quality of human resources in teaching (experience and level of education) were slightly higher in schools with strong students than in schools with weak students. In their view, this finding, which indicates a similarity in the characteristics of teachers in different schools, is at variance with the literature and suggests that the disparity in achievement in Israel is not the result of the teachers’ seniority or level of education. Another aspect that is not tied to seniority and level of education but it affects the accessibility of teachers is the compatibility between teachers and students from the point of view of their social-cultural-ethnic background. For example, studies show that black students are consistently ranked lower than white students when their

5.4  Inequality in Education

97

behavior is evaluated by white teachers. This phenomenon is at times referred to as “white teacher bias,” and it suggests that the degree of social-cultural-ethnic compatibility between teacher and student is related to the way in which the student’s performance is evaluated (Downey and Pribesh 2004). In Israel, little research has been conducted on this phenomenon, but the shortage of teachers with backgrounds similar to that of their students has been documented and its effects are likely to be the same as those of white teacher bias. For example, the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (2004a) reported that in the early 1990s, the proportion of teachers of European-American origins was significantly higher than that of teachers with Asian-African origins at all levels of Israeli education, although the disparities have been greatly reduced by 2004. A similar reduction can be identified in disparities between ethnic groups in the proportion of students eligible for the matriculation exam. In 1988, estimated eligibility by ethnic group was as follows: 71% for those born in Israel, 70% for those of European-American origin, and 53% for those born in Asia or Africa; in 2003, the proportions were 72%, 73%, and 65%, respectively (Central Bureau of Statistics 2004b). A similar phenomenon is emerging in relation to Jewish Ethiopian immigrants who came to Israel in the 1990s. According Weissblei (2010), in 2009, there were 39,000 students of Ethiopian origin, amounting to about 2.1% of the total student population in Israel. As of 2013, however, only 220 Ethiopian teachers worked in the education system, representing 0.16% of the total teaching force (Weininger 2014). The proportion of eligibility for matriculation among Ethiopian students is 40%, compared with 60% of the rest of graduates of the Jewish state educational institutions (Weissblei 2010). Another aspect of the issue of inequality of input can be explored by focusing on existing infrastructure, including physical infrastructure (the number and quality of the buildings), education resources (computers and libraries), and supplemental services for education (educational guidance and psychological counseling). The physical conditions in schools are significant for several key reasons (Belikoff 2014): (a) cramped classrooms have a negative influence on the development of basic learning skills among students; (b) the infrastructure influences the safety of the students and the likelihood of their getting hurt; and (c) the infrastructure influences the formation of a positive school atmosphere and a sense of security. Belikoff (2014) found that the percentage of classrooms that were built between 2000 and 2011 in the Israeli education system, and which were designated for Arab state education, was similar to the percentage of the Arab population in Israel. Yet, this percentage of allocation was not sufficient to reduce the differences created in the past and to meet the needs of the system. According to estimates, the number of classrooms in the Arab state education system would need to be increased by about a third (Belikoff 2014). To cope with the shortage of infrastructure, students are forced to crowd together in the buildings and courtyards of existing schools and learn in annexes, mobile buildings, or rented classrooms. In about a fifth of primary schools in the Arab state education system, there are more than 600 students per school; these schools serve about 27% of all students in the Arab state primary education system (Belikoff 2014). By comparison, Belikoff reported that only 10%

98

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

of primary schools in the Jewish state education sector serve more than 600 students. Inequality of inputs can also be manifest in such educational resources as computers and libraries. Data of the State Comptroller of Israel (2012) show that there is a severe shortage of computers in Arab state schools and in Jewish independent ultra-­ Orthodox schools (the ratio of the number of students per computer is 2–3 times larger than that in the Jewish state education system). Another important input is that of the supplemental educational services. According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (2011a), in the primary Jewish independent ultra-Orthodox schools, services such as educational guidance and psychological counseling are less common than they are in schools that enjoy state supervision: they are found in only about half the schools, compared to 90% of state schools. Inequality of output refers to academic achievements, eligibility for certificates, and the ability to be accepted into institutions of higher learning and to complete advanced studies. The literature shows a connection between socioeconomic variables and the scholastic achievements of students (BenDavid-Hadar 2018; Central Bureau of Statistics 2014). For example, children whose parents’ income is in the 9th and 10th deciles (the highest earners in Israel) achieve higher English and math scores in the national Meitzav testing (i.e., MEnglish = 81.4 and Mmath = 67.0, respectively) that do children whose parents’ income is in the 1st and 2nd deciles (the lowest earners in Israel) (i.e., MEnglish = 61.1 and Mmath = 43.3, respectively) (Central Bureau of Statistics 2014). Moreover, only 59.5% of youths whose mother’s years of education were minimal (1–8 years) were entitled to a matriculation certificate, whereas over 80% of youths whose mother’s years of education were high (over 12  years) were entitled to a matriculation certificate (Central Bureau of Statistics 2014). Inequality in educational outputs may also be related to geographic location. Because of social, cultural, economic, and demographic processes, and at times because of deliberate government policies, population groups with similar characteristics in the areas of salary and education are clustered together in a neighborhood, city, or village. Yiftachel (1998) found that in the 1950s and 1960s, the government policy in Israel was to assemble weak populations, mainly of Asian and African origin, into isolated development towns and cooperative communities. According to Yiftachel, over the years, government policies “caged” these populations in development towns through a policy of housing without ownership rights, limited social services, few job opportunities that offered low wages, thereby perpetuating their weak status. Some have argued that the community has a significant influence on the academic achievements of those growing up in it (Sampson 2012). This influence is related to both the economic and the social resources of the community. Sirin (2005) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and achievement in the US. Results indicate that studies that separated family SES from neighborhood SES showed a moderately positive correlation (.47) between family SES and achievement and a weak positive correlation (.25) between neighborhood SES and achievement. In Israel, Dobrin (2015) found a linear correlation between the average wage in the locality and the rate of graduates who obtain a matriculation diploma.

5.4  Inequality in Education

99

The literature mentions several neighborhood social characteristics that may influence educational outcomes (Ainsworth 2002): (a) the process of collective socialization having to do with the shaping of school-related attitudes and behaviors, such as dedicating time to homework; (b) the nature of groups of colleagues and friends (a learning group as opposed to a group of dropouts); (c) social capital related to access to resources, information, and educational opportunities, such as library and computers (a large and useful social network as opposed to a small and ineffective one); (d) students’ expectations of future occupations (a wide range of employment opportunities are manifest, as opposed to a limited range); and (e) the nature of the neighborhood school (a school with an inclusive culture or an alienating one). Inequality can also arise on the basis of gender. Data from Israel show that, for example, in the Arab state education sector, 67% of the girls achieve a matriculation certificate, compared to only about half the boys (Central Bureau of Statistics 2014). Inequality in output can also arise based on ethnic grounds. For example, a study found that the rate of those who obtain a matriculation certificate among  Israeli students whose parents were born in a country in Europe or the US was 28% higher than that of students whose parents were born in a country in Asia or Africa (Weissblei 2006). Furthermore, only one in five recipients of degrees in the exact sciences, medicine, and law is of Asian or African origin (Weissblei 2006). In a recent study, Dobrin (2015) found that Jews of Asian or African origin were 2.5–3 times less likely to obtain academic education than their counterparts of European or American origin. According to Dobrin, this gap persists despite the fact that the population of Asian and African origin is largely educated in Israel, and 90% of the population believes that academic education is important for success in life (these characteristics are similar among all groups in the study). As a result, Dobrin concluded that the combination of socioeconomic and political-cultural inequality is related to the disparity in the acquisition of higher education between those of European and American origin and those of Asian and African origin. Inequality can also take the form of segregation between schools and of differentiation within schools. Segregation between schools refers to the separation of students into separate schools, “by geographic separation between different population groups... generally on the basis of origin, socioeconomic status, religion, etc.” (Fogel 2011, p. 9). In the US, the idea of segregation between students in different schools on the basis of their background as an educational problem that requires attention has spread following the Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954), which ruled that state laws allowing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional. In Israel, in the past, the discussion of segregation has focused primarily on ethnic and socioeconomic segregation. Blass et al. (2014) examined separation between students in different schools based on sociodemographic characteristics (parents’ education, immigration, and number of siblings), using a decade of data collected between 2001–2010. The researchers found that the separation between students in the Jewish state education sector was higher than in the Arab state education system because the socioeconomic variance of the population in the Jewish state education was wider than in the Arab state education (in Arab sector, the

100

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

economic gap between the stronger and the weaker students was smaller, and their living conditions were more similar than among their counterparts in Jewish state education system). The study also pointed to a hierarchy of Jewish education systems based on the separation created between schools according to the sociodemographic characteristics of the students. At the top of the list of sub-systems separating students by sociodemographic characteristics is the independent Jewish ultra-Orthodox education system, followed by the Jewish state-religious school system, followed by the state education system. Apart from sociodemographic separation between schools, there are also practices of sociodemographic separation within schools. Ayalon (2009) identified three types of differentiation in curriculum in the same school, where students in the same age group are offered different programs of study: (a) ability grouping, in which the same subjects are offered at different levels of challenge, from basic to advanced; (b) tracking, in which some classes follow either a theoretical or a professional track (the theoretical tracks being generally valued more highly); and (c) differentiation of subjects, where the academic tracks themselves offer a variety of courses at an advanced level, which open different opportunities for students. Differentiation in curriculum can also be gender related (Pinson et al. 2020). For example, in the Jewish sector, only about 30% of students in high-tech engineering tend to be girls, whereas in the Arab sector more girls study in theoretical-scientific tracks (64%) and in engineering tracks (54%) than do boys (36% and 46%, respectively) (Skop 2014, December 25). In recent years, there has been growing recognition that diagnostic-pedagogical aspects can also create inequality in education. For example, since the 1990s, the Israeli Ministry of Education has begun to expand the recognition of learning disabilities and to provide various adjustments for them. As a result, the number of students with test accommodations due to learning disabilities increased from 58,000 in 1995 to 313,000 in 2001 (Leibovitz Dar 2004, February 3). As a result, the rate of students who are granted adjustments in matriculation exams among the lowest tenth is about half (25%) that of the students in the upper tenth (49%) (Kashti and Skop 2014, May 16). Although strong socioeconomic groups gain more from waivers and their benefits in the education system (e.g., the introduction of pedagogical diagnosis), demanding changes in the technical requirements of the education system (e.g., the composition of the matriculation certificate) is likely to tax more students from economically and socially disadvantaged populations. Critical Race Theory (CRT) This theory sees human society as a conflict arena between different racial groups, where the balance of power is unequal and tilted in favor of the white group. The theory is discussed mainly with reference to the US and the UK, democracies where there is a hegemonic white population that holds power. Therefore, in these countries, the whites usually shape education policy, and those who are most negatively influenced by it are the black minority group (Gillborn 2014). According to this theory, education policy is an important (continued)

5.4  Inequality in Education

101

mechanism of repression in the struggle between races because it is used mostly to preserve white supremacy (Gillborn 2014). The theory distinguishes between the ideology of “whiteness,” which is linked to the belief in white supremacy and preference of whites, and the social identity of white people. According to Gillborn (2014), white people who support racial justice maintain their social identity as white, but oppose the ideology of the “whiteness.” Gillborn argued that because of the conflict between blacks and whites, any genuine progress of the black minority group toward equality and social inclusion in education can be achieved only by political protest. Such progress is rare, however, because it depends on the convergence of interests of the black population with those of strong whites. Gillborn argued that a more common situation is one in which the interests of the two groups are in opposition. According to Gilborn, educational policy in the US and UK, which is neo-liberal in nature and emphasizes personal effort and talent, while ignoring discriminatory historical and social realities, is intended to promote social inequality and serve the ideology of “whiteness.” Therefore, an education policy based on neo-liberal principles reflects “racism as a policy.” For example, Gillborn analyzed the adoption, at the beginning of the twenty-­ first century, of a new measure of educational success in England (E.Bacc). The study found that the chances of students from five social groups (blacks of Caribbean origin, blacks of African descent, a group whose parents were a mixture of blacks and whites, whites, and minority groups of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin) to meet the educational requirements successfully had been reduced as a result of the new EBacc demands. According to Gillborn’s analysis, the likelihood of achieving the new EBacc benchmark, compared with the previous benchmark, decreased significantly for non-white students as opposed to white students (blacks of Caribbean origin: 0.48 vs. 0.68, blacks of African descent 0.70 vs. 0.99, Bangladeshi origin: 0.61 vs. 1.06, black-­ white biracial students: 0.56 vs. 0.69). Gillborn showed that adopting a certain technical classification of educational success, which appears to have nothing to do with the suppression of social groups, in practice has led to the preservation of white supremacy in education by attaching a widespread label of failure to non-white students. Apart from aspects of inequality in inputs, outputs, and curriculum discussed above, there are “soft” aspects of inequality related to the learning and representation of disadvantaged groups in the formal curriculum, and to the extent to which education promotes perceptions of tolerance and acceptance of others. Shenhav (1999), for example, surveyed Israeli textbooks dealing with the history of the Jewish people. He found that in three books written during the 1990s, which were popular in schools, the percentage of pages allocated to Jews from Asian and African countries ranged from 2% to 8%. The representation of non-hegemonic populations in the curriculum is not only quantitative but also qualitative. An examination of 130

102

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

Israeli textbooks and workbooks revealed that 96% of them had content that included gender stereotypes (a stereotypical reference to the roles of men and women in the text, and identification of professions and household tasks as masculine and feminine) (Israeli Ministry of Education 2002). Another recent survey of 2066 students aged 8–18 from various sectors (Jewish state-secular, Arab state, and independent Jewish ultra-Orthodox) sought to examine their attitudes regarding the exclusion of students from a different social group (expressed in their willingness to be close to them, including in class, or play in a joint game during recess or in an afternoon meeting) (Yaakobi et  al. 2015). The study found that half the secular Jewish and Arab students were not interested in any relationship with the other group, but while the percentage of supporters of exclusion in the Arab sector declined with age, in the secular Jewish sector it remained stable. The researchers argued that social exclusion is a phenomenon that can be affected by education. They found, for example, that the tendency of secular Jewish students to exclude students of Jewish  Ethiopian origin and children in wheelchairs declines with education and age. In other words, education can be effective in changing attitudes regarding certain social groups, if such change is defined as a goal and receives priority in the system.

5.5  Summary of the Chapter Chapter 5 describes contemporary problems discussed by researchers and policymakers at the beginning of the twenty-first century. First, it addressed the debate over the existence of a crisis in the education system and the manner in which identification of the crisis is related to the interpretation of the data. Alternative explanations are also presented, making a connection between the strengthening of the perception of a crisis and the deliberate actions of interest groups and individuals. Second, the chapter outlined a series of criticisms of the public education system on issues of complex bureaucratic structure and centralized governance, which are inefficient and undemocratic. Third, it discussed the concept that identifies the insufficient professionalization processes of teachers in the education system, an idea related also to the rise of new models regarding the character of the good teacher and the body of knowledge required of teachers, as well as to the creation of a global competitive discourse on education. Fourth, the chapter presented a concept that focuses on gaps and inequality as central issues that the education system must confront. In particular, some of the principles, methods, and sources of budgeting were shown to be responsible for some of these issues, including the manner in which teachers’ characteristics are related to gaps and inequality, the manner in which gaps and inequality are geographically connected, and the manner in which organizational practices of separation and differentiation become entrenched and perpetuate gaps and inequality.

References

103

References Acker, S. (1983). Women and teaching: A semi-detached sociology of a semi-profession. In S. Walker & L. Barton (Eds.), Gender, class and education (pp. 123–139). Barcombe: Falmer. Ainsworth, J. W. (2002). Why does it take a village? The mediation of neighborhood effects on educational achievement. Social Forces, 81(1), 117–152. Al-Haj, M. (1991). Education and social change among Arabs in Israel. Tel Aviv: The International Center for Peace in the Middle East. [in Hebrew]. Aranil, M. R. S., & Fukaya, K. (2010). Japanese national curriculum standards reform: Integrated study and its challenges. In J.  Zajda (Ed.), Globalisation, ideology and education policy reforms (pp. 63–77). Dordrecht: Springer. Arar, K. (2012). Israeli education policy since 1948 and the state of Arab education in Israel. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 1, 113–145. Avidov-Ungar, O. (2013). Professional development in an era of reforms and changes – Meanings of the perception of continuity. In S. Shimoni & O. Avidov-Ungar (Eds.), On the continuum: Training, induction, and teachers’ professional development  – Policy, theory, and practice (pp. 226–197). Tel Aviv: The Mofet Institute. [in Hebrew]. Ayalon, H. (2009). Types of program differentiation and inequality in achievement. In Y. Kashti (Ed.), An anthology in honor of Prof. Arie Levy (pp. 311–289). Tel Aviv: Ramot. [in Hebrew]. Banks, J. A. (2001). Cultural diversity and education. Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (vol. 4). Boston, MA: Pearson. Bascia, N. (2009). Pushing on the paradigm: Research on teachers’ organizations as policy actors. In G.  Sykes, B.  Schneider, & D.  N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 785–792). New York, NY: Routledge. Belikoff, M. (2014). Gaps between Jews and Arabs in the education system – The physical infrastructure. Jerusalem/Haifa: Sikkuy. [in Hebrew]. BenDavid-Hadar, I. (2018). Funding education: Developing a method of allocation for improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(1), 2–26. Berkovich, I. (2014). A socio-ecological framework of social justice leadership in education. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(3), 282–309. Berkovich, I., & Jonathan Foldes, V. (2012). Third sector involvement in public education: The Israeli case. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(2), 173–187. Berkovich, Y., & Markman, N. (2010). The state and teachers’ organizations. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. [in Hebrew]. Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Redding, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V. (Eds.). (2014). 50 myths and lies that threaten America’s public schools: The real crisis in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bickmore, K. (2006). Democratic social cohesion (assimilation)? Representations of social conflict in Canadian public school curriculum. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, 29, 359–386. Blass, N. (2009). Indicators relating to gaps and inequality in education systems. Jerusalem: The Initiative for Applied Research in Education. [in Hebrew]. Blass, N., & Cogan, Y. (2014). Budget of the Ministry of Education, 2000–2001: Trends and issues. Jerusalem: Taub Center. [in Hebrew]. Blass, N., & Romanov, D. (2010). On uniformity of teachers’ pay and their position relative to other employees. Jerusalem: Taub Center. [in Hebrew]. Blass, N., Romanov, D., Almasi, K., Maagan, D., & Scheinberg, D. (2008). Characteristics of the deployment of teachers in schools and affirmative action policies. Jerusalem: Taub Center. [in Hebrew]. Blass, N., Zussman, N., & Tsur, S. (2011). Primary education budgeting. Jerusalem: Research Department, Bank of Israel. [in Hebrew].

