the state approach to jewish and non‐jewish education in israel
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 22 November 2014, At: 05:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Comparative EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cced20
The state approach to Jewish andnon‐Jewish education in IsraelYaacov Katz aa School of Education , Bar‐Ilan University , Ramat‐Gan, IsraelPublished online: 26 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Yaacov Katz (2010) The state approach to Jewish and non‐Jewish education inIsrael, Comparative Education, 46:3, 325-338, DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2010.503741
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2010.503741
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Comparative EducationVol. 46, No. 3, August 2010, 325–338
ISSN 0305-0068 print/ISSN 1360-0486 online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/03050068.2010.503741http://www.informaworld.com
The state approach to Jewish and non-Jewish education in Israel
Yaacov Katz*
School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, IsraelTaylor and Francis LtdCCED_A_503741.sgm10.1080/03050068.2010.503741Comparative Education0305-0068 (print)/1360-0486 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis463000000August 2010Professor [email protected]
The mandatory curriculum mooted by the Israeli Ministry of Education forimplementation is designed to include the most important body of knowledge tobe taught and acquired by every student in the educational system. In addition tothe knowledge present in the mandatory curriculum it also includes the learningskills and social values necessary for the development of productive citizens whofunction adequately in both cognitive and affective domains. Since theestablishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Israeli society has radically movedfrom one in which social solidarity and concern for the welfare of the collectivewas of utmost importance to a post-modern, individualised society in whichcollective values have all but disappeared. The result of such developments hasbeen the significant widening of the social gaps between the different groups inthe Israeli population. It is hoped that the values-based mandatory curriculum willenhance increased communal and collective understanding within Israeli societywhile at the same time allowing different social groups to realise their ownparticular individualised social goals.
Introduction
The complex Israeli educational system attempts to provide both Jewish majority andArab minority population groups with quality education that addresses both cognitiveand affective aspects of learning. The Ministry of Education (Katz 2007a) strives toprovide all educational sectors under its aegis with education that will meet interna-tional standards and form the basis for a well-educated population that is able to fulfilthe rigorous demands posed by modern society. This paper will describe what is beingdone in the Israeli educational system to provide all graduates with the potential tointegrate successfully into complex adult society.
Background
Israel is a unique country in that its population has increased ten-fold since indepen-dence in 1948 and is composed of veterans as well as of immigrants hailing from over100 countries throughout the world. As such Israel has the trappings of both a tradi-tional and modern society at one and the same time, in addition to having an extremelyheterogeneous population. The Israeli sociologist Eisenstadt (1996), in his commentson traditional and modern society, indicated that one of the major differences betweentraditional societies on the one hand and modern, and especially postmodern, societieson the other is that which distinguishes between the striving for maximum cohesion
*Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
326 Y. Katz
and homogeneity in traditional societies as opposed to the promotion of individualcommunities and the tolerance of heterogeneity in modern and postmodern societies.
The first Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and the other founding fathersof the independent Israeli state adopted a national policy whereby state institutions,such as the state educational system, serve as social melting-pots and agents for thepromotion of integration of the different religious, cultural and ethnic groupings inIsraeli society. This policy was best suited to the traditional society of the 1950s and1960s. However, since the 1960s, Israeli society began to move steadily away fromsocial traditionalism, and the issue of individual civil rights rather than the rights ofthe collective became a major societal goal, and the promotion of different communi-ties with unique religious, cultural, and ethnic agendas has become increasingly moretolerated and acceptable in Israeli society. Since the late 1960s and the early 1970s,the different groupings in Israeli society have become increasingly more determinedto actualise their unique needs and have led to the transformation of Israeli societyfrom one where traditional values of unity and integration were of utmost importanceto one where sectoral and group values are perceived as legitimate and even desirable.
As a result of this move away from traditionalism to modernism, and evenpostmodernism, since the 1990s it has become totally legitimate as well as sociallyacceptable to emphasise the different divides in Israeli society. The different sectorsin Israeli society have chosen to accentuate the religious, national, political, ethnic,cultural, and educational divides that characterise Israeli society in an attempt topromote the actualisation of sectoral aims and goals without considering the ramifica-tions of fragmentation and disaffection that has resulted from the pursuit of sectoralneeds.
The religious divide in Israeli society
Guttman (1996) pointed out that in Israel the religious divide occurs on two axes, thefirst of which is Jewish versus Moslem or Jewish versus Christian, and the second ofwhich is Jewish Religious versus Jewish Secular. From the social point of view theJewish Religious versus the Jewish Secular axis is far more crucial to the developmentof sectoralism in Israeli society than the Jewish versus Moslem or Jewish versusChristian axes, as the religious minorities usually perceive the cultural, ethnic andnational issues rather than the religious issue as that which separates them from theJewish majority (Abu-Asba 2007).
