The ethos of equality has been a driving force of Israel's education system since Israel became an independent state in 1948. This deep concern for equality derived its legitimacy from the view that education is the main means of consolidating Israel's largely immigrant population into one nation.
To help support this goal of equality, the education system that emerged featured a high degree of central control. By centralizing decisions and policies on administrative and pedagogical matters, the Israeli government sought to avoid inequities among schools.
For example, through a policy of “positive discrimination,” the Ministry of Education tried to reduce gaps between various parts of the population by increasing allocations to schools serving disadvantaged students and providing funds for additional instruction.
In recent years, however, educators have raised questions about the ill effects of this centralization in Israeli education. Many believe that more power and autonomy should be delegated to individual schools, so that local educators can tailor educational programs to the needs of their students and their vision of the school. In the last decade, Israel has begun to move in this direction—but will continue to monitor carefully the effects of decentralization on the equality so deeply cherished here.
Fuzzy Picture
Although the Israeli Ministry of Education currently exercises a large measure of control over local schools, the picture presented by Israeli education is not one of top-down control and clear lines of authority. In fact, the situation is considerably more complex than that.
Historically, primary and secondary education have developed along somewhat different lines. Senior high schools (grades 10–12) are run either by local education authorities (LEAs) or by semi-public/private non-profit organizations. Although the academic standards of these schools are rigidly controlled through national matriculation examinations, the country's 600 senior high schools do enjoy some measure of autonomy with regard to their curriculum and administration. By contrast, Israel's 1,800 elementary (grades 1–6) and junior high schools (grades 7–9) are run by the Ministry of Education. These schools are subject to tight controls with regard to administrative matters, although they are allowed some freedom regarding the implementation of the national curriculum.
The architects of the Israeli education system believed that a highly centralized education system was a necessary tool for achieving equality in school management. As a result, all teachers of elementary and junior high schools are employed by the Israeli Ministry of Education. The Ministry also determines the national curriculum, monitors standards, allocates budgets, and administers teacher training and school construction.
This arrangement has several flaws, however. First, school principals are left with minimum freedom to launch their own school-based initiatives or to engage in shared decision-making processes in their schools. Second, the regulations and policy guidance from the Ministry of Education have become fragmented, complex, and multi-layered, with formal and informal policy components sometimes in conflict. The school principal, then, is daily confronted by guidelines, incentives, sanctions, and programs prepared by numerous Ministry divisions and by regional inspectors.
Moreover, this fragmented system has eroded the policy of positive discrimination. Different agencies and interest groups target particular schools to carry out their programs, giving those schools additional resources. Thus, schools in poor neighborhoods may wind up with fewer resources, if these special programs are offered without regard to the needs of the student population.
A Call for Change
Educators in Israel have long recognized the negative pedagogical effect of strong centralization, curriculum uniformity, and the fragmented nature of our system. For more than a decade, certain educational experts and Ministry officials have advocated the delegation of power to school principals rather than to the Ministry and regional inspectors; they have also stressed the need for a higher degree of school autonomy and more relief from the rigid constraints of the national curriculum. According to this view, schools can improve student achievement only if they take teachers' views and students' needs into consideration.
- Responsible for elaborating and defining their pedagogical goals within the framework of the national curriculum.
- Free to elaborate and develop the national curriculum and teaching methods according to their own goals and school vision.
- Responsible for monitoring scholastic achievement and pedagogical goals.
- More influential in the appointment and dismissal of school staff.
- Responsible and free to decide on how to allocate their budgets.
- Run by a governing body consisting of the principal, teachers, parents, and LEA representatives.
The committee's recommendations sparked a bitter and painful public debate (Ministry of Education and Culture, 1993b). The opposition argued that shifting power from the government to the schools would erode the concept of equality. They claimed that school-based management would benefit the affluent sectors of the population, and that the proposal would widen the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged school populations. In their view, school-based management would lead toward privatization, while relieving the government of its obligations to prevent inequities among schools.
In addition, the teachers' unions objected to running schools by means of a governing body, saying it would diminish the status of the principal and undermine the teacher's professional authority. Some LEAs saw the committee's recommendations as a conspiracy on the part of the Ministry to disempower them.
Trial Project
- The schools in the trial project adapt the national curriculum according to students' needs, school vision, and explicit goals.
- Responding to concerns about the negative effects of external assessments, the Israeli education system is pursuing a balanced approach to accountability and school monitoring. Instead of relying solely on national tests, as was the case in 1991–92, the Israeli system is beginning to implement school-based review and internal monitoring of scholastic achievement in a project that includes about 60 schools. Not only can internal assessment have a beneficial influence on teaching methods and curriculum development, it can also be an important step toward school empowerment. This school year, schools will implement an internal monitoring system being developed by university experts, in cooperation with school staff, as one of the components of school-based management.
- Principals in those 60 schools will have, through this project, more autonomy with regard to teacher appointments. In the past, state inspectors recommended to the Ministry whether a particular teacher was to be hired or dismissed. The school principal will now make this decision, because the school principal and school management teams are considered most qualified to select the right teacher for a particular class.
- As of October 1995, schools have more control over school resources, powers traditionally held by the Ministry and the LEAs. As a result, schools can make decisions concerning the deployment of staff and expenditures on administrative functions, maintenance, equipment, supplies, learning materials, substitute teachers, teacher refresher courses, pedagogical initiatives, grants for needy students, and so on.
The LEAs taking part in the experiment signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry regarding the operating budget of the school. The budget for the schools participating in the experiment will be earmarked and designated within the LEA's budget; each school will have its own account, which will be totally controlled by the school's principal.
In addition, the government has designed a new formula to deal with the fragmentation problem mentioned earlier and to address equity issues. The formula, being tried in the nine schools in the trial project, provides a greater funding share for schools in poor neighborhoods. Such an approach should ensure that schools have adequate and flexible resources, and that school budgets are not sapped by overhead expenses and other costs incurred by the Ministry and the LEAs.
Off and Running Toward School-Based Management
The experiment with nine schools is a departure point on Israel's road to school-based management. The hope is that school-based management can result in more teacher involvement, better decisions regarding student needs and school goals, a better atmosphere in the school, parent involvement in curriculum matters, greater flexibility in using the national curriculum, and a closer link between internal school assessment and instructional decisions. Each of these is a key to better school achievement. Researchers will closely watch this experiment, and the future course will be informed by these research findings.
Already, opponents of these efforts to establish more autonomous schools are pointing to perceived flaws in the endeavor. This is probably inevitable, as any effort successful at shifting power and control over decisions will make some uncomfortable. Will the Israeli education system succeed in implementing such a reform on a large scale? It is really too early to say.