104

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

Blass, N., Avgar, I., & Berkovich, I. (2012). A different perspective on the Israeli education system: Evaluating the system with complementary criteria to academic achievements. Retrieved from http://www.izhakber.com [in Hebrew]. Blass, N., Zussman, N., & Tsur, S. (2014). Segregation of students in elementary and middle schools. Jerusalem: Research Department, Bank of Israel. [in Hebrew]. Cave, P. (2001). Educational reform in Japan in the 1990s: ‘Individuality’ and other uncertainties. Comparative Education, 37(2), 173–191. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2004a). Teaching staff in the education system (1991–2004): Selected findings. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2004b). The education system in Israel: Overview. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2011a). Survey of wages (education and welfare services), 2007. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2011b). Data from the 2007 social survey: Public attitudes toward Israel’s education system – Greater satisfaction than with kindergarten, less than with high school. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Statistical abstract of Israel 2014, No. 65. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Cohen Mohaliver, A. (2006). Quality of teachers in Israel. Jerusalem: The Koren-Milken Institute Fellows Program. [in Hebrew]. Crittenden, B. (1977). Equality and education. Australian Journal of Education, 21(2), 113–126. Dahan, M. (2014). Differential budgeting in education: A theoretical infrastructure. In M. Justman (Ed.), Differential budgeting in education (pp.  27–24). Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute and the Van Leer Institute. [in Hebrew]. Dattel, L. (2013, July 18). How much money does your child get from the Ministry of Education? The Marker. Retrieved from http://www.themarker.com. [in Hebrew]. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60, 549–559. Dery, D. (2002). Fuzzy control. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(2), 191–216. Dobrin, N. (2015). Equality of educational opportunities. Demographic and socioeconomic barriers. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Downey, D. B., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When race matters: Teachers’ evaluations of students’ classroom behavior. Sociology of Education, 77(4), 267–282. Duncombe, W., Miner, J., & Ruggiero, J. (1997). Empirical evaluation of bureaucratic models of inefficiency. Public Choice, 93(1–2), 1–18. Elmore, R.  F. (1993). School decentralization: Who gains? Who loses? In J.  Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 33–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Eyal, O. (2006). Contradictory rationales in teacher training. In D.  Inbar (Ed.), Towards educational revolution? (pp.  176–166). Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Van Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad. [in Hebrew]. Fogel, N. (2011). Segregation level of students in Hebrew schools, 2008. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Ganel, Y. (2008). Improving the public education system with charter schools. Jerusalem: Koret-­ Milken Institute Fellows Program. [in Hebrew]. Gibton, D. (2011). Post-2000 law-based educational governance in Israel: From equality to diversity? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(4), 434–454. Gillborn, D. (2014, January). Racism as policy: A critical race analysis of education reforms in the United States and England. The Educational Forum, 78(1), 26–41. Glass, G. V. (2004, November 6). Which crisis in education? Remarks at Crisis in Education: A Call to Action conference, Arizona State University, Glendale, AZ. Retrieved from http://glass. ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/crisis.pdf

References

105

Hai, S. (2014, September 23). An increase in matriculation eligibility; the 50% success line will be crossed. YNET. Retrieved from http://www.ynet.co.il. [in Hebrew]. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 6(2), 151–182. Hargreaves, A. (2014). Foreword. In P. Sahlberg (Ed.), Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hativa, N. (2003). Teaching processes in the classroom. Tel Aviv: Academic Publishing for Developing Teaching Staff. Herzog, E. (2010). The politics of gender and education: Who benefits from the feminisation of teaching? In E.  Herzog & Z.  Valdan (Eds.), On the back of teachers: Power and gender in education (pp. 21–32). Jerusalem: Carmel Publishing. [in Hebrew]. Hill, P. T. (2014). Rethinking governance. In C. E. Finn & R. Sousa (Eds.), What lies ahead for America’s children and their schools (pp. 11–22). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. Hood, C. (2010). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hupe, P., & Buffat, A. (2014). A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review, 16(4), 548–569. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2002). Gender stereotypes in textbooks in the Israeli education system. Jerusalem: Israeli Ministry of Education. [in Hebrew]. Kashti, O., & Skop, Y. (2014, May 16). The unbearable ease of making adjustments to students with learning disabilities. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew]. Klinov, R. (2010). Budgeting of the primary and junior-high education system 2003-2008. Jerusalem: The Maurice Falk Institute for Economic Research in Israel. [in Hebrew]. Leibovitz Dar, S. (2004, February 3). A learning disability epidemic is spreading in northern Tel Aviv. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew]. Lortie, D. (1969). The balance of control and autonomy in elementary school teaching. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), The semi-professionals and their organization. New York, NY: Free Press. McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company. Mehta, J. (2013). From bureaucracy to profession: Remaking the educational sector for the twenty-­ first century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463–488. Nir, A. E. (2012). School-based management and the centralisation trap: An evidence-based perspective. Curriculum and Teaching, 27(2), 29–45. Nir, A.  E. (2014). Introduction: Educational accountability  – Information as an accelerator. In A. Nir (Ed.), Educational accountability: Between consolidation and dissolution (pp. 17–19). Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Van Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad. [in Hebrew]. Perry-Hazan, L. (2019). Religious affiliation, ethnicity, and power in admission policies to Jewish religious schools. Critical Studies in Education, 60(1), 73–92. Perry-Hazan, L., & Perelstain, O. (2018). Mobilizing ethnic equality in admissions to schools: Litigation, politics, and educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 19(1), 51–75. Pinson, H., Feniger, Y., & Barak, Y. (2020). Explaining a reverse gender gap in advanced physics and computer science course-taking: An exploratory case study comparing Hebrew-speaking and Arabic-speaking high schools in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57, 1177–1198. Pizmony-Levy, O. (2018). Compare globally, interpret locally: International assessments and news media in Israel. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(5), 577-595. Rebhun, U., & Malach, G. (2008). Demographic trends in Israel. Jerusalem: Metzilah Center. [in Hebrew]. Resh, N., & Blass, N. (2019). Israel: Gaps in educational outcomes in a changing multi-ethnic society. In P. Stevens & G. Dworkin (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of race and ethnic inequalities in education (pp. 631–694). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171.

106

5  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Problems

Sampson, R.  J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Schleicher, A. (2011). The case for 21st century learning. OECD Observer, 282, 42–43. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2013). Looking East: Shanghai, PISA 2009 and the reconstitution of reference societies in the global education policy field. Comparative Education, 49(4), 464–485. Shenhav, Y. (1999). Analyzing Jewish history text books. News from Within, 15(8), 32–35. [in Hebrew]. Shulman, L.  S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Sicron, M. (2004). Demography: The population of Israel – Characteristics and trends. Jerusalem: Carmel. [in Hebrew]. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. Skop, Y. (2014, December 25). Study: Arab girls narrow gaps with the Jewish sector. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew]. Saporta, I. (2009). Teachers’ unions: How terrible are they? Alpayim, 7, 301–281. [in Hebrew]. Swirski, S., & Schwartz, A. (2005). Eligibility for matriculation certificate by locality. Tel Aviv: Adva Center. [in Hebrew]. Takayama, K. (2007). A nation at risk crosses the Pacific: Transnational borrowing of the US crisis discourse in the debate on education reform in Japan. Comparative Education Review, 51(4), 423–446. Tamir, E. (2017). Competition between unions as a stimulus for initiating reform: The Israeli case, 1958–2015. Labor History, 58(5), 623–638. The State Comptroller of Israel. (1996). Annual report 48. Jerusalem: The State Comptroller of Israel. [in Hebrew]. The State Comptroller of Israel. (2012). Annual report 62. Jerusalem: The State Comptroller of Israel. [in Hebrew]. Torff, B., & Sessions, D. N. (2005). Principals’ perceptions of the causes of teacher ineffectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 530. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools the role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217–247. Tubin, D. (2010). The teacher as a learning expert. Maof and Ma’ase, 13, 70–45. [in Hebrew]. Tyack, D. (1993). School governance in the United States: Historical puzzles and anomalies. In J. Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 1–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tyler, W. (2012). The sociology of educational inequality. New York, NY: Routledge. Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Mizrahi, S. (2013). Performance of the public sector in Israel: An analysis of citizens’ attitudes and national evaluation (Paper No. 13). University of Haifa and Ben Gurion University. Retrieved from http://pmpc.haifa.ac.il/images/nappa_and_more/NAPPA-­IL13.heb. pdf [in Hebrew]. Volansky, A. (2001). Japan: The characteristics of an educational system striving for academic excellence and high achievements. Jerusalem: Israeli Ministry of Education. [in Hebrew]. Weiler, H. N. (1983). Education, public confidence and the legitimacy of the modern state: Is there a crisis’ somewhere? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(2), 125–142. Weinheber, B. C., Ben Nun, R., & Shiffman, E. (2008). Involvement of NGOs, funds and commercial philanthropy in the education system: Report of findings. Beit Berl: Beit Berl College. [in Hebrew]. Weininger, A. (2014). Integration of Ethiopian-Israeli teachers in the education system. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Weissblei, E. (2006). Data on equal opportunities in education from preschool to university. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Weissblei, E. (2010). The integration of Ethiopian immigrants in the education system. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew].

References

107

Wolf, C. (1987). Market and non-market failures: Comparison and assessment. Journal of Public Policy, 7(01), 43–70. Yaakobi, A., Adi-Ben Said, L., & Elbashan, Y. (2015). A person is not born alone: Social exclusion among students in Israeli society. Kiryat Ono: Ono Academic College. [in Hebrew]. Yemini, M., & Gordon, N. (2017). Media representations of national and international standardized testing in the Israeli education system. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(2), 262–276. Yiftachel, A. (1998). Inequality is a matter of geography. Panim, 4, 42–32. [in Hebrew]. Yonah, Y. (1991). Cultural pluralism versus cultural integration. Megamot, 34(2), 122–138. [in Hebrew]. Zohar, A. (2013). Grades aren’t everything: Revamping pedagogic discourse. Tel Aviv: Hapoalim. [in Hebrew]. Zussman, N. (2014). Differential expenditure on education, by socioeconomic characteristics: Situation report. In M. Justman (Ed.), Differential budgeting in education (pp. 40–37). Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute and the Van Leer Institute. [in Hebrew].

Chapter 6

Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

In the previous chapter, we assessed the central problems in contemporary education policy. In this one, we discuss the proposed solutions for the improvement of the public education system. These two chapters are directly related because, to a great extent, the manner of defining the problems in educational systems corresponds to the proposed solutions, and they are often discussed together. In general, four types of solutions are offered by policymakers and policy researchers to current problems in education systems: (a) solutions to promote school effectiveness, which include decentralization of powers and the promotion of market elements and accountability in education; (b) solutions to promote teaching as a profession, emphasizing the professionalization of educators through changes in the training and selection of candidates for teaching; (c) solutions to promote equality, focusing on the creation of systemic conditions aimed at promoting disadvantaged population groups; and (d) solutions to promote collaboration between institutions, between professionals, and between professionals, students, parents, and the community. Of the four, most of the chapter is devoted to discussing solutions to promote school effectiveness, because at present, this type of solution is most common in the discourse of policymakers and educators. Although the various approaches are presented separately in this chapter, in reality, these types of solutions are often connected. For example, the solutions one approach offers are often perceived as generating some of the problems that another approach identifies. Thus, proponents of a particular approach often adopt aspects of another approach, which have gained popularity, to legitimize and advance the goals of their original approach.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Berkovich, Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century, Policy Implications of Research in Education 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_6

109

110

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

6.1  Promoting School Effectiveness In the discourse on promoting the effectiveness of education systems, interchangeable use is often made of the concepts of decentralization and privatization, because there is debate about the extent to which they differ or whether they are simply different expressions of the same phenomenon. In this chapter, we define decentralization as the transfer or delegation of powers of initiative and execution from the central government to the local government, and we define privatization as the planned or actual transfer of powers from government to private entities (Vurgan 2014). First, we assess solutions that propose decentralization, or the transfer of state powers to local authorities and schools. Decentralization is the process of the reallocation of planning and decision-­ making powers from the center of the system to the middle and peripheral units. The administrative powers that are redistributed in the decentralization processes may include the powers to design the content of the curriculum, economic powers, such as taxation, and the allocation of resources and personnel management, such as the ability to hire employees, promote workers, and determine their salaries. McGinn and Welsh (1999) examined the decisions made at all levels of government (central, middle, and lower) in education in the OECD countries. The researchers found that in most countries, the central government tends mainly to organize teaching: curriculum, training, evaluation of the teaching staff, etc. The intermediate levels tend to deal mainly with planning, construction, resource allocation, and personnel. Inbar and Choshen (1997) argued that two main axes shape the patterns of power in the public education system: the political axis (the extent to which authority and responsibility are vested in local elected officials or citizens) and the administrative axis (the extent to which administrative discretion rests with the executors). Administrative decentralization is intended to create autonomy, but autonomy and decentralization are not equivalent. Autonomy has formal and perceptual aspects that a certain decentralization policy may promote. The educational administration literature defines autonomy as the authority to define goals and topics of activity (i.e., “entrepreneurial autonomy”) and the authority to carry out operative actions (i.e., “operational autonomy”). These two formal aspects may not necessarily manifest at the same time, and in practice, there may be several patterns of autonomy of local authorities (Berkovich 2012): (a) full local autonomy, in which local government has the freedom to choose goals and domains and has the freedom to act; (b) minimal local autonomy, where local government lacks entrepreneurial and operational freedom; (c) active local autonomy, in which there is high entrepreneurial autonomy and low operational autonomy, and local authorities are active in new areas while their activity in the accepted fields is limited; and (d) local technical autonomy, where there is high operational autonomy and low entrepreneurial autonomy—the local authorities cannot initiate new areas of activity, but there is no strict supervision of the implementation of the directives of the central government. Autonomy also involves subjective perceptual aspects that do not always conform with the formal aspects. McGinn and Welsh (1999) examined the type of autonomy in decision-making at

6.1 Promoting School Effectiveness

111

lower levels in education systems and found that although most of the decisions were identified by respondents as autonomy, about a third were dictated by higher-level guidelines. These findings reflect a situation in which the degree of autonomy experienced is greater than its formal manifestations. But there may also be a situation in which the degree of formal autonomy is broader than that experienced in the field. Note also that the distribution of autonomy can vary between institutions and between various actors within institutions and localities (Woods et al. 2020). The literature raises questions about motives, efficiency, and responsibility with regard to decentralization. Tyack (1993) pointed out that the administrative organizational structure involves cyclical education changes that frequently and repeatedly move between centralization and decentralization. From such a cycle, he concluded, “one period’s common sense becomes a delusion in the next” (p.  1). Elmore (1993) argued that there is no clear empirical conclusion on whether decentralized education is more effective than a centralized one. According to Elmore, most of the empirical evidence on the efficiency of decentralization should be treated with skepticism because much of it comes from the reports of people at lower levels, who previously opposed the centralized structure. Another issue that Elmore (1993) stressed concerns the public responsibility that decentralization reforms create: whether it is to advance the interests of the public and the state, as represented by the democratic institutions, or whether it is to promote the interests of the local community. The Effective Schools Movement The Effective Schools Movement was created in the US in the 1970s in the wake of the Coleman Report and its findings. The Coleman et al. (1966) study, commissioned by the US Congress, surveyed 650,000 students in more than 3000 schools. The research report, published under the title “Equal Opportunities in Education,” is considered a landmark in studies on education policy. Study findings show that students’ background and socioeconomic status are the most important factors in determining their academic achievements. The study was considered controversial at the time because it was argued that equality should be measured by outputs rather than by inputs. The findings of the report led to a debate among those who saw them as an indication of the inability of the education system to bring about change, and those who regarded the findings as an indication of schooling inefficiency. Following the report, a social movement developed that brought together politicians, public figures, and academics who worked to adopt reforms to promote effective public education. Academics with an interest in the movement attempted to assemble a useful body of knowledge with a focus on urban schools that serve weak populations and managed to reach high achievements. In general, researchers affiliated with this movement have argued that schools can be effective regardless of the socioeconomic context in which they operate (Harris et al. 2015). Edmonds (1979), for example, noted five factors that help (continued)

112

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

make schools effective: strong administrative leadership, setting high expectations and an atmosphere of discipline, acquiring basic learning skills as a central goal, harnessing the energy and resources of a school to advance the central goal, and constantly monitoring student progress. Sammons et  al. (1995), who reviewed various studies of school effectiveness, also add the importance of professional leadership, monitoring progress, defining students’ rights and obligations, school-home relationships, and the identity of the school as a learning organization. As a result of this movement, a new research field was established in the mid-1990s, school improvement research, focusing on understanding school improvement capabilities (Harris et  al. 2013). The Effective Schools Movement and the resulting research body are the conceptual basis of many of the effective educational reforms we are witnessing today.