The historic status-quo which arranged for workable relations between the reli-gious and secular sections of the Jewish population in Israel has been under constantassault since the 1970s and especially since the 1990s. Religious and secular demandshave forced the Supreme Court to arbitrate on issues, such as military service ofyeshiva [theological academy] students, the closing of public roads on the Sabbath, theimporting of non-kosher meat to mention just three such issues, that were previouslysolved by the consensual status-quo, and have brought inter-sector relations to the boilbecause of the acrimony accruing from legal and political debate on these issues.
In addition, since the late 1980s and the early 1990s public figures associated withthe secular sector of the Jewish population have increasingly called for a change inIsrael’s Declaration of Independence regarding the definition of Israel as a Jewishstate. These figures, backed by the Arab minority leadership, demand that Israel bedefined as a state of all its citizens. Although this demand is not a religious issue perse, it has critically divided those Jewish citizens who are more religiously observant
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Comparative Education 327
or traditional from those who define themselves as being secularists as well as fromthe Arab minorities who perceive the definition of Israel as a Jewish state as beingdiscriminatory. Thus the demand by secularists as well as the Arab minority to haveIsrael defined as a state of all its citizens is perceived as an additional controversypresent in the religious divide (Dwairy 1997).
The political divide in Israeli society
Galnoor (1996) indicated that although there were marked differences between Right(capitalism) and Left (socialism) in the immediate years following the establishmentof the state, these differences became irrelevant in the 1980s and the 1990s when,throughout the western world, right-wing and left-wing political parties departed fromtheir traditional doctrinaire stances and adopted similar economic and social plat-forms. However in Israel, since the 1967 Six-Day War in which Israel entered theprovinces of Judea and Samaria (West Bank of Jordan), the Gaza Strip and the GolanHeights and began establishing Jewish settlements in these areas, the Right versusLeft political divide has taken on new dimensions which focus on political attitudestowards the settling or relinquishing of territories occupied in 1967. Thus the majordifference between Israeli Right and Israeli Left since the late 1960s and early 1970s,and especially since the 1980s, is that which concerns the territorial issue of the Landof Israel. The Right promotes the development of settlements and is opposed to therelinquishing of territories in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians and theSyrians. The Left accepts the position that withdrawal from territories captured in1967 is a cornerstone of any peace agreement with the Palestinians and the Syrians(Katz 1999).
After the signing of the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt andthe subsequent withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Sinai peninsular, and the signingof the Oslo Agreements in 1993 and the partial withdrawal of Israeli troops fromJudea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, it has become apparent to both Right and Left inIsrael that total occupation of territories captured in 1967 is impractical and thatconcessions and compromises need to be made in order to achieve peace betweenIsrael and its Arab neighbours. But the extent of territorial withdrawal remains themajor bone of contention between Right and Left in Israeli politics and is perhaps themain point of tension between the two political sectors, as was evident in the August2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip which left the two major political sectors inIsraeli society polarised and alienated (Shavit 2005).
The ethnic divide in Israeli society
Lissack (1996) described the complicated ethnic composition of Israeli society inwhich oriental (Sephardic) Jews, whose families hail mainly from Arab or Moslemcountries in the Middle East, Asia and North Africa, live side by side with occidental(Ashkenazic) Jews whose families come mainly from Europe and North America. Thefounding fathers of the Zionist movement and the State of Israel were essentially East-ern European Jews and they formed the backbone of Israeli government, civil service,commerce, industry, and academe from the establishment of the state in 1948 throughto the late 1960s. At this time the oriental Jews, after waves of mass immigration toIsrael during the 1950s and 1960s, became a majority in the Israeli population andbegan demanding equality in all walks of life.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
328 Y. Katz
The Educational Reform law, instigated in 1968, was designed to bring aboutethnic integration between Sephardic and Ashkenazic in the school room from bothachievement and social points of view, and thereby to facilitate the absorption of theSephardic section of the Israeli population into government, civil service, commerce,industry and academe as fully integrated citizens in an egalitarian society (Amir,Sharan and Ben-Ari 1984). Much progress has been made since the initiation of theEducation Reform Act but significant segments in the oriental population, and espe-cially those who reside in peripheral development towns, feel that they are still beingdiscriminated against and that they have no alternative but to further their agenda forequality in Israeli society by embracing a sectoral strategy. This strategy, whichemphasises the continuing existence of ethnic discrimination and demands equalitybased on affirmative action, controversially fans the conflict between the Sephardicand Ashkenazic sectors of the Jewish population and has led to controversy character-ised by high levels of emotional intensity (Resnik 2006).
