School Autonomy for School Effectiveness and Improvement: The Case of Israel

Abstract

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 was closely allied to the view that education is the main means of consolidating Israel’s largely immigrant population into one nation. With this focus on equality, national policy mainly looked to improve school attendance rates and to convey a national heritage to young citizens. It was felt that a centralized system would be most appropriate in meeting the extensive educational needs of the young country. Priority needs included the construction of new schools, the training of teachers, the development of curricula and learning resources. By centralizing decisions and policies on pedagogical and administrative matters, the Israeli government sought to avoid inequities among schools and communities. The pattern of government involvement in all the school’s spheres of activity developed gradually and systematically. The state determined – by law, regulation, circulars and procedures – all matters and concerns, including pedagogic issues such as curricula, class structure and organization; procedures for preparing homework; how pupils should write in their notebooks; school climate; as well as other areas such as for example, the physical planning of schools – the schoolyard, the width of hallways, size of the classrooms, and the precise angle at which light should fall on the pupils’ desks. In 1953, all teachers working in the official education system became employees of the public service sector. This move further increased the involvement of the Ministry of Education in all aspects of personnel management. Now, the Ministry was required to regulate the movement of teachers between cities, between schools and between the public (secular) and religious public schools at the same time it was expected to engage in issuing authorizations for in-service training, retirement, vacations, transfers, disciplinary warnings, dismissals, etc. This involvement of central and local authorities with the schools increased over time. This was true for the slowly expanding authority of the