Promoting effectiveness in education by decentralization is often associated with practices identified with marketization and the privatization of education. Hannaway and Woodroffe (2003) described two types of policy instruments that have become popular in education in recent years: (a) market-based mechanisms that promote competition, by which policymakers aspire to guide school behavior; and (b) accountability and incentive-based mechanisms that administer rewards and sanctions based on performance. Among the most prominent educational market mechanisms are parental choice and self-management. Parental choice of the school in which their children study and the competition it creates (Kaptzon and Yemini 2018) are one expression of the criticism of the concept of classic public schools, which are often portrayed as “domesticated” service organizations, with a steady stream of customers, and guaranteed public budgets, unrelated to their performance (Carlson 1964). According to critics, these arrangements create conservative schools lacking in entrepreneurial spirit, which do not meet the demands of modern times. The literature argued that the way to deal with this situation is to change the central structure of education by creating competition for students between schools and establishing a kind of market or quasi-market. A quasi-market in education differs from the classic economic market at two levels (Oplatka 2002): 1. On the supply side, the core processes and objectives of the service are determined by the government, the entry of new suppliers is controlled by the government, and popular suppliers are limited in their ability to expand. 2. On the demand side, money does not change hands, the customer is obligated to consume the service, the customer’s mobility is limited, and the customer can consume only one service at a given time. Behind the educational quasi-market is the assumption that increasing the responsiveness of schools to customer needs by providing parental choice and

6.1 Promoting School Effectiveness

113

access to information about the performance of teachers and students is effective and can improve the range and quality of educational services (Almog-Barkat and Inbar 2010). Opponents of parental choice argue that, in practice, the choice of parents focuses on the narrow aspect of the socioeconomic and cultural composition of students in the school, and therefore leads to the adoption of discriminatory processes in student selection (Almog-Barkat and Inbar 2010). There are several key models of parental choice in their children’s education (Dumay and Dupriez 2014): 1. The “registration zones” model or the “absence of parental choice,” in which students are directed by the authorities to schools according to registration areas, without exception. This model exists in South Korea, Japan, and Greece. It was also the practice in Israel, for most of the time of its existence. 2. The “school mapping with possibility of waivers” model, in which parents who are interested can, under certain circumstances (Exceptions Committee, regional schools, etc.) change the school placement of their children. This model exists in France, Portugal, Austria, and the US, and is claimed to serve primarily the interests of affluent parents. 3. The “regulated school choice” model, in which all parents must express their preferences, which are taken into account by the authorities, alongside considerations of the public interest, such as social diversity in schools. This model exists in Spain, Sweden, and Denmark. 4. The “open parental choice” model, in which parents’ choice is subject to minimal or no regulation by the authorities, and parents work directly with the schools to register their children. This model exists in Belgium, Hungary, New Zealand, and England. According to Dumay and Dupriez (2014), the countries with the oldest parental selection policy are Belgium and the Netherlands, but in these countries, choice is not a matter of competition for efficiency but rather an issue of values regarding the right to choose between religious and secular education. Note that most of the time choices are not exercised because of geographic distance, especially for primary school. According to various estimates, in Israel only about 10–15% of parents are willing to move their children to schools far from home (Nesher and Rosenberg 2012, March 11). The first parental choice program in Israel was implemented in Tel Aviv in 1995, and included a choice in the elementary education stage and a choice in the secondary education stage, within clusters. The municipality established an information system for parents, set up a control mechanism for assigning students, and funded transportation of students to remote schools (Shapira and Heiman 2006). If the demand for a school exceeded the quota, a lottery was held. The transition to school choice models assigned greater importance to the marketing aspect of the school principals’ role (Oplatka 2002; Oplatka and Hemsley-Brown 2012). After 15 years of activity, the Tel Aviv municipality decided to reduce parental choice. It decided that elementary school students would automatically move to middle schools in their area of residence, and only if the students insisted on studying elsewhere

114

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

would their parents be given a choice (Kashti 2010, December 1). The reasons for this change are rooted in the findings of an evaluation report that found that the range of choices available to students in an official elective cluster (about six schools) was perceived as unrealistic, and was therefore limited to two or three schools (Shapira and Heiman 2006). According to researchers, the phenomenon was particularly pronounced in schools in southern Tel Aviv, a poor area, which were offered to students in the north of the city, a wealthier area, and vice versa. Shapira and Heiman (2006) found that the willingness of students to move to distant schools, which involved significant commuting, was more typical of students from the south of the city, and that the average rate of transfer to distant schools during the decade in which the program was implemented was about 35–40% of the student population in the south of the city. A second locality in which a parental choice program was implemented in Israel was Jerusalem. In the 1980s, with the establishment of unique schools and regional schools in Jerusalem, a model of registration zones with a waiver option was created in an informal manner: most school registration was done according to area of residence, but enrolment in the regional schools was made by choice. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Jerusalem had five regional schools in the state elementary system (about 12% of the public schools in the city) and ten primary schools belonging to the Jewish state-religious stream (about 30% of schools in the city) (Knaani 2002). Knaani (2002) investigated the effects of the selection model that was developed in Jerusalem and found that the policy allowing free choice in regional schools enabled the spatial separation of students based on a social, economic, and ideological background as a response to social integration. Consequently, in 2003, a professional committee recommended officially adopting a policy of regulated school choice at the municipal level. The Jerusalem Municipality is working to change the selection by areas model to allow full choice of any of the schools in the city (Velmer 2012, May 1). Recently, the Israeli Ministry of Education began a nationwide experiment of creating areas for regulated school choice (Weissblei 2013a), with the aim of “strengthening the public system” (Nesher and Rosenberg 2012, March 11). One of the basic assumptions underlying the idea of parental choice in education is that it is possible to create a significant pedagogical distinction between schools or to differentiate between them from the point of view of values. Therefore, to understand the spread of the idea of choosing education in Israel, it is necessary to consider the rise in the number of autonomous and magnet schools in the 1980s, often referred to as “specialized” schools. These schools were established based on two assumptions: (a) that an autonomous school has a unique policy and vision, which it attempts to realize through organizational development and teamwork, school-based curriculum development, increased community involvement, school-­ based assessment consistent with its goals, flexibility, and budgetary independence; and (b) that this uniqueness is manifest in one of three ways: (i) a unique thematic program (e.g., focusing on the arts or on the environment); (ii) unique ideological values (e.g., focusing on reinforcement of Jewish studies or the values of the labor movement); and (iii) uniqueness stemming from a distinct outlook on education (e.g., community, open, democratic, or some other type of school). These schools

6.1 Promoting School Effectiveness

115

were regional, spanning the registration areas defined by neighborhoods, and at times crossing registration areas of adjacent communities (Shapira 1988; Shapira et al. 1994; Dror 2007). According to some, the autonomous and unique schools emerged in the 1980s because of rich parents’ fears of integration and budget cuts in Israeli education. As a result of the increase in the number of such schools and of public criticism that they were elitist and selective, in recent years the Ministry of Education increased its regulation of these schools. Currently there are between 205 and 275 unique schools approved by the Ministry of Education, and according to estimates, tens, if not hundreds of public schools which have adopted, without permission, the title of “specialized schools” (Weininger 2014). Many public schools operate internally specialized educational tracks (on an unknown scale), which operate based on student qualifications and parental co-payments (Vurgan 2011). The tendency of specialized schools, whether approved or not, to collect co-payments from parents to finance their programs, and the fact that these schools generally serve an affluent population (through self-­ selection or screening) makes them appear to the general public as private or semi-­ private institutions (Vurgan 2011). Indeed, the vast majority of specialized schools are public in every respect: they are fully funded and supervised by the Ministry of Education, and are subject to its laws and regulations. Part of the criticism of these schools regards their selective admission and the collection of co-payments, both of which affect the composition of students and hamper the integration of disadvantaged populations. For example, in the gifted classes that operate in Tel Aviv, only 7% of students come from the southern neighborhoods of the city, although 44% of all secondary school students live in that region (Kashti 2014, May 30). Some researchers, critical of the education system, have pointed out the misleading educational discourse on the specialization of schools, with many schools that represent themselves as advocating for the best interests of society and strengthening democracy, in practice acting as agents of commodification that undermine democracy and social solidarity (Kizel 2013). The Voucher System, Charter Schools, and Magnet Schools: Educational Models in the US In the discourse on choice in education, three models are mentioned frequently: magnet schools, charter schools, and vouchers. The magnet school model is based on the creation of integrative inter-­ regional public schools that emphasize certain educational content (such as arts, science, etc.). The idea of such schools arose in the 1970s against the background of racial tensions in the US, aiming to encourage racial diversity and to create selective integration. Student selection in magnet schools is often regulated to ensure a heterogeneous composition, and in some cases students are classified by achievement or talent. If there is excess demand, a lottery is held to select candidates. In St. Louis, where 78% of the students are black, the magnet schools are composed of 58% black and 42% white (continued)

116

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

students. These schools include only 15% of the black student population of the city and 40% of the white student population. The model of charter schools is based on the desire to encourage the formation of new public schools and to expand the choices available to parents. Application for a charter school is usually made by groups of educators, parents, municipalities, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and private individuals. Although the schools require a permit from the government to operate, they are free from many regulations and have extensive control over teacher recruitment, resource allocation, and pedagogy, enabling them to provide a tailored response to students’ needs, create innovation, and encourage competition. Charter schools are funded by the state according to the number of students who register, similarly to public education, but the schools can also raise funds and rent out the school infrastructure. Schools are not allowed to collect tuition fees or to hold entrance examinations, and in the case of excessive demand, they hold a lottery for the applicants. The charter is granted for 3–5 years, and failure to meet its conditions can lead to the closure of the institution or non-renewal of the charter (Ganel 2008). Charter schools comprise about 6% of all public schools in the US. The composition of these schools is more heterogeneous, than that of public schools and includes a lower proportion of hegemonic groups (65% of minorities in charter schools vs. 48% of minorities in traditional public schools); 55% of them are located in large cities, such as New Orleans (where 91% of students attend charter schools) and Detroit (where 55% of students are enrolled in charter schools) (Charter Schools in Perspective n.d.). In New Orleans and Detroit, which have a majority of disadvantaged non-white minority populations (68% and 89%, respectively), local authorities experienced a deep crisis, following a natural disaster in the former and municipal bankruptcy in the latter, and therefore a dramatic decline in their ability to provide public services to citizens. As the number of charter schools increased, a national study examining the achievements of their students compared to public schools in the US found a great difference between states (CREDO 2013). The authors of the study argued that the varying quality of state supervision over the functioning of charter schools affected significantly their pedagogic outcomes. The voucher method is currently in use in some states in the US.  This method is based on the idea that the education budget is not allocated to the institutions but to the parents, who receive a voucher from the government to cover their children’s tuition, or a part of it. The voucher can be redeemed at the school of the parents’ choice (Anavi 2008). This idea was originally proposed by Milton Friedman to sever the connection that existed between the financing of education and its management. In some states, schools where vouchers can be redeemed require a license, but the requirements for obtaining a license are lighter than those imposed by the charter system, and focus (continued)

6.1 Promoting School Effectiveness

117

primarily on safety, budgetary stability, and prohibition against discrimination. A New  York City study examined the long-term effects of a voucher program. Students from low-income families were randomly given vouchers: 1358 students received a voucher for private schools and 1279 students did not receive a voucher. The study found that K-12 vouchers had no long-term effect on college registration or on obtaining a college degree (Chingos and Peterson 2015). Analysis of subgroups within the study population, however, showed a positive effect on students from minority groups and on students whose mother was not born in the US. As noted, another market mechanism intended to supplement the competition that educational choice promotes through increased responsiveness at the school level is self-management. The concept of school-based management (SBM) rests on two complementary characteristics (Arar and Abu-Romi 2016; Grinshtain and Gibton 2018): (a) increasing school autonomy regarding the ability to make decisions at the school level; and (b) expanding local responsibility and encouraging strong community involvement. Those who advocate the decentralization of authority to the school level point to several possible advantages of self-management (Nir 2012): (a) it enables schools to initiate solutions that are relevant to local needs; (b) it contributes to the organizational strength and morale of the schools; (c) it promotes accountability of teachers; and (d) it promotes school efficiency. Parandekar (2014) described the proximate mechanism of action linking self-management and better school performance. According to Parandekar, the elimination of hierarchical structure and delegation of authority to the school level creates simpler procedures that can be understood and influenced by local stakeholders in a way that promotes transparency and efficiency in the school. Some have argued that careful planning and performance monitoring create high-quality educational services, and adherence to self-management can yield measurable results in academic achievement within a decade (Parandekar 2014). Barrera-Osorio et  al. (2009) noted that self-management reforms around the world are not uniform but are affected by national education policy and social context, and by the goals of policymakers in the case of each individual reform. For example, the authors noted that although there are about 800 self-management models in the US alone, self-management reforms can be defined along two main axes: 1. The type of authoritative powers that have been decentralized (“what has been delegated”), including pedagogical authority to develop a curriculum, administrative authority for the acquisition of books, study materials, and improvement of the infrastructure, and administrative authority that focuses on fundraising and budget management, recruiting and dismissing teachers and staff, and monitoring the performance of teachers and students. 2. Who received the authority (“to whom this power has been delegated to”). Among those who may gain authority is the principal of the school (creating “administrative control SBM”), the teachers (“professional control SBM”), the

118

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

community (“community control SBM”), and the parents and teachers jointly (“balanced control SBM”). Volansky (2007) reviewed the findings of the pilot studies of SBM conducted in Israel. Initially, the pilot project in the mid-1990s included nine schools that had received some degree of autonomy to change the curriculum according to their pedagogic goals, as well as authority to manage personnel and budget. A case study, which was conducted after a year of testing and focused on 6 of these schools, found a new culture of management and independent thinking (Volansky 2007). Following the experiment, 70 schools in Jerusalem adopted self-management. A study from 2001, conducted 3 years after the change in Jerusalem, found that self-management had a positive effect on teachers’ commitment to profession and on student achievement, and a negative impact on teachers’ commitment to the school and on their social integration. The study also found that the teachers’ sense of autonomy remained unchanged, so that the autonomy granted to the schools did not fully permeate and did not change the power relations between the principal and the teachers. Eventually, the pilot was extended to hundreds of other schools. In 2004, the Ministry of Education compared students’ achievements in two groups of schools: 637 self-managed and 809 non-self-managed schools. The results showed that scores were higher in the self-managed schools, but the differences were not statistically significant. Another comparative study, in 2005, between 44 self-managed and 109 non-self-managed schools, also found no significant differences. Thus, the evidence accumulated in Israel in the 1990s and the early 2000s on the self-­management pilot indicates that the adoption of this policy had no significant effect on schools (Volansky 2007). Nevertheless, in 2011, the Israeli Ministry of Education decided to revive the SBM program and began working to transfer all primary schools in the official state education system to SBM (Nir et al. 2016). Among the administrative authorities that are planned to be transferred to managers are the following (Israeli Ministry of Education 2012): 10% flexibility in the use of hours of study, flexible management of the differential budget (the budget added to the standard school hours, and based on the students’ extracurricular investment), freedom to set goals, freedom to raise funds, and freedom and flexibility in selecting subjects for teacher training. Furthermore, principals are to receive an additional budget and additional hours for in-school internships. Dumay and Dupriez (2014) used the 2006 PISA database to compare, in different education systems, the relationship between two characteristics of a quasi-­ market in education: school autonomy and competition for enrollment. School autonomy was measured by the degree of independence perceived by the school staff on curriculum decisions, evaluation, and resource issues. Competition for students was measured by the number of schools perceived by the school staff as competitors in the immediate vicinity. The study shows that autonomy and competition are not related to achievements in different education systems. Moreover, when competition was high, and schools competed with at least two other schools, there was a strong connection between the socioeconomic and cultural composition of the

6.1 Promoting School Effectiveness

119

school and achievement. According to Dumay and Dupriez (2014), this finding indicates that competition between schools leads to selection processes and increases homogeneity within schools. Their findings raise a question about the assumption that competition produces efficiency in education, and reinforce concerns about the negative effects of competition in education. Up to this point, we have discussed the market mechanisms designed to promote competition in education. We now turn to a second type of mechanisms, which has to do with promoting effectiveness in education. These mechanisms focus on administrative accountability (Hannaway and Woodroffe 2003). Translating the idea of accountability into a policy instrument in the field of education involves the shaping of interactions between the various stakeholders in the educational process in a manner that enables the accountability of the actors, for the purpose of increasing effectiveness (Rosenblatt and Shimoni 2002). Levin (1974) defined a system with perfect accountability as “one that maximizes the utility or satisfaction of the relevant constituencies subject to resource (and possibly other) constraints. The degree of accountability, then, would be reflected in the degree to which the system obtained optimum results” (p. 375). These systems usually combine three components: academic standards, a standard measurement of student performance, and a mechanism of rewards and sanctions. The field of education has borrowed the concept of standards from the domains of safety and quality assurance in the industrial world, where it represents criteria for evaluating the quality of a process, content, or product (Karelitz 2012). According to Karelitz (2012), in the field of education, there is a focus on content standards that specify what each teacher should teach, and on performance standards that define the required skills and knowledge at a given level for each student (usually by grade). Researchers disagree on the introduction of standards in education. Those who support them argue that standards can enable effective monitoring of the performance of students and teachers, contribute to a more egalitarian education system, support learning processes, and enable effective management of teaching. Critics of the idea, however, claim that standards amount to a centralized bureaucratic tool that reduces the autonomy of schools and leads only to test-focused instruction, to learning by memorization, and to excessive pressure to achieve good grades, which result in negative phenomena (Nevo 2013; Fisher et  al. 2007). According to Fisher et al. (2007), some policymakers support the idea of introducing standards in education as a main regulatory tool in a system, in which a centralized control structure no longer exists. In their view, this supervisory tool is necessary to promote uniform goals. The introduction of standards in education systems is often combined with uniform curriculum in a variety of subjects (sometimes called a core curriculum) and national achievement tests (Berkovich 2019a). According to Weissblei (2012), the core curriculum in Israel includes the knowledge, learning skills, and values that the state wishes the graduates of the education system to possess. The core curriculum is under fierce public debate in Israeli society, which is composed of populations with a variety of religious, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. The need to determine a core curriculum was raised following a petition to the Supreme Court on the issue

120

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

of state funding for independent Jewish ultra-Orthodox education. In the early 2000s, the Court ruled that the state must create a direct link between public funding and studies of content included in the mandatory public education program. Following the ruling, in 2003, the Director General of the Ministry of Education issued a statement defining the core curriculum for elementary education, and in 2007 a statement was published defining the core curriculum for secondary education (Weissblei 2012). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Accountability Reform The US being a federation of states, its education system is designed as decentralized. States are divided into counties and townships; where towns and townships exist most local government is run by the township; the schools are run by the township, and each township serves as a school district. As a result every public school is funded jointly by the federal government, the state, and the township. The school system is largely funded by local property taxes, with states providing some revenue-sharing additions (often for legislated requirements, e.g., special education), and the federal government supporting special programs and grants. In 2001, the George W. Bush administration led a comprehensive educational reform called No Child Left Behind (NCLB), based on the idea of accountability. The reform required all states in the US to independently define standards of content and performance in the areas of mathematics and reading, and to perform annual assessments of public schools receiving federal funding. The results of the assessments are made public and affect the compensation paid to teachers and principals. Consistent failure to meet standards may lead to a dismissal of staff, reorganization of the school, or even its closing. The study on the effects of the long-term reform shows that it led to an increase in expenditure of $600 per student, paid out as teachers’ compensation (Dee et al. 2013). The researchers also found that as a result of the reform, more teachers with advanced degrees joined the teaching profession, and more time was spent in schools on teaching reading, rather than subjects that were not assessed by NCLB.  Another quantitative study found that the slight improvement in average achievement and the narrowing of achievement gaps were due mainly to the additional resources allocated rather than the adherence to standards, performance monitoring, and monitoring (Lee and Reeves 2012).