The national divide in Israeli society
Israeli society is made up of two distinct national entities: the Jewish majority (80%)and the Arab minority (20%). The two groups have different national goals and thesehave led to increasing conflict over the years. While the majority Jewish populationviews Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, the Arab population perceives Israel tobe a state of all its citizens without any reference to a Jewish state (Kretzmer 1998).In addition, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has, over the years, increasingly polarisedthe nationalistic standpoints of both Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel (AbuAsba 2007).
The Arab minority feels that it has not been able to achieve equality with theJewish sector in the Israeli population and, over the years since the establishment ofthe state, has become increasingly more demanding and militant in its quest forrecognition of its national aspirations as an equal national group (Swan 2003). Thewill to integrate fully into all facets of Israeli society as equals, despite the fact thatlarge sections in the Jewish population view the Arab minority as citizens who have apotential common denominator with Israel’s enemies, and therefore may pose asecurity threat to the state, has led to the establishment of a unique sectoral agenda ofthe Arab minority in Israeli society. On the one hand the Arab citizens of Israel wishto integrate into Israeli society and economy and on the other they wish to emphasisetheir uniqueness as a national group with definite nationalist goals (Jamal 2004).
The cultural divide in Israeli society
Shuval and Leshem (1998) described the cultural differences between the groups inIsraeli society as inherent in immigrant societies. Each immigrant group brings withit cultural roots which are seemingly based on a common Jewish heritage, but are infact deeply rooted in the culture of the society from which the group emigrated toIsrael. Thus, the oriental Jews brought with themselves cultural characteristics rootedin Middle Eastern or North African Moslem customs and traditions. Ashkenazic Jewsbrought with them traditions and behaviours typical of Eastern, Central and WesternEuropean as well as North American cultures. The recently arrived immigrants fromthe former Soviet Union brought with them cultural idiosyncrasies that represent theculture of the countries in which they resided prior to their immigration to Israel. The
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Comparative Education 329
Ethiopian immigrants absorbed native Ethiopian culture in the land of their birth andbrought its manifestations with them to Israel. In addition the indigenous Arab, Druzeand Bedouin populations of Israel maintain their respective cultures and traditions andemphasise the cultural differences between their social groupings and the culture ofother social entities within Israeli society.
In Israel, a country with a clearly defined western orientation, cultural heterogene-ity has, over the years, led to a perception of inequality on the part of those immigrantsand their families not steeped in Eastern, Central or Western European, or NorthAmerican culture, as well as a perception of alienation by the Arab, Druze andBedouin populations not acquainted with the cultural traditions of the Jewish majority(Bar-Tal and Teichman 2005). The feeling of frustration and cultural despair is partic-ularly evident among the groups of immigrants which arrived in Israel during the1980s and 1990s and the minority Arab population. These feelings have legitimisedthe attempts of all cultural entities within the Israeli population to nurture their culturaltraditions, mainly at the expense of the forging of an encompassing Israeli culture thatallows all sectors in the population to feel at home and part of Israeli society.
The educational divide in Israeli society
Katz (2007b) described the Israeli state educational system in detail and charted itspolicies and development since the legislation of the revised Education Act in 1953.According to this Act the Israeli educational system is divided into a number of educa-tional sectors in order to allow each sector to realise its educational goals and aimswithin the national system. Thus the system comprises parallel state Jewish Secular,state Jewish Religious, state Arab, and state Druze units which direct the policiesgoverning each of the units according to the ideological and cultural needs of each ofthe above-mentioned sectors. In addition, the Education Act allowed for recognisedbut unofficial as well as exemption schools established mainly for the benefit of theJewish Ultra-Orthodox population which ideologically rejected inclusion in the stateeducational system. These Ultra-Orthodox schools have a strictly religious curriculumand have almost no general studies in their school curriculum. Despite the numerousparallel units in the Israeli educational system, the Education Act has permitted statefunding for all schools despite the vast differences in goals, achievement levels ofstudents and non-adherence to any national curriculum.
Jewish education in Israel
The Jewish educational system in Israel is highly developed and enjoys a large budgetwhich allows for dynamic development of facilities, school-based technology,advanced teaching and learning methodologies, and varied extra-curricularprogrammes for students at all levels in the school system (Gaziel 1999). The level ofteachers is good with almost all teachers in the educational system in possession of acollege degree and a teaching diploma. School facilities, such as classrooms, libraries,laboratories, computer rooms, and sports facilities are well developed; achievement ofJewish students in matriculation examinations is on a par with achievement in theaverage western country; the drop-out rate of students is fairly low and, in general,Jewish parents are involved in their children’s education.
Jewish education in Israel caters to approximately 1.2 million students at theelementary, junior high and high school levels and is divided into four sectors that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
330 Y. Katz
exist side by side and enjoy sectoral autonomy with inspectors, who belong to thedifferent sectors, responsible for supervising the educational process in each sector.The Ministry of Education is responsible for the curriculum, examinations and teachercertification of all sectors and coordinates the educational processes that characterisethree of the four sectors. Following are the four Jewish sectors in the educationalsystem as described by Katz (2004).
State secular education
Parents choose this sector mainly because they have no particular religious commit-ment and wish their children to experience an all round education that emphasisesachievement as well as humanistic values and citizenship. In this sector the studentsare taught the different subjects from a pluralistic values point of view that does nothave any intention of imparting to the students any particular ideology apart fromhumanistic and democratic values that characterise western civilisation.
State religious education
Parents choose this sector mainly because of their particular religious persuasion thatis usually modern Orthodox. In this sector the emphasis is placed on achievement inthe different subjects offered to the students in addition to a range of religious subjectsthat are taught from a clear modern Orthodox point of view. Values that are concurrentwith modern Orthodox Judaism are imparted to the students and teachers are aware ofthe centrality of Orthodox Judaism in the values presented to the students. Thereforeteachers are intent on inculcating a modern Orthodox way of life in their students andview western civilisation and citizenship through the Jewish modern Orthodox prism.
Recognised but unofficial education
Parents who send their children to this educational sector usually are of ultra-Orthodox persuasion and perceive the school as the long arm of the Ultra-Orthodoxfamily. Thus the schools in this sector perceive religious instruction to be the maingoal of the school curriculum and the teachers feel beholden to impart religiousknowledge to their students and to ensure that their students maintain their highstandards of religious observance throughout their school careers. Achievement isperceived as a secondary goal of the school system with the major thrust directed toreligious instruction and success. These schools receive 75%–100% of their budgetsfrom the Ministry of Education (depending on the proportion of the official curricu-lum taught) with the rest of their budget covered by parents’ payments.
Exemption educational institutions
According to the Education Act of 1949 (paragraph 5), any sector in the Israeli popu-lation has the legal right to establish schools that are not supervised in any way by theMinistry of Education but are licensed to operate as educational institutions. Thecurriculum in the exemption institutions is not ratified by the educational authoritiesand each institution has the legal right to teach according to its particular philosophyand belief. These institutions receive 35%–55% of their budget from the Ministry of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Comparative Education 331
Education (depending on the proportion of the official curriculum taught in theseschools) with the remaining portion of the budget paid by the parents.
All educational sectors in the Jewish population in Israel can be described asgenerally satisfied with the educational outputs of the schools that cater for theirchildren. Jewish parents cooperate with their children’s schools and provide assistanceand support when necessary, and are at ease with the generally successful Jewisheducational system (Gaziel 1999).
Arab education in Israel
The Arab educational system is administered by the Department of Arab Educationwithin the framework of the Israeli Ministry of Education. Since the establishment ofthe State of Israel the number of Arab children in the school system has grown to atotal of over 300,000 in 2004. However, despite this numerical progress, Glaubmanand Katz (1998) indicated that the Israeli educational authorities have not been able toclose the vast quality gap that exists between the Arab educational system and theeducational system that caters for Jews.
Glaubman and Katz (1998) further indicated that the Arab educational system ischaracterised by a number of serious limitations that militate against educationalachievements and success. Despite the fact that Arab education is budgeted accordingto the same parameters that dictate the budget for Jewish education, benign neglectover the years by successive Israeli governments has led to a situation of inequalitybetween Jewish and Arab schools. Arab schools are typified by a significant lack ofphysical facilities, such as classrooms, libraries, laboratories; a significant lackof qualified teachers; a significantly high student drop-out rate; a remarkably low rateof success in the Israeli matriculation examinations which serve as a major criterionfor entry into education at the tertiary level; an almost total lack of extra-curricularactivities offered to students by school authorities; and an almost total lack of parentalinterest in their children’s educational future.
Within the Arab educational system there are a number of minority systems. Thefirst is that which provides education for the Moslem Arab majority as well as for theChristian Arab minority. Both of the above sectors study the same subject-matter andare governed by the same curriculum except for religious education which is designedto deliver the basic tenets of Islam and Christianity to the two groups. There are twoother minority systems that have reciprocal relations with the Arab sector. These arethe Bedouin educational sector which includes about 70,000 students and the Druzeeducational sector that comprises about 40,000 students. The problems regardingachievement, resources, neglect and disappointment that characterise the Arabpopulation regarding the educational system that caters to its children can also befound among the Bedouin and Druze populations who, as the general Arab population,are highly critical of the educational standards attained by their children in the schoolsystem.