As part of the establishment of managerial responsibility in education alongside the standards and the core curriculum, a mechanism for evaluation of student performance is usually created. This evaluation assumes that there is a connection between test performance and teacher competence (Berkovich et  al. 2010). According to Berkovich and colleagues, this assessment is centrally managed and controlled for reliability and uniformity, and its results are often published to create transparency. Evaluation tests in a system of accountability often have the nature of

6.1 Promoting School Effectiveness

121

high-stakes testing because their results are linked to managerial and economic “sticks and carrots” motivating teachers and managers to improve (Ryan and Weinstein 2009). Evidence suggests that pressures associated with high-risk tests can adversely affect teaching processes, so that tests may not reflect students’ real knowledge and skills (Jennings and Bearak 2014). In evaluating achievement as a measure of teachers’ performance, teachers’ evaluations of grades are uniform and do not take account of the students’ background and class. In light of this critique, a teacher evaluation method called the value-added model (VAM) was developed, which makes it possible to statistically remove other sources of influence on students’ achievement (e.g., socioeconomic background, class composition, etc.), to assess teachers’ influence on classroom achievement (Murphy et al. 2013). Murphy and colleagues have criticized the use of teacher assessment, and argued that: (a) there is a difference in teacher contribution between subjects (e.g., math or history) and grade levels, and these differences are not taken into account in the evaluation; (b) principals who are required to evaluate teachers are not qualified to do so; and (c) it is not at all clear whether evaluating teachers in one way or another can improve teaching. Despite such criticism, the desire to increase accountability has led to the dissemination of information about the results of achievement tests, and often this information is presented in the form of “league tables” that describe the relative ranking of the school (Allen and Burgess 2011). In 2002, the Israeli Ministry of Education instituted the “Meitzav” (School Efficiency and Growth Index) tests (Berkovich 2014). In 2006, RAMA (National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in Education) was established, which was responsible for these tests. Within the framework of the Meitzav tests, grades 5 and 6 were examined each year in the subjects of language, mathematics, English, and science in the form of a blind exam. Each school administered an internal Meitzav test, for pedagogic purposes, and the following year it participated in the external examinations. The results of the external Meitzav were transferred to the Ministry of Education. Principals reported that in some cases the results of the internal Meitzav were transferred to the Ministry of Education without being aggregated at the regional level, as they were supposed to be, which made it possible for the Ministry officials to identify individual schools (Avgar et al. 2012). Findings from a study conducted in Israel show that implementation of accountability in education depends to a large extent on people in the field, who have a significant influence on the quality of the information produced and transferred, and who often believe that the policy that demands the accountability is a bureaucratic directive that reduces their professional judgment (Nir 2014). Among the negative phenomena associated with the Meitzav tests were the concentrated days (“marathons”) on the examined subjects, the exertion of psychological pressure on the students, and even violations of the integrity of the tests (Velmer 2012, 29 May; Reshef 2012, 15 October). Accountability reforms are often associated with maximum transparency, where information must be exposed widely and not only to internal actors, based on the perception that making educational outcomes public stimulates professional conduct and a desire for continuous improvement (Choshen 2014). For a decade, the Israeli Ministry of Education objected to publicizing the results of the external

122

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

Meitzav, but the Supreme Court ordered that the results be published (Berkovich 2014). The extent of Israeli public awareness of these results remains low. Among the processes aimed at increasing administrative accountability, it is possible to identify the ascent of performance-based compensation and a change in the collective employment agreements that were in effect in the system. Those who support the assimilation of business management practices in the public sector assume that the existing collective wage arrangements in the sector make it difficult to attract good employees because they prevent compensation for performance. These factors encourage the adoption of new compensation schemes in the education system, as well as of other business-management practices. Weissblei (2013b) noted that there are some difficulties in instituting performance-based compensation in education because of the lack of clarity about the long-term goals of the system, the difficulty in quantifying and measuring some of these educational goals, the difficulty in isolating and correlating teacher behaviors with student outcomes, and the non-random distribution of students and teachers between schools. Until recently, the Israeli experience regarding performance-based group and personal performance compensation programs was limited. Traditionally, salaries of the teaching staff have been determined by collective wage agreements and are based to a large extent on the teachers’ educational degrees and professional seniority (Weissblei 2013b). Despite the limited research on the effectiveness of performance-­ based teacher remuneration, and the lack of support for it (OECD 2012a), a comprehensive reform has been adopted in Israel, which includes elements of compensation for group and personal performance. The original wage agreement also included personal compensation based on teacher evaluation, but after changes in the agreement, this differential compensation was canceled (Israel Today 2014, February 6). The introduction of performance-based compensation in the Israeli education system can be considered in the context of the privatization of labor relations, which is reflected in the dismantling of strong labor unions and the commodification of labor (Gutwein 2012). For example, in recent years, the employment of teaching staff through intermediaries (“contractor teachers”) has received much attention. These teachers are employed indirectly under conditions that are less favorable than those employed directly by the schools. Although these teachers are employed by external, non-governmental organizations, the Ministry of Education funds them and has a significant influence over the manner in which they are managed (by determining the conditions of the tender and through the joint management board of the program). When market mechanisms and administrative accountability described above are common and dominant in education, the management strategy of education policy in the country is often referred to as “neoliberal governance,” in which economic rationale plays a central role in shaping education policy and action (Davies and Bansel 2007). According to Davies and Bansel, neoliberal governance is structured like the market, where education is a tradable product, and the market is run using business management methods that emphasize competition and accountability. It is commonly assumed that while the use of the concept of government concerns state institutions only, the use of the concept of governance is wider, and it concerns all

6.1 Promoting School Effectiveness

123

the institutions and relationships involved in the governmental process (Jordan et al. 2005). The neoliberal agenda calls for the adoption of a “minimal state” model (Nozick 1974), and leads to a reduction in state activities in a variety of areas that affect the scope and quality of public education services, including finance, ownership, management, and supply (Plank and Keesler 2009). Jordan et  al. (2005) argued, however, that administration exists and is dominant in this model, but its form and function differ in several important aspects from the classic bureaucratic state. Therefore, the difference is not in “what” management does, but in “how” it does it (Jordan et al. 2005). Berkovich (2014) noted that under the neoliberal agenda, countries adopt a model of post-bureaucratic governance in the field of education. In this model, the direct bureaucratic control involved in the responsibility to provide education is replaced by indirect control through regulation. Indirect control of education through regulation is usually manifest in several aspects (Berkovich 2014): (a) the state defines goals for the system; (b) the state sets standards for educational processes and performance; (c) the state formulates a national core program; (d) the state approves suppliers of education services; (e) the state controls the budget; (f) the state controls the training and licensing of personnel. Some have recognized that under neoliberal governance, the private sector, which includes business organizations and for-profit corporations, the non-­ governmental organizations and philanthropic foundations exert an important influence on government policy and its implementation. Half the flexible portion (non-wage component) of the educational budget of the Israeli government goes to educational services by non-governmental organizations (Dattel 2015, August 30). Critics see this not only as the delegation of operational authority, but to a large extent, as the privatization of the central administrative and supervisory powers of the state (Michaeli 2015). They also argue that in the current situation, the Ministry of Education has become dependent on implementing bodies, which have developed both information systems and action strategies, and therefore, it may be difficult to reverse the current state of affairs because the contractors have information and operational capabilities (Dattel 2015, August 30). The most comprehensive proposal for change in the governance of education in Israel has been the Dovrat Reform, which some critics have identified with the proposal to institutionalize and implement neoliberal governance in education (Berkovich 2019b; Dahan and Yonah 2005). The Dovrat Committee, which published its conclusions in 2005, proposed a comprehensive reform of the public education system, which contains ideas for creating an educational market and accountability. The recommendations include increasing decentralization by establishing intermediate levels (regional education administrations) to which authority will be delegated. They advocate adopting self-management as an operational model, regulated school choice at all stages of education, the recognition of private education and its distinction between public education, the adoption of goal-­oriented management and measurable results at all levels of the system, and the establishment of a national authority for assessment and evaluation. The critical school of thought holds that the transition to new governance is not “imposed” on the state by the pressures of a crisis in education or by public demand, but has to do with a change in the

124

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

interests of hegemonic groups. Some have argued that the state is not weaker, but chooses not to exercise its power in certain situations. In situations that serve the interests of hegemonic groups, however, it is possible to identify that the state is acting effectively to maintain the privileges of these groups (Yonah et al. 2008).

6.2  Promoting Teaching as a Profession The discussion of proposals for promoting professionalization in teaching addresses two main points: the change in training for teaching and the recruitment of candidates who are well suited for teaching. These points are also being raised in the global discourse on education policy, which attests to the importance of effective training for promoting effective teaching and for attracting quality people to the teaching profession, who would become key players in leading education systems (McKinsey and Company 2007). One of the most prominent scholars in the global discourse on this issue, Darling-Hammond (2013), argued that change in the teaching profession should be a national goal, and that a training infrastructure should be created to ensure that schools receive highly skilled teachers. According to Darling-­ Hammond, there is growing recognition of the importance of expert teachers for improving student learning. This recognition is due to the fact that countries perceived to be leaders in education (e.g., Singapore and Sweden) have marked teaching quality as a main national goal, and allocated funds for in-depth training in their education budget, which includes a significant practical component alongside academic courses (Darling-Hammond 2013). These training programs include mentoring by expert teachers, which help beginning teachers with their lesson planning. In these countries, the professional development of teachers is supported throughout the teaching career in a way that makes a connection between teachers’ personal professional development and concrete challenges in the school in which they work. Darling-Hammond expanded on the idea of ​​expert teachers, noting that in countries that lead in education, specialized teachers, with a high professional status, are integrated into the education system as leaders in professional areas such as curriculum planning, assessment development, training, and professional coaching. These countries also provide teachers with fair and even competitive employment conditions, to attract the best candidates for becoming teachers. Thus, Darling-Hammond’s research suggests that improving the quality of teaching is critical for educational success, and therefore countries that seek to lead in the field of education should focus on capacity building in teaching to enable all teachers to become experts and provide all children with meaningful opportunities for learning. The focus on the personalization of teaching appears to be the new wave in the historical development of teaching. Hoffman and Niederland (2010) identified a move from a pre-academic period to one of “academization” in teacher training. According to Hoffman and Niederland (2010), a key debate in teacher training concerns the clash between two concepts: (a) the so-called academic outlook, which regards teaching as an academic discipline that relies on theoretical knowledge, and

6.2 Promoting Teaching as a Profession

125

discounts the importance of forming a value-based identity and pedagogical experience in the field; and (b) the pedagogical-humanistic outlook, which considers teaching to be a key profession in a broad sense, and postulates a need for training based on a comprehensive general education and extensive practical pedagogic experience. Frost (2013) offered a third outlook, which crosses the divide between academia and practice, and is manifest in the idea of “teacher-led development work.” The key principle behind it is to view teaching as a quest for professional challenges. As teachers face difficulties in the field, they read background writings about them, and collect and analyze relevant data (Frost 2013). Teacher-led development work is said to produce personal expert knowledge and skills, and to have the capacity to influence wider circles by transferring knowledge through networking and publications, as teachers collaborate with peers, drive organizational learning, and cooperate with professionals from other schools (Frost 2013). Currently, approximately 6200 teachers are trained in Israel, most of them in 25 academic colleges, and 16% in eight universities (Weissblei 2013c). Dissatisfaction with the education system in Israel has led to a focused examination of teacher training. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, several committees have dealt with the issue of reforming teacher training (Dror 2008). As a result, in 2006, the Council for Higher Education (CHE) adopted a new plan of teacher training. The document, by which the CHE launched a new training curriculum for teaching, describes the CHE vision concerning future teachers: Professional teachers work based on disciplinary and pedagogical-didactic knowledge, in a systematic and evidence-based way. […] They employ considerations based on an understanding of the students’ learning processes, curriculum, and needs. They have the experience and skills required in a state-of-the-art learning environment, and know how to use a variety of teaching and learning methods intelligently. The social-ethical and the creative aspect of teaching are important dimensions in this professional outlook (CHE 2006).

Lidor et al. (2015) examined the implementation of the new teacher training curriculum in colleges by interviewing officials, and by analyzing the contents of the curriculum and comparing them with the required curriculum. The researchers found that most of the teaching colleges had maximized the number of hours of teaching and tended to allocate a relatively small number of hours for studying research methods. These findings indicate that the colleges resisted the reform and  sought to maintain their functional characteristics: pedagogical studies and practical experience. In Israel, the teacher training process does not automatically grant a teaching certificate, but requires successful completion of a practical internship, similarly to Canada and the UK. In some countries, such as France, there is a requirement to pass government licensing examinations to obtain a teaching license. In other countries, for example, in Finland, there is no need for a teaching license, and completion of academic studies in education is sufficient for becoming a teacher (Weissblei 2013c). In recent years, in Israel, the education system has adopted two reforms: “New Horizon,” in primary education, and “Courage to Change,” in secondary education. The two reforms redefine the employment structure of teachers through job

126

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

requirements and professional development requirements that have not existed before. The reforms extended the teachers’ workweek, specified the number of frontal teaching hours in the classroom, and added to the teachers’ workload hours for meetings, preparation of materials, meetings with parents, and reviewing work and tests, as well as individual teaching hours, for working with small groups and individuals. The reforms also require teachers to expand their knowledge only in subjects related to their instruction and in areas related to the roles they perform in the school system, which are determined with the approval of the school principal (Avidov-Ungar et al. 2013). Following the reforms, the professional advancement and development of Israeli teachers includes two stages: (a) for new teachers, studies in their professional field of knowledge (years 1–13 on the job); and (b) master’s or specialist’s degrees, in the course of which the teachers reflect on teaching and specialize in initiating and implementing educational programs, research, and mentoring (years 14–23 in the job). According to RAMA (2012), which investigated the implementation of the New Horizon reform, following the reform, more teachers participated in professional development (88% in 2009, compared to 74% in 2008). According to the report, 50% of teachers expressed a desire for professional development concerning individual instruction of students, diagnosing and coping with emotional difficulties, differential support of students, and similar topics. Fenwick (2003), who studied changes in training processes in Canada, offered a critical view of current efforts to promote teaching professionalization. The researcher identified an institutionalized effort to build the identity of the “good” teacher by training, therefore occupational training processes are not merely a technical procedure. According to Fenwick (2003), this identity, which focuses on continual self-development and control, must be understood as part of the institutionalization of individual self-discipline, and is related to concern about an individual’s existential and economic situation in an individualistic society. Fenwick argued that the internalization of this anxiety by teachers makes them focus on their routine and survival, and ignore the socioeconomic goals and interests that dominate education. In contrast to the approach that seeks to strengthen the teaching profession by adapting it to the characteristics of the classic professions (e.g., medicine, law) and by making the information more “scientific” and its training more standardized, another movement argues that strengthening the profession lies not necessarily in technical training processes but in rigorous selection and practical knowledge. This approach combines contradictory aspects: on one hand, it sees the characteristics of good teachers as innate traits, and therefore underestimates the importance of longterm training (Scott and Dinham 2008). On the other hand, it emphasizes practical wisdom in teaching and perceives the profession as a craft (Leinhardt 1990). This approach is also reflected in Israel, and in its wake, despite the uniform training model adopted, there is an increase in the rate of unique training programs in the system. Alternative routes to a career in education in Israel are frequently discussed, especially when there is a shortage of teachers (Weissblei 2014). But at present,

6.2 Promoting Teaching as a Profession

127

these alternatives are seen as a way of increasing the number of candidates from populations that usually do not turn to teaching, and thereby raise the quality of candidates with respect to their maturity, experience, and specialized knowledge. A survey found that about 20% of the intern teachers in Israel have obtained their qualification by completing alternative training courses (Berkovich and Shalev-­ Vigiser 2010). In this section, we will elaborate on two outstanding initiatives for alternative education training by the Israeli Ministry of Education, which were inspired by other programs around the world, on special programs for academics in the fields of mathematics and English, and on the “Teach First Israel” (TFI) program. Special retraining programs for academics are intended for areas where there is a shortage of teachers (English, mathematics, science, and technology). The training periods are usually short, therefore the programs are “accelerated.” These plans, established in 2008, were perceived as having the potential to inject “new blood” into the system (Dattel 2013, September 3). According to Weissblei (2014), the rate of graduation from these programs was about 70%, and about 80% of graduates have taught for 3 or more years (meaning that only about 56% of the academicians starting in each class developed a career in teaching). Boyd et al. (2011) investigated the effectiveness of teachers after retraining programs in New York City. The researchers found that these teachers were not more effective than other new teachers, and that in mathematics they were less effective. TFI, the alternative Israeli program for teacher training, is somewhat similar to the “Teach for America” (TFA) program. TFA recruits college graduates, trains them for teaching, and places them in schools with disadvantaged populations. Participants are required to teach at least 2 years in the school to which they are assigned. According to the organization, quality teaching personnel affects both students and the education system in the short and long terms. Some graduates of the program remain in the education system; others develop a commitment to work for quality and equal education. In an online survey of 2029 people, Donaldson (2012) investigated the characteristics of teachers in the TFA program who came to teaching in mid-career. The survey found that 61.3% of TFA graduates abandoned the teaching profession after 3 years, similar to the rate of general abandonment of the teaching profession in the US, but because TFA graduates were placed in more challenging schools, the researcher considered the program to be a success. Donaldson also found that TFA graduates were more likely to move to specialization or management within the school. A longitudinal study of the effects of the TFA program over time found that teachers who graduated from it had a more positive effect on students’ achievement in schools serving populations from a lower socioeconomic background than did teachers who were not graduates of the program. This effect was particularly marked in scientific subjects (Xu et al. 2011). The equivalent program in Israel was established in Israel in 2011 (Weissblei 2014) to train high-­ quality teachers and leaders for working in the periphery of the country.

128

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

6.3  Promoting Equality in Education The discourse on policy solutions aimed at reducing inequality in education has gained momentum in recent years. International organizations have begun to focus on the connection between access to quality education for all students and economic and social benefits at the national level. The OECD (2012b), for example, has argued that investment in education, especially in the education of disadvantaged students, is a central national economic growth strategy. Ainscow et al. (2013) noted that the solutions to address inequality in education through government policy deal with two main points: 1. Issues between schools: these issues are related to the management of the education system. Among others, they concern the distribution of investment and educational opportunities between educational institutions, the manner in which different types of schools are created, the way in which they acquire status, the hierarchy of schools with respect to demand and performance, the processes of integration and allocation of students to schools, the extent to which each institution can take advantage of opportunities, and the mechanisms that create competitive or inter-school relationships. 2. Issues beyond schools: these issues concern the broad social context in which schools operate. They include processes and resources at the family level that support the learning and development of children, the perceptions of school professionals and the demographic, economic, cultural, and historical characteristics of the areas being served by the schools. Some have argued that the response to issues between schools concerning the promotion of equality suggests two intertwined strategies aimed at ensuring quality education for all students (OECD 2012b): (a) change of system-level practices that affect equality, and (b) focus on the cultivation of low-performing schools serving disadvantaged populations. The OECD recognized that some of the popular practices in the management of educational systems promote inequality and contribute significantly to the failure and dropping out of weak students (OECD 2012b). Therefore, it proposed that policymakers interested in promoting equality adopt equality-related practices that address a range of issues, including: (a) differential budgeting of education; (b) strengthening of early childhood education; (c) prevention and reduction of the separation of students; and (d) active and regulated management of the education market. The first practice that must be changed to foster equality is budgeting. The importance of budgeting as a central input, which plays a decisive role in the ability of the system to promote equality, is a common thread in most research in the field. Researchers have noted, however, that the additional budget in itself does not have a clear effect on scholastic achievement, and have argued that attention must be paid to differential budgeting, which is needed to balance social trends (Klinov 2010). The literature emphasizes the importance of designing a formula for differential

6.3 Promoting Equality in Education

129

budgeting that responds to the needs of students and schools, especially in relation to children from low socioeconomic backgrounds (OECD 2012b). Klinov (2010) discussed the need for an appropriate budgeting ratio between a student who experiences difficulty for socioeconomic reasons and for a “regular” student to ensure that the system can effectively bring the students to a similar level of achievement. According to Klinov, the minimum effective ratio is 25% addition in favor the disadvantaged student, and the optimal ratio is 50% addition. Kraus and Blass (2014) identified improvement in the effectiveness of the budgeting formula for education in Israel in reducing inequality with the inclusion, in 2008, of differential components that take into account the students’ needs.