According to Glaubman and Katz (1998) the limitations that typify the Arabeducational systems are perceived by the Arab population as part of a planned govern-mental policy of neglect and are viewed as an extension of grievances held against theIsraeli government. Thus the Arab minority feels grossly discriminated against on allfronts and most especially in the educational domain because of the inferiority of theArab school system in comparison to schools attended by Jewish students in Israel.All this has compounded feelings of frustration, anger and even hostility against the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
332 Y. Katz
majority Jewish population and against the successive Israeli governments (whichrepresent the Jewish majority) that have consistently failed to contribute to animprovement of Arab education. In marked contradistinction to the Jewish populationthe Arab sector is dissatisfied with the standard of education provided for their chil-dren. Arab citizens are frustrated and unhappy with the poor achievement level ofArab school students and these feelings have major implications for Israeli society asa whole. The feelings of inequality and bitterness have given rise to the fomentationof anti-Israeli Islamic fundamentalism and a general wariness of the Israeligovernment, the Israeli municipal authorities as well as the general Jewish population(Ben-David 1993).
The educational solution to the divides in Israeli society
Schools are a mirror of society. To a large extent schools reflect national cultures,both in their official and in their hidden curricula. School curricula are largelyshaped by the dominant values of society. School cultures do not exist in a vacuum(Prosser 1999) but are impregnated with national and local cultures that reflecthuman experience. In addition school cultures include a vast array of socioculturalsystems such as ethnic, professional, political, artistic and communicative systems. Itis a myth to consider schools as enclaves, operating in a separate reality from thegeneral society.
Watson and Ashton (1995) noted that schools take the achievement and valuesaspects of education seriously. Schools should be encouraged to enable students tocope with a particular package of achievement and values goals based on agreementreached in the community. Thus education must become community-sensitive. This isin some ways a throwback to traditional approaches to education (Hostetler andHuntington 1971), where children are acculturated into the achievement and valuesgoals of their particular communities. Collaboration between teachers and communitypromotes the adoption of community values and increased understanding of theirstudents, thereby setting the stage for the development of better relationships withstudents.
Based on the realities and complexities of heterogeneous Israeli society and thepremise regarding the development of sensitivity of the educational system to theneeds of the different communities that it serves, the Israeli educational authoritiesbegan looking into the merits of a mandatory curriculum that could contribute to asolution to problems deriving from the different divides in Israeli society (Katz 2005).
Goals of a mandatory curriculum
According to Souza (2000) the school as a social institution is affected by the samecontradictions as run through society. In these circumstances schools cannot beexpected to transform society without a political pedagogical plan of action that willmove the school in the direction of change. Resulting from the above-mentioneddevelopments many countries have recognised the importance of introducing amandatory curriculum into their respective educational sytems. There are threegeneral definitions of the mandatory curriculum. The first definition is that whichperceives the mandatory curriculum as a relatively small core around which crystal-lises a much larger curricular body of knowledge which is studied on an elective basis(Brandes 1997). The second definition views the mandatory curriculum as an
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Comparative Education 333
important and vital body of knowledge to be taught compulsorily in the educationalsystem with all other knowledge perceived as of secondary importance (Stahl 1997).The third definition perceives the mandatory curriculum as including all content,learning skills and social values that are considered vital for the development of anautonomous individual who will be a productive citizen (Ilan 2000). According to thisdefininition, quality of the content, skills and values is significantly more importantthan quantity. Based on the above definitions many attempts have been made byeducationalists to come to some mode of consensus regarding the essence of themandatory curriculum, but very little progress has been made regarding agreement onthe mandatory curriculum.
If it is so difficult to arrive at an agreed definition, why then should educationalsystems strive to adopt a mandatory curriculum? The majority of researchers contendthat the radical changes overtaking twenty-first century society in general and theeducational system in particular are the major catalysts fostering the adoption of amandatory curriculum (for example, Stahl 1997; Volansky 1999). Wraga (1998, 1999)discussed the advantages of a mandatory curriculum in contributing to efforts todevelop imperative values based knowledge. Platt (1998) chronicled the process ofreforming liberal education and the need to organise it around the theme of theindividual and community. Platt proposed the integration of the civic arts into themandatory curriculum in order to promote the balancing of individual and community.Hickox (1998) stated that the Hawaiian educational system encourages schools toadopt an integrated mandatory curriculum of language arts, mathematics, science, andsocial studies in order to equip students both academically and socially for a smoothentry into community life. Applebaum and Cross (1998) indicated that the Council forBasic Education in the United States advocates a strong liberal arts education, linkedto standards in core subject areas. A basic education must have an academic focuscentred on intellectual as well as social values. Goldberg (1997) concluded from aninterview with E.D. Hirsch in which the latter confirmed his firm belief (Hirsch, Kettand Trefil 1988) that to help less talented students to realise their learning potentialand to close the social justice gap, schools need a solid mandatory curriculum. Theabove suggestions regarding the structure of the mandatory curriculum are based onresearch studies that indicate that the mandatory curriculum promotes measures ofintellectual development as well as that of social unity. For example, Larrey andEstanek (1999) reviewed core curricula in a number of US states and reported thatcore curricula highlight learning that is integrated, interdisciplinary, and sequential,and embodies both learning and developmental goals. Another example is that of astudy conducted by Codding and Tucker (2000) who contended that typical corecurricula included vital social aims as well as clearly defined benchmarked academicstandards to be attained by students. Breitborde and Swiniarski (1999) confirmed thetension in public education in the US between the goals of enlightening individualsand improving society, in other words individual constructivism versus socialreconstructionism. Their conclusion is to break down the dichotomy between the twospheres and to forge a strong curricular link between academic achievement and socialcohesion.
Breitborde and Swiniarski (1999) discussed the tension in public educationbetween the goals of enlightening individuals and improving society, individualconstructionism versus social reconstructionism, and concluded that the cognitive–affective should be ignored and academic achievement should be linked to socialcohesion. Stahl (1997) has indicated that in addition to the definition of a content-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
334 Y. Katz
based mandatory curriculum accepted by any given educational system, considerationmust be given to the learning skills and social values to be incorporated into themandatory curriculum. Stahl also suggested that standards be incorporated into schoolcurricula in order to ensure that the mandatory curriculum is not only taught to allstudents in the educational system but to verify that an agreed level of proficiency isreached by all students in scholastic achievement and in the acquiring of learningskills and the internalisation of social values.
The need for a mandatory curriculum in Israel
Israeli society, which appears to be on the verge of disintegration (Katz 1999), focusedthe attention of educationalists and politicians on the need to implement a mandatorycurriculum to form a basic educational common denominator for all students in soci-ety from the cognitive as well as affective points of view. After an extended heatedparliamentary debate and intervention of the Israeli Supreme Court, the mandatorycurriculum, designed to present standards-based quality education to all sectors in theIsraeli population, was implemented in 2003. The mandatory curriculum has twomajor goals. The first is to ensure that all students in all educational sectors areexposed to content in a number of mandatory core subjects as well as being exposedto crucial learning skills in order to maintain robust academic standards. The secondis to inculcate vital social values considered to be of paramount importance in thesocialisation of future citizens through the medium of a values-based affectiveeducation programme.
The structure of the mandatory curriculum in Israel
In order to achieve the twofold educational goals of Israeli society, namely the main-taining of suitable academic standards and learning skills as well as the inculcation ofsocial values, the mandatory curriculum is presented as a three-tiered parallel modelwhich includes content clusters, learning skills and social values The standards-basedsubject-matter, learning skills and social values suggested in the model are thosewhich are seen as consensually providing the student with a solid and balanced basison which to build good citizenship. Mention must be made of the fact that the three-tiered model includes learning skills as well as social values that are integrated intothe subject-matter clusters so that teachers address skills and values while teachingtheir students mandatory subject-matter.
Following is an integrated description of the subject-matter, learning skills, andsocial values that comprise the parallel three-tiered mandatory curriculum aspresented in Figure 1.Figure 1. Graphic presentation of a three-tiered parallel integrative model of the mandatory curriculum
Subject-matter in the Israeli mandatory curriculum
The mandatory curriculum presented in Figure 1 forms approximately 70% of the totalsubject-matter presented to students throughout their 13-year (kindergarten, elemen-tary school, high school) school careers. The mandatory curriculum is the commondenominator of the students’ schooling and includes subjects judged by Israeli societyin general and by the Israeli educational authorities in particular to reflect accuratelythe mandatory needs of typical Israeli students. The core includes the followingclusters and subjects:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Comparative Education 335
(a) Humanities, Social Studies and Arts – Jewish/Arab Heritage and Tradition,Jewish/Arab History, Geography, Civics, Theatre, Dance, Music, Art
(b) Languages – Hebrew Language and Literature, Arabic Language and Litera-ture, English Language and Literature
(c) Mathematics and Science – Mathematics and Computers, Physics, Biology,Chemistry
(d) School Culture – Physical Education, Safety Education
Elective subject-matter forms the additional 30% of students’ educational experi-ence. The elective topics are options offered by the national educational authorities toall students and are chosen by the individual student based on ability, needs, wishes,and preferences, and are studied as specialisations within the general school curricu-lum. Thus the Israeli educational system attempts to provide a balanced curriculumcomprised of a mandatory core and elective specialisations, all based on standards thatensure a satisfactory achievement level of students as well accountability of teachersand schools.