Technical Solutions to Inequality in Education The importance of budgeting for equality is illustrated by the experiences of policymakers who tried to promote equality by implementing technical changes that lowered the bar of requirements, without producing significant results in closing gaps. Changes in the requirements of matriculation exams, initiated by Israeli politicians to help raise eligibility rates for college (Blass 2014) are one example. In 1995, the Ministry of Education began a computerized lottery that would select three mandatory subjects (e.g., biology or history) in which students would not need to sit for matriculation exams. In 1998, the Ministry of Education moved to the “focus method,” in which the students were tested in all subjects, but the examination material for each subject was limited (News 2 2014, January 9). In 2001, the Ministry of Education began to introduce a new method of targeting English and mathematics (YNET 2001, June 27). Research by Zussman and Tsur (2008) illustrates the problematic nature of a technical solution to problems of equality. These researchers examined the socioeconomic connection between students and achievement during the period 1993–2005, and found that although the percentage of students entitled to a matriculation certificate increased significantly in the periphery of the country, by about 20%, whereas in the metropolitan Tel Aviv area only by about 12%, the proportion of students meeting university entrance requirements improved only in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, from 87% to about 90%, whereas in the periphery it remained unchanged, at 78%. These data show that technical changes in exam requirements resulted only in an increase in those who received a matriculation certificate, but did not assist them in obtaining a “quality” certificate. The second practice that needs to be changed to promote equality concerns early childhood education, which plays an important role in preparing students for school and in student achievement, especially among the disenfranchised. The OECD reports that children who participated in preschool education for 1  year or more achieved, on average, a 30-point higher score on reading tests conducted at the age

130

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

of 15 than did those who did not attend early childhood education (OECD 2012c). In all the OECD countries, the gap in reading achievement between youths who did and did not participate in preschool education was largest in Israel, and stood at 90 points. Inequality in the resources allocated to ethnic sectors creates gaps in early childhood that expand over the years. For example, in the Arab sector, the number of preschool frameworks is extremely small, and in elementary and middle schools the achievements of Arab students in the national Meitzav tests are lower than those of their counterparts in the Jewish sector (15–30 points) (Weissblei 2006). Maagan (2014) conducted one of the most comprehensive studies conducted in Israel on the way in which the gaps in scholastic achievement persist and expand. The study analyzed the achievement gaps between groups of students in grade 8 over a period of 10 years, and the consequences for students who were ranked in the top quartile and bottom quartiles. The researcher found that academic gaps between the high and low groups expand significantly over time, beginning in the 8th grade, through matriculation, and affecting the rate of students entering higher education. The gap between the high and low groups in the number of students entering higher education was between three to eight times in favor of the high group (varying by state education system type). Since 2011, Israel has taken a significant step towards advancing early childhood education by enacting a free compulsory education law for 3–4-year-olds. According to Skop (2015, 8 February), 90% of children aged 3–4 years were enrolled in preschool frameworks (public or private with an operating license) and received free education. But a staff-to-children ratio of 2:35 has somewhat dampened the support for the reform and elicited criticism. The third practice that must be changed to promote equality has to do with separation in the education system. One type of separation between students that education policy can reduce is based on academic background and concerns the differentiation of the curriculum in primary education and the assignment of students to tracks in post-primary education. The OECD (2012b) recommended avoiding differentiation in the curriculum, such as study groupings, reducing the areas where they exist, creating opportunities for transition between groupings, and providing significant support for struggling students. In case of failure in a particular subject, the OECD suggested requiring students to repeat the study of the subject and providing them with increased support, to avoid the requirement to repeat an entire year of study. The OECD also recommended avoiding early tracking in primary and middle school, and postponing the assignment of students to tracks as much as possible in secondary school. Opinions differ regarding vocational education and its contribution to equality. Some believe that vocational education helps cement social classes in the next generation because weaker populations are pushed into it. Others have argued that it develops the technical skills of individuals whose theoretical abilities are low, and improves their chances of becoming more easily integrated into the labor market (Shochen et al. 2008). Shavit (2013) argued that as long as the education system serves as an accepted mechanism for placement of young people in the labor market, assigning students to academic and vocational tracks is essential, and it must be

6.3 Promoting Equality in Education

131

done according to their qualifications and achievements. Shavit considered vocational education mainly as a safety net rather than a mechanism for exclusion. OECD (2012b) adopted a similar approach. On the one hand, it proposed improving secondary education to reduce the dropout rate, and on the other, suggested allowing the transition from academic to vocational education, and creating incentives for students to remain in vocational education until they complete their studies. The Educational System in Poland Poland is an example of a country that has made a dramatic change in its centralized education system. For many decades, under Communist rule, the education system was used to plan for the future workforce of the country, and most teenage students were assigned to vocational or technological courses that dictated their future careers (Jakubowski et al. 2010). As a result, in the 1980s only 20% of youths attended general studies, and only 10% continued to study in higher education institutions (Reshef 2013, March 29). In 1999, Poland undertook a comprehensive reform of its education system, which included the following steps (Jakubowski et al. 2010): (a) transitioning from a two-stage structure (primary education in grades 1–8 and elementary education afterwards) to a three-stage structure (grades 1–6, 7–9, and 10–12); (b) postponing assignment to vocational or academic tracks from the eighth grade to the ninth grade; (c) curriculum reform that included the development of a core curriculum; and (d) introduction of national examinations at the end of primary education and at the end of the middle school. An additional reform concerning teacher pay was introduced in 2007. In the past, teachers’ salary was calculated based on seniority and the number of teaching hours. Following the reform, a series of additional variables were introduced, including the tasks teachers must perform, the results they achieve, and school achievements (Reshef 2013, March 29). Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, Poland has shown consistent improvement in achievements in international examinations (Mahfooz and Hovde 2010). This can be explained by improved quality of teaching, training, school autonomy, and encouragement of dialogue in teaching (Reshef 2013, March 29). Another possible reason is postponing the critical tracking tests, which improved students motivation and sense of ability to influence their future careers (Jakubowski et al. 2010).

Research findings show that it is apparently not possible to hold the stick at both ends and to maintain a system of quality professional training that is also egalitarian (Bol and Van de Werfhorst 2013). A quantitative comparative study has found that in countries where there is wide-scale vocational education, there is also better allocation of educational personnel in the labor market (i.e., low unemployment, short-­ duration job search, high professional status). Researchers also noted, however, that in these countries there is inequality of opportunities in the education system (large

132

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

differences in achievement and in years of study between socioeconomic classes). In their view, vocational education fulfills a dual social function: on one hand, it enables preparation for the labor market, and on the other, it serves to create a social hierarchy across the education system. In a combined study conducted in Israel, in which Gad et al. (2014) examined the perceptions of national and local policymakers, experts, teachers, and students about vocational education, a similar duality emerged. On one hand, the researchers found that vocational education was perceived as a mechanism for the social exclusion from academic studies of students of low socioeconomic backgrounds, some of them with learning disabilities; on the other hand, the researchers argued that vocational education is perceived as helping students acquire practical skills and creating accepting learning environments that contribute to the students’ wellbeing. Therefore, the challenge in promoting equality and professional education lies in significantly increasing support for students with academic difficulties before assigning them to vocational education, and in reducing the linkage between the assignment to academic and vocational tracks and students’ socioeconomic background. Another type of separation that education policy can reduce exists between students with special needs, who are referred to special education programs, and the rest of the students. In the past, the accepted professional approach supported the referral of children with special needs to special education frameworks. In recent decades, however, inclusive education has become popular, and these children derive greater benefit from learning in regular schools with special support (Peters 2004). At the policy level, it is necessary to promote schools that can accommodate a variety of learners, by training staff in appropriate teaching methods, developing appropriate textbooks, adapting the physical infrastructure of schools, and budgeting for support services (Peters 2004). In Israel, in 2012, there were approximately 160,000 students with special needs, of whom about 54% were integrated into the regular education system (The State Comptroller of Israel 2013). At the same time, limited and fewer resources were allocated to the integration of students with special needs in regular schools than to children with similar needs in special schools. The fourth practice that needs to be changed to promote equality concerns the way in which the market aspects of the education system are managed. Education policies with market aspects can influence the distribution of students to schools and classrooms, the resources available to different schools, and the system climate. These factors can contribute to increasing inequality to a large extent. Regarding the distribution of students to schools, the OECD (2012b) recommended the introduction of a regulated school choice program that weighs parents’ wishes against criteria for diversity in student composition, supervising the selection mechanisms of schools, and creating economic incentives (such as vouchers) that make students from disadvantaged populations attractive to schools. A greater challenge, however, is the need to ensure that the assignment of students to classrooms within schools is not carried out in a way that creates inequality. Studies conducted in middle schools in Israel show that under circumstances of forced enrollment, where centralized supervision creates diversity in the school population (such as integration policies), the schools make use of accepted arrangements of learning separation, either by

6.3 Promoting Equality in Education

133

groupings according to ability levels or by separation of slow classes. This applies to students not only with respect to academic abilities, but also to socioeconomic composition and ethnicity, creating “segregation within integration” (Resh and Dar 1996). New research findings indicate that regulated school choice arrangements in the primary education system, which create a diverse composition of students that does not mirror that of the residential area, also influence separation within schools. Blass et al. (2014) found that in elementary schools that serve neighborhood student populations as a result of registration zones, which is the vast majority of elementary schools in Israel, the separation of students into classes based on sociodemographic characteristics is negligible. Fogel (2011), who examined elementary schools in Tel Aviv, where regulated school choice is maintained, found that the level of economic separation between the classes is significantly higher than the level between elementary schools. In other words, the researcher found that, in socioeconomic terms, the distribution of students between schools was more egalitarian than their distribution between classrooms. This difference suggests that coping with increasing competition, and a regulated school choice arrangement that “forces” a certain composition of students, encourage principals in primary education to maintain socioeconomic separation between students within schools. Therefore, an education policy that aspires to promote equality must also establish regulations that reduce this phenomenon and supervise its implementation, and must create incentives that make diverse classrooms attractive. Another issue concerns the constraints of a market-based education policy that is likely to increase inequality as it engages in independent fundraising, as part of the self-management of schools. Various estimates show how the independent fundraising of schools (for example, by renting out the building or raising funds), which was accelerated by the self-management reform, increases inequality in the system. Kashti (2013, November 8) showed that the income that public schools in Tel Aviv derive from renting out their buildings is distributed differently between schools located in affluent neighborhoods and those located in disadvantaged ones. Schools located in the rich neighborhoods collected 17 times more funds than those located in the poor neighborhoods. A similar ratio by region was also found in the incomes of secondary schools. Various solutions have been proposed to reduce the inequality between schools in resource mobilization, including the establishment of a national fund that accumulates the various incomes and allocates them in an egalitarian way. Another solution is creating “sister cities” (or sister schools) with different socioeconomic levels (high and low) and dividing the resources between the two (Kashti 2013, November 8). Another issue concerning a market-based policy that may increase inequality is the system climate created in this reality. Since the 1980s, market changes in public education, such as parental choice, decentralization, and school autonomy, combined with the introduction of accountability measures, such as a national curriculum, evaluations, and inspection, have created paradoxical effects on schooling, both loosening and tightening state control (Woods 2007). In the UK, one manifestation of this policy environment has been the promotion of competition between schools, as well as the promotion of partnerships and collaboration (Woods 2007).

134

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

In this reality, the pressures of competition dominated the professional and public agenda, and collaboration was viewed as secondary. As a result, socioeconomic gaps expanded, and sharper local hierarchies were formed between schools (Woods 2007). Competition pressures lead to a narrowing of the view of what are deserving and meaningful educational outcomes, and to a restriction of the perceived pool of possible partners (Woods 2007). In this context, Ainscow et al. (2013) argued that encouraging competition between schools rather than encouraging the advancement of all children hinders the achievement of the goal of promoting equality. According to the authors, the key to promoting equality lies in the adoption of an education policy that creates cooperation between schools with different expertise, and the transfer of responsibility from an individual school to a group of cooperating schools. Regarding issues related to the structure of educational governance, Gamoran and Long (2007) suggested that to be effective from the point of view of equality of results, education policy must be designed in a way that produces greater benefits for students from disadvantaged populations. An especially important aspect of the five tactics discussed and their goal of promoting equality in education is their consistent and continuous application, given that the socioeconomic phenomena underlying the unequal reality of education are rooted and fixed. For example, Gamoran and Long (2007) reviewed the issue of the separation of white and black students in US schools, and the changes that have taken place since it was placed on the public agenda, in the 1960s. Despite decades of steady progress in the indices of racial integration, researchers have identified a regression in some of these measures to levels similar to those that existed in the late 1960s. The researchers identified two negative turning points that led to a regression and an increase in racial segregation: (a) the early 1990s, when Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. advocated a neoliberal education policy, and (b) the early 2000s, when Republican President Bush Jr. enacted of the NCLB reform. Following these turning points, segregation returned to levels seen in the 1960s as far as the proportion of black students attending schools that are composed mainly of minorities is concerned. Thus, in practice, most black students attend schools with 50% or more minority populations, and a third of black students study in racial isolation. It appears, therefore, that the results of a policy promoting equality are largely reversible because in many ways this policy is trying to promote changes “upstream” while facing constantly “down streaming” social trends. After discussing a strategy that focuses on changing system-level practices that reduce equality, we now turn to the second proposed strategy for promoting equality, which focuses on helping low-performing schools (OECD 2012b). Gamoran and Long (2007) explained that if policy has the same effect on all students (teacher training, individual instruction, etc.), it should be directed primarily at schools serving disadvantaged students, to promote equality. Several recommendations for improving these schools are mentioned in the literature (OECD 2012b): (a) creating training and mentoring frameworks to support and help principals succeed in their jobs, and adopting rigorous selection processes, alongside improved working conditions and economic incentives to attract potential candidates to these management positions; (b) promoting a school climate that supports learning, by encouraging

6.3 Promoting Equality in Education

135

positive relationships between teachers and students, using information systems to diagnose students’ learning difficulties, deploying educational and psychological counseling services for students, offering personal tutoring that supports students, and allowing for smaller classrooms; (c) connecting schools with parents and communities by increasing the participation of less-involved parents, identifying community leaders who support them, and integrating them into student mentoring; (d) ensuring effective classroom learning by using diagnostic, formative and summative evaluation methods to track student progress while promoting a high-­expectation school culture; (e) raising the quality of teachers through targeted teacher training, training for novice teachers, creating supportive working conditions, and developing financial incentives to attract and retain quality teachers. In Israel, for example, incentives are given to teachers working in schools in national priority areas (one of the main criteria for determining these areas is related to socioeconomic variables).

The Education System in China China is a country with a centralized, single-party regime. The education system experienced several upheavals during the twentieth century. During the Cultural Revolution (which included a political campaign to strengthen the weakening Communist foundations in China) schools were converted into educational frameworks run by workers, peasants, and soldiers, and the curriculum reflected the ideas of these classes (Cheng 2010). In 1986, about a decade after Mao’s death, the Compulsory Education Law was passed, mandating 9 years of elementary and secondary education. From the early 1990s onward, China has been focusing on quantitative expansion of enrollment and increasing percentages of continued study (Cheng 2010). Chinese culture recognizes academic excellence and emphasizes values of utilitarianism and technocracy (emphasis on the superiority of those with knowledge and skills) (Tan 2011). As a result, schools teach long hours every day, and cultural pressure leads to a situation in which 80% of students in the country use private teachers to pass exams (Maor 2013, September 2). Shanghai, the largest city in China (and worldwide), leads the educational revolution in China, and it was among the first cities to provide basic and universal education that encompasses 12 years of study (Cheng 2010). In the first decade of the twenty-first century, Shanghai has shown great success in international achievement tests (Tan 2011). These results are related to reforms in two areas: the curriculum and the allocation of resources. Reforms in the Shanghai curriculum were gradual. In 1988, students were given the ability to choose their own courses, and in 1998 the curriculum underwent a broader reform that included integration of subjects in the natural sciences along with the humanities, granted curricular autonomy to schools alongside the national curriculum, and emphasized active investigation and self-learning (Cheng 2010). The reform of resource allocation in Shanghai is related to a shift from a “key school” policy, focused on resource concentration in the best schools, to a policy of (continued)

136

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

investing in the weakest schools (Maor 2013, September 2). Every school in a weak area was attached to a strong school that provides support (Maor 2013, September 2). This reform, which emphasizes equality, is a practical expression of the Shanghai vision, which is captured in the slogan: “First-class city, first-class education” (Cheng 2010). As a result of this allocation policy, 80% of Shanghai graduates continue to study in institutions of higher education, compared to an average of 24% in the rest of China (Maor 2013, September 2). Note, however, that Shanghai is an economic center, and because of the Chinese government system, Shanghai municipal government has very broad administrative authorities, granting it control over which teachers work in the city by allocating residence licenses. In this way, the city attracts and selects the most capable teachers.

Alongside these measures on school issues, some have argued that effective promotion of equality in education must be part of a more comprehensive national policy of development of a fair society (Ainscow et al. 2013). Today, there is growing recognition that the ability of education policy alone to promote equality is limited. To be effective in promoting equality, education policy must be part of an overall social policy (in the areas of employment, housing, welfare, etc.) that strengthens weaker populations (OECD 2012b). One example of a regional program that adopted this logic is the Harlem Children’s Zone program, which has been operating since the mid-1990s in New York City. This program, managed by a non-governmental organization, adopts entire residential buildings for low-income families and provides them with economic and employment counseling, housing support, community and social services, and health and education services (Shamir 2009, July 23). Dobbie and Fryer (2009), who studied the program, reported that investment in schools, combined with community investment, resulted in a significant increase in students’ academic achievement.

6.4  Promoting Collaboration in Education Today schools and educators are coping with conflicting pressures. On one hand, we see more policies derived from economic rationality that commodify education and promote an educational market through competition; on the other, we find educational reforms inspired by democratic and humanistic values, and collaborative logic (Woods and Roberts 2019). The former reflects a philosophy of dependence in managing education systems and organizations with top-down approach, in which aims are marked by those at the top of the formal hierarchy, and rules and authority are stressed; the latter echoes a philosophy of co-development, in which flexible

6.4 Promoting Collaboration in Education

137

shared aims can be researched in exploration efforts of actors at all levels of the formal hierarchy (Woods and Roberts 2019). The literature describes several key paths for leveraging collaboration to promote the quality and effectiveness of public education. First, scholars have noted the pertinence of promoting collaboration between schools. For example, Hargreaves (2014) discussed the idea a “self-improving school system.” In this paradigm, partnerships are formed between schools (i.e., school clusters), particularly those combining high- and low-performing schools. According to Hargreaves, a self-improving school system focuses on three dimensions: (a) joined professional development and shared knowledge, (b) partnership competence through governance changes supporting collaboration, promotion of trust and reciprocity, and a shared moral purpose, and (c) collaborative capital that allows creativity, innovation implementation, and its analysis. Ainscow (2012) discussed enhancing collaboration between schools by creating “families” of schools. He argued that schools need to be clustered on the basis of past student achievements and the socioeconomic background of the students. Families are often composed of stronger and weaker schools working in highly disadvantaged surroundings (Ainscow 2012). Good school clustering combines similarities in the backgrounds of the schools and differences in their coping and outcomes. The success of families of schools is contingent on a shared obligation to improve all students’ learning, on use of data for school improvement, recognition of relevant expertise of the staff, and principals committed to a collaborative agenda (Ainscow 2012). According to Ainscow, the success of partnerships between schools requires broad commitment on the part of school leaders. The principals who adopt the goal of leading improvement in other schools are at times referred to as “system leaders” (Hopkins and Higham 2007). One development of the idea of “families” of schools is that of “hub” schools, that is, specialist schools with unique expertise that share practice knowledge with other schools in the area (Ainscow 2012). In the UK, clusters of two or more schools with one governing body are called “federations.” They are seen as a complementary part of freeing schools from centralization and transferring responsibility for improvement to schools (Chapman and Muijs 2013). The term federation is used to describe a range of cooperative relationships between schools. It can take two forms (Woods et al. 2020): (a) hard federations, which are formalized by legal arrangements regarding joint leadership and governance structures; and (b) soft federations, which share resources, services, and processes, such as professional development efforts. The formation of a successful federation is said to be associated with gradual development of trust between the schools alongside formal commitments (Chapman and Muijs 2013). Among the documented steps that hard federations take to improve school performance are using federation employment contracts, training and development of staff, sharing knowledge across schools, hiring first-class staff, and renovating school facilities (Chapman and Muijs 2013). The second key path described in the literature as leveraging collaboration to promote the quality of public education is collaboration between professionals, in particular, collaborative teacher learning. Performative and financial objectives are

138

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

affected by the pressures of the competitive educational market, which have become dominant in recent decades, and individual entrepreneurs are often presented as key actors in such an environment (Woods and Roberts 2018). But as some suggested, innovation is never the product of individual efforts but of that of organizations, in which collaboration between many individuals forms an innovative culture (Woods and Roberts 2018). The importance of collaborative teacher learning stands out in this respect. Collaborative teacher learning aims to promote teachers’ responsibility for working collectively, producing shared knowledge and developing their skills and knowledge together (Szegedi 2018). Collaborative teacher learning is powered by shared professional values and a pledge to the co-construction of practice-related concepts and solutions (Szegedi 2018). This type of learning acknowledges that individuals cannot “know all that there is to know about their profession and its practice” (Szegedi 2018, p. 17). Collaborative teacher enquiry was shown to cultivate professional development and the production of new knowledge, which is instrumental to successful school learning (Woods and Roberts 2018). Research suggests that collaborative and deep learning dynamic in schools is often supported by formal authority, hierarchy, and control used to encourage teachers’ reflection, and allow experimentation and errors (Jäppinen et al. 2016). Yet another type of collaboration in knowledge production is between researchers and educators (Ainscow et al. 2016). This process called “collaborative inquiry” is often not without difficulties as participants experience ambiguity about their professional role, tensions with peers, and doubts about their partners’ conduct (Ainscow et al. 2016). The literature identifies five barriers for collaborative inquiry: (a) centralized guidelines that limit school autonomy, (b) institutionalized forms of knowledge transfer provision (e.g., workshops) that are facilitated by external consultants, (c) accountability pressures, (d) opposing policies that undercut collaborative inquiry, and (e) low coordination between schools in the local area due to the weakening role of local authorities in education. The third key path involves educators collaborating with stakeholders and the community. This can include collaborative school leadership that involves teachers and students in school management, which has been found to affect learning (Woods and Roberts 2018). Collaborative practices infused with a democratic spirit are said to amplify involvement and learning (Woods and Roberts 2018). Woods and Roberts (2018) outlined five elements that support collaborative leadership: (a) a priori planning of roles and expectations of all those involved in the collective endeavor; (b) promoting strong organizational culture with widely shared objectives and values; (c) clarity and focus on the core mission of the organization; (d) developing teachers’ and students’ capabilities to serve and act as leaders; and (e) cultivating internal accountability norms to avoid situations where no one takes responsibility personally. Woods and Roberts’s (2018) work stresses the rational aspect of collaborative leadership; other works have emphasized its socioemotional components, such as principals’ interpersonal abilities and development of affective trust (Da’as 2020).

6.5 Summary of the Chapter

139

Scholars have argued that for effective utilization of knowledge transfer to promote the education system, there is a need to enhance the involvement of community actors, including businesses, universities and colleges, religious groups, non-government organizations, and the media (Ainscow 2012). Collaborative networks make possible exchanges of information and resources, and support the development of the teamwork needed to promote innovations in schools (Woods and Roberts 2018). One such example can be found in Lieberman et al.’s (2016) description of the partnership between the Ministry of Education in Ontario Province, in Canada, and the local Teacher Federation with the aim of promoting teacher leadership. With ministry funds, over 4000 experienced teachers participated in the program, resulting in many teacher-led projects focused on teachers’ professional learning, developing teacher leadership, and sharing the knowledge of successful practices with peers.

6.5  Summary of the Chapter This chapter describes the solutions that arise frequently in relation to the contemporary problems in education policy. First, the chapter presented a set of solutions for the promotion of effectiveness in education, including decentralization, marketization (with emphasis on increasing choice by promoting parents’ choice, autonomous schools, and increasing responsiveness by promoting self-management of schools), and managerial accountability (establishing standards and a core curriculum, introducing evaluation mechanisms, and a mechanism of rewards and sanctions). It also discussed the array of solutions aimed at changing labor relations, the rise of neoliberal governance, and the infiltration of business interests into education. Second, the chapter dealt with solutions related to the promotion of teaching as a profession, including the academization of traditional training and the construction of professional development tracks. Alongside these initiatives, the chapter presented unique models for teacher training designed to attract “quality” candidates to the profession. Third, the chapter reviewed accepted proposals aimed at addressing the issue of education inequality, in particular, systemic strategies (differential budgeting, early childhood education, limited tracking, and limited market governance), and targeted strategies in low-performing schools (training and mentoring of staff, promoting a positive climate, connecting the community to the school, implementing diagnostics and monitoring of achievements, and raising the quality of teachers). Fourth, the chapter discussed collaborative paths suggested to promote public education, among them institutionalizing collaboration between school clusters, encouraging collaboration between professionals, particularly by collaborative teacher learning and collaboration between researchers and educators, and promoting collaboration with key stakeholders (e.g., parents, students) and the community.

140

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

References Ainscow, M. (2012). Moving knowledge around: Strategies for fostering equity within educational systems. Journal of Educational Change, 13(3), 289–310. Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2013). Developing equitable education systems. London: Routledge. Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2016). Using collaborative inquiry to foster equity within school systems: Opportunities and barriers. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(1), 7–23. Allen, R., & Burgess, S. (2011). Can school league tables help parents choose schools? Fiscal Studies, 32(2), 245–261. Almog-Barkat, G., & Inbar, D. (2010). Whose child are you? Opening school districts in Jerusalem. In O. Ichilov (Ed.), Privatization and commercialization in public education in (pp. 144–111). Tel Aviv: Ramot. [in Hebrew]. Anavi, S. (2008). Funding educational institutions using vouchers as a means of improving education in Israel. Jerusalem: Koret-Milken Institute Fellows Program. [in Hebrew]. Arar, K., & Abu-Romi, A. (2016). School-based management: Arab education system in Israel. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(2), 191–208. Avgar, I., Berkovich, I., & Shalev-Vigiser, Y. (2012). Building trust in the education system: Perceptions of teachers and principals. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. [in Hebrew]. Avidov-Ungar, O., Rosener, M., & Rosenberg, I. (2013). The professional development of teaching staff in light of "Ofek Hadash" and "Oz LaTmura" reforms - from policy to implementation. In S. Shimoni & O. Avidov-Ungar (Eds.), On the continuum: Training, induction, and teachers’ professional development – Policy, theory, and practice (pp. 226–197). Tel Aviv: The Mofet Institute. [in Hebrew]. Barrera-Osorio, F., Fasih, T., Patrinos, H. A., & Santibánez, L. (2009). Decentralized decision-­ making in schools: The theory and evidence on school-based management. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Berkovich, I. (2012). A revised regularization of the relations between the local authorities and the Ministry of Education. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. [in Hebrew]. Berkovich, I. (2014). Neo-liberal governance and the ‘new professionalism’ of Israeli principals. Comparative Education Review, 58(3), 428–456. Berkovich, I. (2019a). Process implementation perspective on neoliberal regulation: A comparative analysis of national curricula and standards-based reforms in the USA and Australia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 17(5), 593-609. Berkovich, I. (2019b). Educational governance transition in a social democratic country: A process-­tracing analysis. Journal of Educational Change, 20(2), 193–219. Berkovich, I., & Shalev-Vigiser, Y. (2010). Alternative teacher education in Israel. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. [in Hebrew]. Berkovich, I., Choen, T., Schwartz, T., & Herman, N. (2010). Teacher evaluation policy. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. [in Hebrew]. Blass, N. (2014). Matriculation exams: Issues and proposals for reform. Jerusalem: Taub Center. [in Hebrew]. Blass, N., Zussman, N., & Tsur, S. (2014). Segregation of students in elementary and middle schools. Jerusalem: Research Department, Bank of Israel. [in Hebrew]. Bol, T., & Van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2013). Educational systems and the trade-off between labor market allocation and equality of educational opportunity. Comparative Education Review, 57(2), 285–308. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., O’Brien, R., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The effectiveness and retention of teachers with prior career experience. Economics of Education Review, 30(6), 1229–1241.

References

141

Carlson, R.  O. (1964). Environmental constraints and organizational consequences: The public school and its clients. In D. E. Griffiths (Ed.), Behavioral science and educational administration (pp. 262–276). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Chapman, C., & Muijs, D. (2013). Collaborative school turnaround: A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(3), 200–226. Charter Schools In Perspective. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.in-­perspective.org Cheng, K. M. (2010). Shanghai and Hong Kong: Two distinct examples of education reform in China. In Strong performers and successful performers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States (pp. 83–115). Paris: OECD. Chingos, M. M., & Peterson, P. E. (2015). Experimentally estimated impacts of school vouchers on college enrollment and degree attainment. Journal of Public Economics, 122, 1–12. Choshen, M. (2014). Educational accountability: Between transparency and opacity. In A.  Nir (Ed.), Educational accountability: Between consolidation and dissolution (pp.  102–190). Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Van Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad. [in Hebrew]. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Council for Higher Education Decision. (2006, December 12). Council for Higher Education decision dated 21.12.2006 on “Guidelines for teacher training in institutions of higher education in Israel” – Report of the Ariav Committee. Jerusalem: Council for Higher Education. CREDO. (2013). National charter school study 2013. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Da’as, R. A. (2020). Participation in decision making and affective trust among the teaching staff: A 2-year cross-lagged structural equation modeling during implementation reform. International Journal of Educational Reform, 29(1), 77–97. Dahan, Y., & Yonah, Y. (2005). The Dovrat report: The neoliberal revolution in education. Theory and Criticism, 27, 38–11. [in Hebrew]. Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Building a profession of teaching. In M.  Flores, A.  Carvalho, F. Ferreira, & M. Vilaca (Eds.), Back to the future: Legacies, continuities and changes in educational policy, practice and research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Sense Publishers. Dattel, L. (2013, September 3). Thirty-five percent of the academics retraining for careers in education since 2008 have abandoned the profession. The Marker. Retrieved from http://www. themarker.com [in Hebrew]. Dattel, L. (2015, August 30). What is the connection between an insurance company and school meatballs and why does it cost NIS 900 million? The Marker. Retrieved from http://www. themarker.com [in Hebrew]. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247–259. Dee, T. S., Jacob, B., & Schwartz, N. L. (2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 252–279. Dobbie, W., & Fryer, R. G., Jr. (2009). Are high quality schools enough to close the achievement gap? Evidence from a social experiment in Harlem (No. w15473). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Donaldson, M. L. (2012). The promise of older novices: Teach for America teachers’ age of entry and subsequent retention in teaching and schools. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–37. Dror, Y. (2007). “National education” through mutually supportive devices: A case study of Zionist education. Bern: Peter Lang. Dror, Y. (2008). Training policy for teachers and educators in Israel: What can be learned about the future from past and present committees and opinion papers? In D. Kfir & T. Ariav (Eds.), The crisis in teacher education: Reasons, problems and possible solutions (pp. 90–56). Jerusalem/ Tel Aviv: Van Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad. [in Hebrew]. Dumay, X., & Dupriez, V. (2014). Educational quasi-markets, school effectiveness and social inequalities. Journal of Education Policy, 29(4), 510–531. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.

142

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

Elmore, R.  F. (1993). School decentralization: Who gains? Who loses? In J.  Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 33–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Fenwick, T. J. (2003). The ‘good’ teacher in a neo-liberal risk society: A Foucaultian analysis of professional growth plans. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(3), 335–354. Fisher, G., Almog-Bareket, G., & Shaul, A. (2007). Standards in the Israeli educational system: Questions and directions. Jerusalem: The Mandel Institute. [in Hebrew]. Fogel, N. (2011). Segregation level of students in Hebrew schools, 2008. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Frost, D. (2013). Teacher-led development work: A methodology for building professional knowledge. Retrieved from https://www.hertscam.org.uk Gad, Y., Goldstein, K., & Rotem, N. (2014). Israel  – Trends, perspectives and challenges in strengthening vocational education for social inclusion and social cohesion. Rome: European Training Foundation. Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. (2007). Equality of educational opportunity. A 40 year retrospective. In R. Teese, S. Lamb, & M. Duru-Bellat (Eds.), International studies in educational inequality: Theory and policy (pp. 23–47). Dordrecht: Springer. Ganel, Y. (2008). Improving the public education system with charter schools. Jerusalem: Koret-­ Milken Institute Fellows Program. [in Hebrew]. Grinshtain, Y., & Gibton, D. (2018). Responsibility, authority, and accountability in school-based and non-school-based management. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(1), 2–17. Gutwein, D. (2012). Privatization of labor relations as the political logic of dismantling the welfare state. In D. Mishori & A. Maor (Eds.), Precarious employment: Systematic exclusion and exploitation in the labor market (pp.  61–74). Tel Aviv: The Social Economic Academy and Achva Publishing. [in Hebrew]. Hannaway, J., & Woodroffe, N. (2003). Policy instruments in education. Review of Research in Education, 27(1), 1–24. Hargreaves, D. H. (2014). A self-improving school system and its potential for reducing inequality. Oxford Review of Education, 40(6), 696–714. Harris, A., Chapman, C., Muijs, D., Reynolds, D., Campbell, C., Creemers, B., & Weinstein, J. (2013). Getting lost in translation? An analysis of the international engagement of practitioners and policy-makers with the educational effectiveness research base. School Leadership & Management, 33(1), 3–19. Harris, A., Adams, D., Jones, M. S., & Muniandy, V. (2015). System effectiveness and improvement: The importance of theory and context. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 1–3. Hoffman, A., & Niederland, D. (2010). Teachers’ image in the mirror of teachers training. Dapim, 49, 43–86. [in Hebrew]. Hopkins, D., & Higham, R. (2007). System leadership: Mapping the landscape. School Leadership & Management, 27(2), 147–166. Inbar, D., & Choshen, M. (1997). Decentralization of authority to local authorities in the field of education. Jerusalem: Milken Institute. [in Hebrew]. Israel Today. (2014, February 6). New agreement: Teachers will not be obliged to join the reform. Israel Today. Retrieved from http://www.israelhayom.co.il [in Hebrew]. Israeli Ministry of Education. (2012). Transfer of elementary schools to self-management, presentation for the meeting of superintendents of the northern district. Jerusalem: Israeli Ministry of Education. Jakubowski, M., Patrinos, H. A., Porta, E. E., & Wisniewski, J. (2010). The impact of the 1999 education reform in Poland. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Jäppinen, A. K., Leclerc, M., & Tubin, D. (2016). Collaborativeness as the core of professional learning communities beyond culture and context: evidence from Canada, Finland, and Israel. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(3), 315–332.

References

143

Jennings, J.  L., & Bearak, J.  M. (2014). “Teaching to the test” in the NCLB era how test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 381–389. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K., & Zito, A. (2005). The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53(3), 477–496. Kaptzon, A., & Yemini, M. (2018). Market logic at school: Emerging intra-school competition between private and public STEM programmes in Israel. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(104), 1–26. Karelitz, Z. (2012). Setting standards in the education system. Jerusalem: National Center for Testing and Evaluation. [in Hebrew]. Kashti, O. (2010, December 1). The Ministry of Education opens registration areas for schools. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew]. Kashti, O. (2013, November 8). School principals sell real estate, and gaps in education expand. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew]. Kashti, O. (2014, May 30). The gifted from the neighborhoods are left behind. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew]. Kizel, A. (2013). The philosophy of social segregation in Israel’s democratic schools. Philosophy Study, 3(11), 1042–1050. Klinov, R. (2010). Budgeting of the primary and junior-high education system 2003-2008. Jerusalem: The Maurice Falk Institute for Economic Research in Israel. [in Hebrew]. Knaani, S. (2002). Primary schools between registration zones and parental choice: Spatial and socio-economic results. Studies: Geography of the Land of Israel, 16, 145–125. [in Hebrew]. Kraus, M., & Blass, N. (2014). Implementation of the report of the committee for the examination of the budgeting system in primary education in Israel, 2003–2007: Background, process and insights. In M. Justman (Ed.), Differential budgeting in education. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute and the Van Leer Institute. [in Hebrew]. Lee, J., & Reeves, T. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources state NAEP 1990–2009 reading and math achievement gaps and trends. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209–231. Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 18–25. Levin, H. M. (1974). A conceptual framework for accountability in education. The School Review, 82(3), 363–391. Lidor, R., Feigin, N., Fresko, B., Talmor, R., & Kupermintz, H. (2015). The 2007 reform in teacher education programs in Israel: How did the academic colleges of education implement and perceive the reform? Dapim, 59, 45–78. [in Hebrew]. Lieberman, A., Campbell, C., & Yashkina, A. (2016). Teacher learning and leadership: Of, by, and for teachers. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Maagan, D. (2014). Future achievements of the Meitzav examinees in Israel, findings of a 10-year follow-up analysis. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew]. Mahfooz, S.  B., & Hovde, K. (2010). Successful education reform: Lessons from Poland (No. 10147). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Maor, D. (2013, September 2). Shanghai became the world’s leading education power. The Marker. Retrieved from http://www.themarker.com [in Hebrew]. McGinn, N., & Welsh, T. (1999). Decentralization of education: Why, when, what and how? Paris: UNESCO. McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world’s best performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company. Michaeli, N. (2015). Privatization trends in the Israeli education system. In I. Galnoor, A. Paz-­ Fuchs, & N. Zion (Eds.), Privatization policy in Israel: State responsibility and the boundaries between the public and the private (pp. 237–183). Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. [in Hebrew]. Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2013). Leading via teacher evaluation: The case of the missing clothes? Educational Researcher, 42(6), 349–354.