Learning skills in the Israeli mandatory curriculum
In addition to the contents and subject-matter offered in the mandatory curriculum,students are expected to acquire learning skills that will form the basis of their learn-ing habits throughout their school careers and will enable them to cope with contentmatter not offered in the school curriculum. The learning skills according to contentclusters are as follows:
(a) Humanities, Social Studies and Arts – Cultural Literacy, Information Literacy,Social Literacy, Aesthetic Literacy
(b) Languages – Language Literacy, Communication Skills(c) Mathematics and Science – Numeracy, Analytical Literacy, Quantitative
Literacy(d) School Culture – Health Awareness, Life Skills
Figure 1. Graphic presentation of a three-tiered parallel integrative model of the mandatorycurriculum.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
336 Y. Katz
The acquisition of the above basic learning skills while studying subject-matter pavesthe way for the development of a productive learner who is better able to cope withcognitive tasks in as well as out of school.
Social values in the Israeli mandatory curriculum
An important component of the Israeli mandatory curriculum is that which comprisesnormative and accepted values which form the basis of Israeli society. These valuesare accepted by all sectors within Israeli society and are the common denominatorwhich forms the basis for social cohesion. Social values according to content clusterare as follows:
(a) Humanities, Social Studies and Arts – Democracy, Tolerance, Understanding,Coexistence, Social Cohesion
(b) Languages – Equality, Social Respect, Inter-group Acceptance(c) Mathematics and Science – Truth, Precision, Accuracy(d) School Culture – Ethics, Morals, Well-being
These social values permeate Israeli society and allow society to weave an intri-cate values fabric that is accepted by all societal sectors, despite ideological, religious,ethnic and national differences. Thus the values in the mandatory curriculum promotecohesion in society, respect, acceptance and understanding of others, bearing in mindthe sectoralism and latent conflict inherent in Israeli society.
Summary
The Israeli educational system has introduced the mandatory curriculum in order toaddress major cognitive and affective issues. The subject-matter included in themandatory curriculum is designed to present the learner with up to date knowledgethat provides the foundation for the development of an integrated citizen in twenty-first century society. The affective components of the mandatory curriculum take intoconsideration the needs of the various societal, ethnic, religious, cultural and nationalgroups in Israeli society and strive to provide a foundation for self-realisation ofstudents’ goals while educating towards cooperation, understanding, coexistence,peace, and above all equality for all. Much still remains to be done to achieve all goalsevident in the mandatory curriculum but the first crucial steps have been taken toensure a better and more cohesive future for the present generation of Israeli schoolstudents.
Notes on contributorsProfessor Yaacov J. Katz is a senior member of the faculty of the School of Education at Bar-Ilan University in Israel and specialises in the fields of religious education and values,affective education and social attitudes in education. He is a member of the executive commit-tee of the International Seminar on Religious Education and Values (ISREV) and has been amember of the European Affective Education Network (EAEN) since its inception. He is aprominent researcher in the above fields and has published widely. He has served as head ofthe School of Education at Bar-Ilan University and also as Chief Pedagogic Officer of theIsrael Ministry of Education where he was responsible for all subject-matter taught in theIsraeli national school system.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Comparative Education 337
ReferencesAbu Asba, K. 2007. Arab education in Israel: Dilemma of a national minority. Jerusalem:
Florsheimer Institute for Policy Research. (Hebrew)Amir, Y., S. Sharan, and R. Ben-Ari. 1984. Why integration? In School desegregation: Cross-
cultural perspectives, ed. Y. Amir, S. Sharan and R. Ben-Ari, 1–19. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Applebaum, K., and C.T. Cross. 1998. Stretching students’ minds is basic education.Educational Leadership 55, no. 6: 74–76.
Bar-Tal, D., and Y. Teichman. 2005. Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict: Representations ofArabs in Israeli Jewish society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ben-David, Y. 1993. The settlement of Bedouins in the Negev: Reality and the need forimprovement. Jerusalem: Florsheimer Institute for Policy Research (Hebrew).
Brandes, O. 1997. The third leap. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education. (Hebrew)Breitborde, M. L., and L. Swiniarski. 1999. Constructivism and reconstructionism: Educating
teachers for world citizenship. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 24, no. 1: 1–15.Codding, J.B., and M.S. Tucker. 2000. A new high school design focused on student perfor-
mance. NASSP Bulletin 84, no. 615: 79–92.Dwairy, M. 1997. Personality, culture and Arabic society. Jerusalem: Al-Noor Press.Eisenstadt, S.N. 1996. Comments on the post-modern society. In Israel towards the year
2000, ed. M. Lissack and B. Knei-Paz, 19–27. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (Hebrew)Galnoor, I. 1996. The crisis in the Israeli political system: The parties as principal cause. In
Israel towards the year 2000, ed. M. Lissack and B. Knei-Paz, 144–175. Jerusalem:Magnes Press. (Hebrew)
Gaziel, H. 1999. Educational policy in Israel: Structures and processes. In Fifty years ofIsraeli education, ed. E. Peled, 67–84. Tel-Aviv: Ministry of Defence Press. (Hebrew)
Glaubman, R., and Y.J. Katz. 1998. The Bedouin community in the Negev: Educational andcommunity characteristics (Research Report Number 11). Ramat-Gan: Institute forCommunity Education and Research, School of Education, Bar-Ilan University. (Hebrew)
Goldberg, M.F. 1997. Doing what works: An interview with E.D. Hirsch, Jr. Phi DeltaKappan 79, no. 1: 83–85.