144

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

Nesher, T. & Rosenberg, O. (2012, March 11). The marketing struggles of schools. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew]. Nevo, D. (2013). Speaking against accountability. In D. Nevo (Ed.), Testing and evaluation for better or worse: Is it possible without them? (pp. 36–21). Even Yehuda: Reches. [in Hebrew]. News 2. (2014, January 9). A revolution in matriculation? That’s how it looked in 1995. Mako. Retrieved from http://www.mako.co.il [in Hebrew]. Nir, A. E. (2012). School-based management and the centralisation trap: An evidence-based perspective. Curriculum and Teaching, 27(2), 29–45. Nir, A.  E. (Ed.). (2014). Educational ccountability: Between consolidation and dissolution. Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Van Leer Institute and Hakibbutz Hameuchad. [in Hebrew]. Nir, A. E., Ben-David, A., Bogler, R., Inbar, D., & Zohar, A. (2016). School autonomy and 21st century skills in the Israeli educational system. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(7), 1231–1246. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. Oxford: Blackwell. OECD. (2012a). Does performance-based pay improve teaching (PISA in Focus, No. 16). Paris: OECD. OECD. (2012b). Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2012c). Investing in high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC). Paris: OECD. Oplatka, I. (2002). The emergence of educational marketing: Lessons from the experiences of Israeli principals. Comparative Education Review, 46(2), 211–233. Oplatka, I., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2012). The research on school marketing: Current issues and future directions  – An updated version. In The management and leadership of educational marketing: Research, practice and applications. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Parandekar, S. (2014). Benchmarking public policy: Methodological insights from measurement of school based management. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Peters, S. J. (2004). Inclusive education: An EFA strategy for all children. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Plank, D. N., & Keesler, V. (2009). Education and the shrinking state. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 694–704). London: Routledge. RAMA. (2012). Evaluation of the “New Horizon” reform in the 2009–2010 school year in elementary education. Tel Aviv: RAMA. [in Hebrew]. Resh, N., & Dar, Y. (1996). Segregation within integration in Israeli junior high schools. Israel Social Science Research, 11(1), 1–22. Reshef, M. (2012, October 15). Meitzav data: A record of disqualifications for “exam integrity.” Walla! Retrieved from http://news.walla.co.il [in Hebrew]. Reshef, M. (2013, March 29). New Finland: The beginning of the Polish education system. Walla! Retrieved from http://www.news.walla.co.il [in Hebrew]. Rosenblatt, Z., & Shimoni, O. (2002). Teachers’ accountability: An experimental field study in physical education. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 15(4), 309–328. Ryan, R.  M., & Weinstein, N. (2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-­ determination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 224–233. Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London: Office for Standards in Education. Scott, C., & Dinham, S. (2008). Born not made: The nativist myth and teachers’ thinking. Teacher Development, 12(2), 115–124. Shamir, T. (2009). School for fighting poverty. Calcalist. Retrieved from http://www.calcalist.co.il [in Hebrew]. Shapira, R. (1988). Schools of choice  – Background, development and problems. In D.  Poor, R. Shapira, et al. (Eds.), Planning educational policy (pp. 174–135). Jerusalem: Israeli Ministry of Education and Culture. [in Hebrew].

References

145

Shapira, R., & Heiman, F. (2006). Methods for implementing the regulated choice program in secondary schools in Tel Aviv: Reexamination and proposals for changes submitted to the Tel Aviv Municipality. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [in Hebrew]. Shapira, R., Green, R.  Y., & Danilov, Y. (Eds.). (1994). School autonomy  – Consequences and implementation. Jerusalem: Israeli Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport  – Pedagogical Secretariat. [in Hebrew]. Shavit, Y. (2013). Vocational/technological education on second thought. Jerusalem: Taub Center. [in Hebrew]. Shochen, B., Zehavi, R., & Almog-Bareket, G. (2008). A Re-examination of the technological vocational secondary school: Ideology, policy and models. In 60 years of education in Israel: Past, present, and future – Mandel Education Conference (pp. 84–69). Jerusalem: Graduate Unit, Mandel Leadership Institute. [in Hebrew]. Skop, Y. (2015, February 8). Ministry of Education: We will not enforce the Compulsory Education Law for ages 3–4. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew]. Szegedi, E. (ed.) (2018). Guide for facilitators of collaborative teacher learning. EFFeCT Project. Retrieved from http://effect.tka.hu/methodological-­framework Tan, C. (2011). Framing educational success: A comparative study of Shanghai and Singapore. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 5(3), 155–166. Tyack, D. (1993). School governance in the United States: Historical puzzles and anomalies. In J. Hannaway & M. Carnoy (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 1–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Velmer, T. (2012, May 1). Parents will be able to compare: Freedom of information in registration to school?. YNET. Retrieved from http://www.ynet.co.il [in Hebrew]. Velmer, T. (2012, May 29). Meitzav test fever: “Schools have lost their sanity.” YNET. Retrieved from http://www.ynet.co.il [in Hebrew]. Volansky, A. (2007). School autonomy for school effectiveness and improvement: The case of Israel. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 351–362). Dordrecht: Springer. Vurgan, Y. (2011). Unique study tracks and private funding in the education system. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Vurgan, Y. (2014). Employment of teachers through intermediary bodies: Update. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Weininger, A. (2014). Parents’ payments at unique educational institutions. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Weissblei, E. (2006). Data on equal opportunity in education from preschool to university. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Weissblei, E. (2012). Core studies in the Jewish ultra-Orthodox educational system. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Weissblei, E. (2013a). Classification of candidates based on achievements and qualifications in admission to schools. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Weissblei, E. (2013b). Incentives and rewards for the teaching staff. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Weissblei, E. (2013c). The status of teachers in Israel and in OECD countries: Training, certification, wages, and working conditions. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Weissblei, E. (2014). Accelerated retraining programs for academics for teaching. Jerusalem: The Israeli Parliament. [in Hebrew]. Woods, P. A. (2007). Urban schools: Performance, competition and collaboration. In W. T. Pink & G. W. Noblit (Eds.), International handbook of urban education (pp. 1105–1121). Dordrecht: Springer. Woods, P.  A., & Roberts, A. (2018). Collaborative school leadership: A critical guide. London: SAGE. Woods, P. A., & Roberts, A. (2019). Collaborative school leadership in a global society: A critical perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 663–677.

146

6  Contemporary Discourse in Education Policy in the Twenty-First Century: Solutions

Woods, P. A., Roberts, A., Jarvis, J., & Culshaw, S. (2020). Autonomy and regulation in the school system in England. In H. Ärlestig & O.  Johansson (Eds.), Educational authorities and the schools: Organisation and impact in 20 states (pp. 111–130). Dordrecht: Springer. Xu, Z., Hannaway, J., & Taylor, C. (2011). Making a difference? The effects of teach for America in high school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 447–469. YNET. (2001, June 27). For the first time: English and mathematics. YNET. Retrieved from http:// www.ynet.co.il [in Hebrew]. Yonah, Y., Dahan, Y., & Markovich, D. (2008). Neo-liberal reforms in Israel’s education system: The dialectics of the state. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 18(3–4), 199–217. Zussman, N., & Tsur, S. (2008). The effect of students’ socioeconomic background on their achievements in matriculation examinations. Jerusalem: Research Department, Bank of Israel. [in Hebrew].

Chapter 7

Criticism of Education Policy as a Field of Knowledge

Much of the literature on education policy has been devoted to understanding the factors involved in the shaping of education policy and the process of policy implementation, defining the main problems in education, and exploring the range of proposed solutions. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 reviewed these issues. At the same time, there has been a growing awareness that education policy knowledge is shaped largely by the basic assumptions and methodology used in the field. With this recognition, researchers have become increasingly critical of the knowledge produced and acquired in studies of education policy. This chapter presents several important critiques in the literature of the basic assumptions and methodology of education policy. The critiques focus on three aspects: (a) how the preconceived notions of the researchers and the conceptualizations they use shape the research; (b) the methodology of comparative policy studies; and (c) the methodology of educational program evaluations. This chapter is a critical summary that seeks to stimulate deep reflection on theories and research findings regarding the field of education policy.

7.1  Criticism of the Basic Assumptions and Conceptualizations of Studies on Education Policy Many researchers have argued that the practice of education policy never begins with a “blank page” because people’s preconceptions dictate how they perceive policy problems, understand cause-and-effect relationships in policy processes, outline intervention options, and define the criteria for success of a particular policy (Borrow 2008). In Chap. 1, we discussed ideologies and values that determine what is moral and proper, and their effect on policy aspects and issues. In this section, we discuss issues of epistemology (dealing with the nature and base of knowledge) and ontology (dealing with the essence of existing reality), and the way these shape © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Berkovich, Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century, Policy Implications of Research in Education 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_7

147

148

7  Criticism of Education Policy as a Field of Knowledge

studies on education policy. The first type of preconceived notions deals with the nature of scientific truth, the second type with human nature, and the third with the complexity of social reality. The common assumption of the public is that science creates a body of knowledge that represents the “truth” of the phenomena under study. May and Williams (2002) conducted a philosophical discussion on social science research and argued that the answers to questions about what science is and what science could do should not be taken for granted. Thomas Kuhn (1962) studied the history of science and found that scientific knowledge develops not as a result of accumulation of knowledge, in which each layer adds to the previous one, but progresses in leaps and bounds, in a fragmented manner. Kuhn concluded that scientific claims are not equivalent to “truth,” but rather, represent the perceptions of the scientific community at a given time. According to Kuhn, every period has a scientific paradigm, adopted by the scientific community, which acts as a filter for knowledge created. The accumulation of deviations from the predictions of the dominant paradigm creates a sense of crisis in the scientific community, which leads to renouncing the dominant paradigm and replacing it with a new one. Kuhn, a theoretical physicist, argued that his conclusions were equally relevant to the natural sciences and to the social sciences, but according to other researchers, the social sciences are even more complex. Heineman et al. (1990), for example, maintained that the “social sciences cannot achieve the rigor of the physical sciences because it is impossible to separate human beliefs from the context and process of analysis” (p. 37). According to Lynn (1999), at the beginning of the twentieth century, policy research was grounded in positivism, which is the perception that all human knowledge can be objectively based on scientific inquiry through empirical observation. Lynn noted that the positivist view of policy research has emphasized mainly economic rationality because it has focused on cost-benefit analysis. According to Dryzek (1993), the instrumental rational approach to policy research gained expression in the following propositions: (a) science is a protocol of uniform rules that can unequivocally indicate causative relationships; (b) the best means for any given end can be identified and chosen as a method of action; (c) people are rational in their desire to maximize profits; and (d) policymakers who do not adopt this normative model of decision-making are irrational. In time, positivist research came under criticism. Opponents argued that instrumental research is not neutral, and that its various aspects express the dominant perceptions and values ​of the researchers who perform it (Lynn 1999). The critique of positivist scientific thinking focuses on the following aspects (Adorno 1977): (a) reduction problem (the abstraction of the research object from a complex and multi-­ dimensional phenomenon to a phenomenon with few characteristics), an approach that seeks to measure reality accurately, but in practice creates a relatively weak link between the measuring tool and the concept that we intend to measure; (b) the whole context problem, a view according to which a research object can be understood in isolation from its environment, but in practice, social phenomena are holistic; (c) construction of the object problem, which assumes that objects have a stable internal essence, which does not take into account the social and historical factors

7.1 Criticism of the Basic Assumptions and Conceptualizations of Studies…

149

that led to the creation of the current state; and (d) freedom from the value problem, an approach that claims objectivity, but in practice, researchers are not detached from their opinions and values. Following these critiques, Lynn identified a second wave of ideas in policy research that emerged as an alternative to the positivist school, and began to gain momentum in the 1970s and 1980s. According to proponents of this school, which was called post-positivism, the instrumental perspective on policy research disregards discussion of important historical, sociological, and political aspects of policy (Lynn 1999). Supporters of the post-positivist approach to policy research argue that (a) facts cannot be separated from values in a democratic debate; (b) facts are social constructs and not objective attributes of the world; and (c) science is a product of the social world as it is shaped by normative assumptions and social meanings. In practice, these arguments view the field of policy research as an interpretive practice that includes creativity and personal expression. Note that these two fundamental schools of thought shape and dominate not only the field of policy research, but research in the social sciences in general. Each school influences several fundamental aspects related to scientific research (Lincoln and Guba 1985): (a) perception of the role of the scientific knowledge produced; (b) perception of the role of the researcher in the production of knowledge; (c) perception of the researcher’s neutrality; (d) preference for the nature of the tools used by the researcher; and (e) perception of the purpose of the knowledge produced by research. Thus, the positivist approach argues there is a singular reality that can be understood objectively, knowledge and the researcher are independent of each other, and research, free from values, places emphasis on quantitative methods that are said to increase the ability to predict. By contrast, the post-positivist approach (also known as an interpretive or naturalistic approach) argues that reality is socially constructed, and therefore there are many realities that reflect different meanings, the research and researcher are inseparable, research is dependent on values, and places emphasis on qualitative methods that are said to provide better understanding of the phenomenon. From the beginning of the twenty-first century, a third wave in the study of education policy began to take shape, in which an influential part of the scientific community returns to adopt positivist perceptions of knowledge. This wave, which is referred to at times as neo-positivism, is linked to the rise of global organizations (e.g., OECD) engaged in educational comparisons. Lingard (2011) discussed the current positivist trend in education policy, arguing that in its current incarnation it favors the reduction of education policy more drastically than in the past. According to Lingard, this research approach is related to the rise of neo-liberal ideas, the result of which is the simplification of complex social phenomena and their transformation into numbers. The researcher figuratively refers to this phenomenon as the “accounting” of education policy. Lingard focused on Australia to illustrate how this numeric discourse relates to reducing the status of national politics, describing how global effects lead to increased focus on competition, and to debate on the gap in achievements compared to other countries (gap talk). In this way, the narrow and simplistic numeric discourse shapes and leads national education policy.

150

7  Criticism of Education Policy as a Field of Knowledge

We discussed earlier how preconceptions about the nature of scientific truth affect research in education policy. Below we discuss a second type of preconceived concept that influences research in education policy, which is related to human nature. Preconceptions about human nature have a particular effect on problem delimitation in policy studies. Problem delimitation is a process in which an array of conditions is translated into problems, issues, and questions sufficiently defined to allow research (Vesely 2007). Vesley identified two approaches to problem delimitation in policy research (Vesely 2007): a political approach that focuses on the study of how a familiar subject is presented in the public agenda as a problem, and a policy approach that focuses on how a problem is depicted in a concrete way, so that it can be resolved effectively. In Chap. 2 we reviewed various aspects of the political approach. In this section, we focus on the policy approach that deals with problem concretization. The first step in the anatomy of concrete problem description is causal attribution (Rochefort and Cobb 1994 in Vesely 2007). At this stage, several questions arise, such as whether the issue concerns the personal characteristics of the players (e.g., is the poor economic situation of a particular social group related to the abilities and skills of the group members?), and whether the issue is directed by the actors or whether it occurs incidentally (e.g., is the lack of social group capacity due to the lack of motivation of the group members to study or to the characteristics of the educational environment in which they studied). The researchers’ assumptions about human nature play an important role in causal attribution. For example, Firestone (2014), focusing on designing a teacher evaluation policy, argued that teacher assessment data can be used, on one hand, for rewards and sanctions, and on the other, for improving teaching and learning. According to Firestone, these possibilities stem from different perceptions of human motivation. One approach attributes external propulsion as a driving force. This approach is based on economic motivational theories, which regard external incentives as a key component in the motivation of educators, and therefore focuses on rewarding good teachers and removing bad ones. Another approach attributes peoples’ actions to internal motivation. This approach is based on humanistic motivational theories, which consider internal incentives as a central factor, and therefore focuses on improving the teachers’ quality and improving their abilities. These different perceptions of human nature dictate how conditions in the field must be translated into detailed research issues (i.e.,  variables and cause-and-effect relationships). A third type of concept that shapes policy research to a great extent is the way in which social complexity is addressed, and which policy issues are presented and discussed. Weaver-Hightower (2008) criticized the central approach to education policy as a simplistic view of the social environment and argued that education policy should adopt an ecological perspective. The researcher argued that an ecological perspective ascribes greater weight to complexity and interdependence between individuals and groups, and it reflects the understanding that the relationship between environments, participants, and events creates unique circumstances. According to Weaver-Hightower, recognition of such ecological complexity would prompt researchers to look for more realistic models of action, including systemic

7.1 Criticism of the Basic Assumptions and Conceptualizations of Studies…

151

changes and conceptualization in a way that reflects these processes. Recognizing the ecological nature of education policy issues requires researchers to take into account the multiple levels involved in education policy (international, national, regional, local, school, etc.), and the interrelationship between these levels, to better reflect the performance of a policy (Weaver-Hightower 2008). Multi-level conceptualization and analysis of political phenomena is of great importance for three reasons (Steenbergen and Jones 2002): (a) they allow researchers to combine several levels of the model by including predictors of different levels (for example, how the socioeconomic ranking of the neighborhood in which the child lives, and the family’s socioeconomic status, influence the child’s achievements); (b) they allow for a study of causal complexity, in other words, it is possible to examine whether the causal effect of a predictor on a prediction depends on an environmental predictor of a higher level (e.g., whether the effect of a child’s level of intelligence on academic achievement depends on the school climate); and (c) they allow the inclusion of findings that have been obtained in the context of a particular unit (or period of time) into other contexts, in a comparative manner. Slavin (2008a) argued that inattention to levels in educational studies creates a problem with the practical application of research knowledge because it impairs the ability to generalize the conclusions of the study. Slavin found that policy programs are implemented at the group level (schools or classes), but often their effects are examined only at the student level, although students exist within the framework of classes or schools (Slavin 2008a). According to Slavin, when research ignores relevant characteristics (e.g., a teacher with excellent or inadequate abilities, unrelated to the program), the statistical results may be biased. Slavin stressed that the effects of a policy plan can often change considerably “from study to study, and from school to school and from teacher to teacher within studies” (p. 47). Because many studies seek to assess the consequences of a policy in a natural environment in which many variables play a role, researchers must recognize the fact that there are mutual influences between different variables (including school, teacher, and student characteristics) that reduce or intensify the effects of initiatives and programs on student achievement (Slavin 2008a). Bryk and Raudenbush sought to promote recognition of levels of analysis as a central concept in the analysis of policy issues in education. In the social sciences, they pioneered statistical methods and concepts designed to promote multi-level research. Their work is an example of the combination of mathematical analytical research and empirical statistical research. According to Raudenbush and Bryk (1986), multidisciplinary conceptualizations and analyses help us better understand how policies are applied or how differences at the level of the local authority or school affect students. In a study based on the recognition of different levels of analysis, Atteberry and Bryk (2011) examined an initiative adopted in urban areas and focused on literacy trainers (expert pedagogical instructors) working with teachers to develop their professionalism. The study found that teachers’ exposure to trainers depended not only on the presence of coaches in schools, but on teacher-­level variables (such as their tendency to feel responsible for their peers, their level of commitment to school) as well as on school-level variables (such as

152

7  Criticism of Education Policy as a Field of Knowledge

support of the principal). The findings of the research demonstrate that extensive financial investment in the professional development of teachers is insufficient, and that it is necessary to understand the various factors and levels involved. According to the findings of the study, teachers who have a narrow perception of their role and a low level of commitment appear to be less involved in professional development initiatives, and therefore it may be necessary to devise unique solutions for this situation. The findings also show that the success of a program depends, among others, on intra-school support, attesting to the importance of harnessing school leadership for pedagogic initiatives, even if they are intended primarily for teachers.

Six Types of Research According to Wacker (1998) 1. Analytical conceptual research, aimed at adding new insights into familiar topics by constructing logical models. This method develops new insights by presenting logical connections between defined key concepts, maintaining internal consistency. In these studies, the ideas are usually demonstrated using examples and case studies. 2. Analytical mathematical research, whose purpose is to develop connections between narrow concepts based on a new mathematical development that demonstrates how models behave under different conditions. Analytical mathematical research usually does not use real data to test the theory, but uses computer simulated data to draw conclusions (this type is not common in policy research). 3. Analytical statistical research, designed to combine analytical mathematical models with statistical ones, derived from empirical studies, to create an integrative theory that can be examined in future empirical research (this type is not common in policy research). 4. Empirical experimental research, which seeks to investigate the effect of controlled manipulation on given dependent variables. This type of research is intended to establish a causal argument between variables. 5. Empirical statistical research, which aims to empirically investigate the relationships between variables in large samples in the field. The findings of the study empirically support the ecological validity of theoretical models because they attest to their real-world reliability. 6. Empirical case study is intended to develop insights using a small sample. Focusing on a small number of units makes possible a richer description of a multidimensional phenomenon and a comprehensive understanding of the context in which it occurs.

7.2 Criticism of Comparative Studies in Education Policy

153

7.2  Criticism of Comparative Studies in Education Policy According to Steiner-Khamsi (2013), comparative methodology plays a central role in policy research. A contextual comparison study focuses on multiple case studies, comparing two or more systems as a reference point for understanding policy effects. Such a study conducts local or national comparisons by geographic area. In the case of multiple case studies, this subtype of research is also referred to as a collective case study (Baxter and Jack 2008). For example, Okihara (1978) examined policy on cleaning schools worldwide and found that in East Asian countries, such as Japan, students were responsible for cleaning the school, whereas in Anglo-­ Saxon countries, such as Australia, the UK, and the US, others were hired to perform this task. Such a broad comparison makes it possible to understand the phenomenon not only from an economic point of view, but also within the framework of a broader sociocultural context. Steiner-Khamsi (2013) reflected on the influence of case selection for comparative policy studies. The author argued that the level of similarity in the characteristics of the selected systems for comparison (similar/different), and in the results of the selected systems for comparison (similar/different) create four types of case design in policy studies: 1. Different systems with similar results: This design is used to establish the claim that national education systems converge and become more similar. The international convergence is particularly convincing if the evidence points toward it, despite broad differences in characteristics. This design is chosen by researchers to support the claims of globalization. 2. Similar systems with similar results: This design presents a homogeneous group from a political, governmental, economic, or religious perspective, in which processes with similar results exist. This is rare in policy studies, because it creates duplicates of information, as it focuses on similar cases. However, meticulous elaboration of the details may reveal large differences between the selected cases. 3. Different systems with different results: This common design, which presents a contrast between the selected cases, is chosen by researchers to support a claim of differences. 4. Similar systems with different results: This design focuses on similar systems that produce different outcomes. The design is chosen by researchers to point out effective factors and processes (what went right) as well as factors and processes that failed (what went wrong). Another type of comparative study is research that deals with comparison to standards. These studies have recently gained popularity and are based on normative methods of inquiry that are less sensitive to cultural issues. The comparison threshold may be social (e.g., gender equality) or statistical (e.g., the average of the OECD countries), depending on whether the threshold is based on an ideal or

154

7  Criticism of Education Policy as a Field of Knowledge

determined by a leading result (e.g., the leading score among OECD countries). A growing trend in recent years has been to make standard comparisons on education policy. Standardized international comparisons are largely related to globalization, which affects national decisions. Some consider this type of comparison to be the application of normalization techniques, in which knowledge based on power relations is used to classify other forms of policy as deviating from the norm (Steiner-Khamsi 2013). Steiner-Khamsi argued that standard measurement creates the illusion that the differences between various national systems are negligible. According to Steiner-Khamsi, the focus on measurement by a single indicator, assuming it has similar significance in different contexts, is misleading. For example, when a “teacher shortage” is estimated to be similar in different countries (number of non-­staffed teaching positions), it may be used to indicate similarities between East Asian and European countries. In East Asia, however, the shortage of teachers is kept in check by substitute teachers, retired teachers, and students. Thus measurement by a single standard indicator is universally applicable, but often creates a distorted perception of reality (Steiner-Khamsi 2013). This is problematic because the information generated has significant effects on education systems. For example, the OECD and the World Bank provide uniform recommendations for improving education systems in a manner that often ignores the local context.

7.3  Criticism of Evaluation Studies in Education Policy Over the years, many researchers and policymakers have expressed their expectation that the study of education policy would create applied knowledge that enables the practical advancement of the quality of education. Research can produce different types of applied knowledge (Srivastava and Thomson 2009): 1. Contextual knowledge focuses on identifying the nature of policy. It answers such questions as: What are the existing attitudes or perceptions? What is the nature of people’s experiences? What needs does the population have? What factors are present in the system? 2. Diagnostic knowledge focuses on examining the reasons or factors related to policy. It answers questions such as: What factors underlie certain attitudes or perceptions? Why are or are not certain decision paths adopted? Why did certain needs arise? Why were or were not certain services and programs used? 3. Evaluation focuses on assessing the effectiveness of existing policy. It answers questions such as: To what extent were the goals achieved? What affects the successful distribution of programs and services? How do program experiences affect subsequent behaviors? What barriers stand before working systems? 4. Strategic knowledge focuses on identifying new theories, plans, or actions. It answers questions such as: What types of services are required to meet needs? What actions are needed to make the programs and services more efficient? How

7.3 Criticism of Evaluation Studies in Education Policy

155

can the systems be improved? What strategies are needed to overcome newly defined problems? In this section, we discuss the methodological criticism of evaluation policy studies. In the past decade, because of the growing trend of anchoring education policy in evidence-based education, there has been increasing pressure on education policy to produce valid and reliable applied knowledge. According to those who support a shift to policy based on research evidence, policy decisions are often based on ideology, politics, and marketing rather than cumulative knowledge of what is effective. Critics see not only the decision-makers, but also the researchers themselves as part of this problem. Therefore, they argue, researchers must act to create a valid, reproducible knowledge base. Slavin (2008b) conducted a methodological discussion related to the way in which various research findings are combined, presenting readers with a series of limitations and failures relating to education policy research. In particular, Slavin focused on the formation of findings from evaluation studies. Unlike classical empirical research that examines variables and the relationships between them, evaluation studies relate to a given program that contains a defined content of procedures, materials, and professional support, which can therefore be replicated. Slavin (2008b) identified two main models of evaluation studies: (a) random assignment studies, in which the various units are randomized to the experimental group (in which the new program is applied) and the control group; (b) matched studies, where the units in which the program is run are compared with those in which the program is not run. This array is quasi-experimental because it is not based on random assignment to equalized groups, but uses a non-random criterion for group construction. Slavin identified several issues that arise in the development of evaluation programs and relate to the problematic methodology used in the field of program evaluation: 1. Selection bias: a bias created in coordinated studies, where the school, teachers, and students choose to participate in the new program. In these conditions, differences in motivation, general abilities, and abilities associated with willingness to participate in the study may bias the outcome of the intervention. For example, schools with a tendency for activism and innovation are likely to demonstrate motivation to participate in the new program. Another example of the effect of motivation on the results of a study can be seen when schools with a sense of decline and despair demonstrate a desire to try every solution to change their situation. Although this bias may be balanced, if a range of coordinated studies is examined, we note that policy decisions on whether to continue or cancel programs are currently being made on the basis of a few studies, which are required to produce findings in a short time. Random assignment would prevent this bias. 2. Biases related to retrospective comparisons: these biases are created when researchers select the organizational units for comparison purposes only after the end of the operation of the program, with the intention of comparing the data before and after the intervention. But quite often, the units chosen to represent

156

7  Criticism of Education Policy as a Field of Knowledge

the new program are those that remain in the program until the end and completed it, thus creating a survivors’ bias in favor of the intervention. This bias has to do with the fact that a school that succeeds in maintaining and sustaining activity over time is more successful than one that has difficulty persevering. Another bias associated with retrospective comparison is that of the competence gap, the selection of highly successful schools in the experimental group, and of schools that made slight progress in the control group. The resulting gap is produced by the selection of units intended to serve the advancement of the new program. 3. Biases related to sample size: studies based on a small sample raise a series of problems. First, they have insufficient statistical power. Second, extreme effects that arise in the study may be the result of differences between the characteristics of the chosen school, teacher, or class, and not necessarily the outcome of the proposed intervention. Third, the chances for publication of small studies that show no significant results or that do not support the hypotheses of the study are lower. Fourth, in a small study, implementation of the new intervention program is strictly enforced, which may be difficult to carry out on a larger scale, therefore such studies reflect to a lower extent the results of the implementation of the program. Small studies may have benefits, if they enable the in-depth, qualitative examination of complex processes and interactions. 4. Bias associated with pre-intervention differences: in achievement studies, for example, student characteristics (such as socioeconomic background and parental education) are good predictors of differences at the end of the intervention. It is therefore important to note them in the statistical analysis and to ensure that the differences between the students in the experimental group and the controls, before the intervention, are relatively small. 5. Bias related to the length of the study: because the goal is to implement a program over time, the external validity of short studies is problematic because such studies provide no indication of the effects of the program over time. 6. Bias in the selection of outcome measures: when researchers choose measures developed specifically to examine the results of the proposed program rather than general measures (e.g., scores on achievement tests), the type of indicators selected creates a bias in the findings in favor of the new program. Sleeter (2014), for example, examined evidence on the effect of presevice structured programs for teachers in the field of vocational training and that of inservice professional development. The researcher analyzed 196 articles published in four leading journals and found that only 1% reported a large-scale sample study that combined quantitative and qualitative methods, and only 6% presented results on the effect of the training and development programs on the teachers’ actual teaching and learning. Most of the studies focused on the effect of the training and development programs on teachers’ attitudes, experiences, and knowledge. In the review of teacher training and development studies, Sleeter identified the root causes of the bias pointed out by Slavin to be sample size, duration of the studies, and the outcome measures used, all of which weaken the validity of the findings.

7.4 Summary of the Chapter

157

If the problems exposed by Slavin are so central and detrimental to education policy research, the question is why researchers continue to conduct such studies despite growing recognition of these methodological deficiencies. Part of the answer lies in the fact that education policy researchers belong to a community of scientific researchers. Sauermann and Stephan (2013) argued that, similarly to other professional communities, the scientific community has a dominant institutional logic that reflects patterns historically understood by previous generations. The community defines the assumptions, values, beliefs, and practices by which people operate and create. According to this argument, academic logic defines the importance of the pursuit of basic knowledge, academic freedom, recognition of peers, and the importance of publishing results. Policy studies, like other studies in the social sciences, are ritualistic: policy researchers repeatedly examine public issues, propose a model with a causal logic, evaluate the parameters included in the model and its predicted results using evidence from academic research, and provide recommendations based on this analysis. Some have criticized this conduct because they regard it as evidence that academic research is motivated by institutional goals and researchers are driven by their own interests and do not attempt to provide a viable response to the needs of society. One consequence of these practices is the widening gap between theoretical policy research and policy, as it is implemented in the real world. Some of the gap is attributed to the lack of social responsibility on the part of researchers with regard to the applications of policy studies (Jentleson 2002). Another issue that needs mentioning is that funders of research (e.g., policy organizations, businesses, public and private foundations) may influence the kind of research undertaken. Funders can influence the focus and methods of the research being performed (Cheek 2011; Storeng and Palmer 2019). But researchers do not constitute a monolithic community, and many critical research projects shed light on the complexity of practice and on issues of power, even against fierce resistance.

7.4  Summary of the Chapter This chapter discussed the criticism of education policy as a field of knowledge. First, it described how assumptions and conceptualizations shape the way in which problems and intervention options are perceived, and defined the criteria for success. Several common assumptions were discussed: (a) scientific thinking patterns (positivism, post-positivism, and neo-positivism); (b) perceptions of human nature (the economic person vs. the self-directed one); and (c) perceptions of social complexity (the extent of the ecological perspective on society). Second, the chapter focused on critiques of two types of education policy studies: comparative and evaluative. With regard to comparative studies, critique emphasized how the selection of the investigated cases is related to the design of the research and its results, and how the chosen comparison points shape similarities and differences. Regarding evaluative studies, critique highlighted how different biases (choice of units, retrospective

158

7  Criticism of Education Policy as a Field of Knowledge

comparison, sample size, pre-intervention differences, duration of study, choice of outcome measures) influence the outcomes and conclusions of the studies.

References Adorno, T. (1977). Epistemology and science. In The philosophy of science (Reader) (pp. 82–92). Tel Aviv: The Open University of Israel. [in Hebrew]. Atteberry, A., & Bryk, A. S. (2011). Analyzing teacher participation in literacy coaching activities. The Elementary School Journal, 112(2), 356–382. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. Borrow, D. B. (2008). Social and cultural factors: Constraining and enabling. In R. E. Goodin, M. Rein, & M. Moran (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 587–606). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cheek, J. (2011). The politics and practices of funding qualitative inquiry. In N.  K. Denzin & Y.  S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp.  251–268). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dryzek, J.  S. (1993). Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In F.  Fischer & J.  Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp.  213–232). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Firestone, W.  A. (2014). Teacher evaluation policy and conflicting theories of motivation. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 100–107. Heineman, R., Bluhm, W. T., Peterson, S. A., & Kearny, E. N. (1990). The world of the policy analyst: Rationality, values, and politics. Chatham: Chatham House. Jentleson, B.  W. (2002). The need for praxis: Bringing policy relevance back in. International Security, 26(4), 169–183. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355–382. Lynn, L. E. (1999). A place at the table: Policy analysis, its postpositive critics, and the future of practice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 411–425. May, T., & Williams, M. (2002). An introduction to the philosophy of social research. London: Routledge. Okihara, Y. (1978). Pupil participation in school cleaning: A comparative survey. Comparative Education, 14(1), 33–40. Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. S. (1986). A hierarchical model for studying school effects. Sociology of Education, 59(1), 1–17. Sauermann, H., & Stephan, P. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science, 24(3), 889–909. Slavin, R. E. (2008a). Response to comments: Evidence-based reform in education: Which evidence counts? Educational Researcher, 37(1), 47–50. Slavin, R. E. (2008b). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education – What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14. Sleeter, C. (2014). Toward teacher education research that informs policy. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 146–153. Srivastava, A., & Thomson, S.  B. (2009). Framework analysis: A qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Journal of Administration and Governance, 4(2), 72–79. Steenbergen, M. R., & Jones, B. S. (2002). Modeling multilevel data structures. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 218–237.

References

159

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2013). What is wrong with the ‘what-went-right’ approach in educational policy? European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 20–33. Storeng, K. T., & Palmer, J. (2019). When ethics and politics collide in donor-funded global health research. The Lancet, 394(10193), 184–186. Veselý, A. (2007). Problem delimitation in public policy analysis. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 1, 80–100. Wacker, J.  G. (1998). A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 361–385. Weaver-Hightower, M. B. (2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call to complexity. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 153–167.

Postface

The field of education policy is concerned with the design and delivery of basic and central services in modern democratic society, which directly and indirectly affect the lives of most citizens. The book presented the concepts, theories, and empirical findings needed to understand the field from two main perspectives: the policy process (the design of education policy and its implementation in the field) and the contemporary discourse in education (problems and solutions). Education policy delivery and research are complex challenges because they combine understandings of aspects of diverse disciplines, including public policy, economics, demography, sociology, history, and psychology. A deep grasp of education policy is required to manage educational systems and organizations in a successful and meaningful way, because it affects the goals, means, processes, and criteria for success that policymakers and school leaders face. Knowledge of education policy creates an important opening for identifying both the constraints that limit education and the opportunities to change it. In our discussion of education policy we found three main tensions manifest in each topic. The first is related to the place of structures and of agency in the chain of policy events. Although part of the discussion concerns the deterministic effect of structures on the goals and outcomes of public education, another part stresses the power of individuals and organized groups to shape structures and processes. The second tension that surfaced in the book is between distrusting and trusting management approaches as methods of managing school personnel and schooling processes. This tension stems from one’s recognition or rejection of the centrality of communal humanism in social life and human progress. The third tension is associated with views of teaching, learning, and development as either technical essentialist processes or as artistic processes with interactive complexity. The former often triggers the metaphor of schooling as filling a vessel, whereas the latter elicits the metaphor of schooling as lighting a fire. These tensions shape education policy as a site for coexistence of functionalism, innovation and leadership, power conflicts, © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Berkovich, Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century, Policy Implications of Research in Education 12, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1

161

162

Postface

and organized anarchy. Much like the wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics, education policy and schooling can exhibit different types of nature, and one’s a priori viewpoint largely shapes one’s conclusions. I offer here a few of my own conclusions for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers about the issues that public education systems need to address. First, I argue that public education and its features are very much related to the rise of the liberal democratic state. This connection has informed many of the advantages and shortcomings of the public education model as we recognize them today. At the start of the third decade of the 21st century, it is safe to say that in many countries in the world the dominance of the liberal democratic state model has been destabilized. This creates a growing paradox, in which public education designed to express liberal democratic values, as many of its basic aspects do, finds itself under attack from parts of the public, the elite, and even the government. Second, we see that the number of reforms and changes that are thrust upon schools is growing, and schools often find themselves having limited ability to implement the policies, as policymaking becomes more declarative and used for achieving short-term political gains in the fast-paced cycle of news in the new media reality. In this situation, educators devoted to public service and liberal democratic ideals find themselves increasingly having to act as “guerrilla” public servants. Third, true public education is a key social and economic national interest, which produces the largest dividend if it promotes all sectors of the population. In this regard, one must keep in mind that policy changes with regard to schooling are always entangled with social reactions. This is why social stratification is persistent. If moves aimed at socioeconomic progress are not refined on the go, progress does not endure because opposing forces are likely to cancel it. Fourth, although it is difficult to determine what type of policies and changes are best for each society and time period, implementing any type of change requires developed system capacities. The human factor is the central mechanism in schooling processes, therefore capacity building efforts should be about designing structures and processes that help attract, maintain, develop, and support the most suitable individuals to teach and lead schools. While acknowledging that human capacity building is a cornerstone of all top-down and bottom-up changes, one also needs to recognize that trust is the best method for managing capable individuals and cultivating their long-term motivation. Many of the above challenges have also been reflected in the educational management of the recent COVID-19 epidemic, which stressed the importance of central government, trust, qualified street-level bureaucrats on one hand, and socioeconomic gaps in public schooling on the other. Looking back on more than an hundred years of public schooling, I see tremendous achievements that are the outcomes of policies that made public schooling a key social institution. Complexity theoreticians warn us against simplistic perceptions of the chain of events, but I chose to adopt cautious optimism about the future of public schooling, and believe that great achievements are still ahead if policymakers learn from the past, think synergistically about changes, and keep in mind the need for sensitivity to context.