Guttman, E. 1996. The religious divide. In Israel towards the year 2000, ed. M. Lissack andB. Knei-Paz, 61–73. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (Hebrew)
Hickox, A.K. 1998. The canoe is their island. Educational Leadership 55, no. 8: 58–59.Hirsch, E.D., J.F. Kett, and J. Trefil. 1988. The dictionary of cultural literacy. Boston: Hough-
ton Mifflin.Hostetler, J.A., and G.E. Huntington. 1971. Children in Amish society. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.Ilan, M. 2000. The mandatory curriculum. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education, Department for
Curriculum Development. (Hebrew)Jamal, A. 2004. The ambiguities of minority patriotism: On love for homeland versus
state among Palestinian citizens of Israel. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 10, no. 3:433–471.
Katz, Y.J. 1999. Israeli society in the light of the 1999 general election: The establishment ofa confederation of sectors. Nativ 12, no. 6: 48–56. (Hebrew)
Katz, Y.J. 2004. State religious education in Israel: Developmental trends in the Zionist era.In Education as a social challenge, ed. Z. Gross and Y. Dror, 73–83. Tel-Aviv: RamotPublishing House, Tel-Aviv University. (Hebrew)
Katz, Y.J. 2005. The Israeli school core curriculum and matriculation examinations: Anattempt to set standards for a national educational system. Educational Practice andTheory 27, no. 1: 67–82.
Katz, Y.J. 2007a. Values education in the Israeli educational system. In Learning beyondcognition, ed. N. Kryger and B. Ravn, 291–302. Copenhagen: Danish University ofEducation Press.
Katz, Y.J. 2007b. Education for peaceful coexistence in the Israeli State Jewish schoolsystem. In Peace or violence: The ends of religion and education?, ed. J. Astley, L.J.Francis and M. Robbins, 195–207. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Kretzmer, D. 1998. A Jewish and democratic state: Between paradox and harmony. (RavgoniSeries, 2) Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute. (Hebrew)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14
338 Y. Katz
Larrey, M.F., and S.M. Estanek. 1999. The Ursuline studies program: A collaborative manda-tory curriculum. New Directions for Student Services 87: 63–73.
Lissack, M. 1996. Ethnic grouping and ethnicity in an historical perspective. In Israel towardsthe year 2000, ed. M. Lissack and B. Knei-Paz, 74–89. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.(Hebrew)
Platt, C. 1998. Civic education and academic culture: Learning to practice what we teach.Liberal Education 84, no. 1: 18–25.
Prosser, J. 1999. The evolution of school culture research. In School culture, ed. J. Prosser,1–14. London: Paul Chapman.
Resnik, J. 2006. Alternative identities in multicultural schools in Israel: Emancipatoryidentity, mixed identity and transnational identity. British Journal of Sociology ofEducation 27, no. 5: 585–601.
Shavit, A. 2005. Partition of the land: Israelis consider evacuation. Jerusalem: Keter Books.(Hebrew)
Shuval, J.T., and E. Leshem, E. 1998. The sociology of migration in Israel: A critical view. InImmigration to Israel: Sociological perspectives, ed. E. Leshem and J.T. Shuval, 3–50.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Souza, P.R. 2000. Values education and cultural diversity. In Systems of education: Theories,policies and implicit values, ed. M Leicester, C. Modgil and S. Modgil, 108–114. London:Falmer Press.
Stahl, A. 1997. Core curricula in the world and in Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education.(Hebrew)
Swan, D. 2003. Land of hostility and anger: Schisms and identities in Israeli society. KiryatBialik: Ach Publishers.
Volansky, A. 1999. The dialectics of delegation and centralization. In The jubilee volume ofIsraeli education, ed. E. Peled, 283–299. Tel-Aviv: Ministry of Defence Press. (Hebrew).
Watson, B., and E. Ashton. 1995. Education assumptions and values. London: David Fulton.Wraga, W.G. 1998. Implications of issues-centered education for the social studies
curriculum. International Journal of Social Education 13, no. 1: 49–65.Wraga, W.G. 1999. Organizing and developing issues-centered social studies curricula:
profiting from our predecessor. Social Studies, 90, no. 5: 209–217.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
5:24
22
Nov
embe
r 20
14