Educational governance, school autonomy, and curriculum implementation: diversity and uniformity in knowledge offerings to Israeli pupils

Local schools increasingly play a mediating role between intended curricular directives and actual classroom practice. This paper highlights how macro factors such as decentralized governance and subject's institutional status affect school‐based decisions to diverge from official curricular policies. Specifically, it reports a three‐dimensional comparison from the Israeli education system, i.e. comparing educational levels (elementary and lower‐secondary), sectors (Jewish secular, Jewish religious, and Arab), and school subjects (with varying institutional status), to investigate patterns of diversity/uniformity in curricular structures. Between‐school variation in curriculum implementation tends to be greater under conditions of increased decentralization and school autonomy. Highly institutionalized subjects are more likely to be taught in conformity with official directives, thereby increasing between‐school uniformity. Important political and educational factors have a contextual influence on subject implementation, especially in certain sectors and levels. Ongoing trends toward educational decentralization not only encourage school autonomy, but also heighten curricular diversification. Local schools increasingly determine the educational knowledge students are offered, and effectively enable or constrain what teachers teach. Keywords: curriculumcurricular diversificationcurriculum implementationIsraelIsraeli‐Arab schools Acknowledgements This research was supported by grants from the Ministry of Education and from the Israeli Academy of Sciences. We thank the NCJW Research Institute for Innovation in Education, Hebrew University, for valuable administrative support during the study. Thanks are due to our many research assistants who helped in data collection and analysis, and to the school principals whose co‐operation made this research possible. Notes 1. See Beyer and Liston (1996 Beyer, L. E. and Liston, D. P. 1996. Curriculum in Conflict: Social Visions, Educational Agendas, and Progressive School Reform, New York: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]), Brint (1998 Brint, S. 1998. Schools and Societies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. [Google Scholar]), Eggleston (1977 Eggleston, J. 1977. The Sociology of the School Curriculum, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [Google Scholar]), McEneaney and Meyer (2000 McEneaney, E. H. and Meyer, J. W. 2000. "The content of the curriculum: an institutionalist perspective". In Handbook of the Sociology of Education, Edited by: Hallinan, M. T. 189–211. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. [Google Scholar]), and Meyer (2006 Meyer, J. W. 2006. "World models, national curricula, and the centrality of the individual". In School Knowledge in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Changing Curricula in Primary and Secondary Education, Edited by: Benavot, A. and Braslavsky, C. 259–271. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Press. CERC Studies in Comparative Education, No. 18 [Google Scholar]). 2. E.g. Apple (1979 Apple, M. W. 1979. Ideology and Curriculum, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Benavot and Braslavsky (2006 Benavot, A. and Braslavsky, C., eds. 2006. School Knowledge in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Changing Curricula in Primary and Secondary Education, Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Press. CERC Studies in Comparative Education, No. 8 [Google Scholar]), Beyer and Apple (1998 Beyer, L. E. and Apple, M. W. 1998. The Curriculum: Problems, Politics, and Possibilities, , 2nd edn, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]), Goodson (1993 Goodson, I. F. 1993. School Subjects and Curriculum Change: Studies in Curriculum History, , 3rd edn, London: Falmer. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Holmes and McLean (1989 Holmes, B. and McLean, M. 1989. The Curriculum: A Comparative Perspective, London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]), Kelly (2004 Kelly, A. V. 2004. The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, , 5th edn, London: Sage. [Google Scholar]), Kliebard (1986 Kliebard, H. M. 1986. The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893–1958, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [Google Scholar]), Popkewitz (1987 Popkewitz, T. S. 1987. "The formation of school subjects and the political context of schooling". In The Formation of the School Subjects: The Stuggle for Creating an American Institution, Edited by: Popkewitz, T. S. 1–24. New York: Falmer. [Google Scholar]), Tyack (1974 Tyack, D. B. 1974. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), and Vlaeminke (1998 Vlaeminke, M. 1998. "Historical and philosophical influences on the primary curriculum". In The Primary Curriculum: Learning from International Perspectives, Edited by: Moyles, J. and Hargreaves, L. 13–27. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). 3. E.g. Benavot (2005 Benavot, A. . A global study of intended instructional time in official school curricula, 1980–2000. Background paper commissioned by the International Bureau of Education for UNESCO‐EFA Global Monitoring Report, UNESCO. Paris. Available online at: http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=36276&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, accessed 14 February 2008 [Google Scholar], 2006 Benavot, A. . The diversification of secondary education: school curricula in comparative perspective. IBE Working Papers on Curriculum Issues, Number 6. Geneva, , Switzerland: International Bureau of Education. Available online at: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/resourcebank/working_papers.htm, accessed 14 February 2008 [Google Scholar]), Fiala (2006 Fiala, R. 2006. "Educational ideology and the school curriculum". In School Knowledge in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Changing Curricula in Primary and Secondary Education, Edited by: Benavot, A. and Braslavsky, C. 15–34. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Press. CERC Studies in Comparative Education, No. 18 [Google Scholar]), Kamens et al. (1996 Kamens, D. H., Meyer, J. W. and Benavot, A. 1996. Worldwide patterns in academic secondary education curricula. Comparative Education Review, 40(2): 116–138. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Meyer et al. (1992 Meyer, J. W., Kamens, D. H. and Benavot, A. 1992. School Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and National Primary Curricular Categories in the Twentieth Century, London: Falmer. [Google Scholar], 1997 Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M. and Ramirez, F. O. 1997. World society and the nation‐state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1): 144–181. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), and Reid (1992 Reid, W. A. 1992. The Pursuit of Curriculum: Schooling and the Public Interest, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [Google Scholar]). 4. E.g. Cha (2006 Cha, Y.‐K. 2006. "The spread of English language instruction in the primary school". In School Knowledge in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Changing Curricula in Primary and Secondary Education, Edited by: Benavot, A. and Braslavsky, C. 55–71. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Press. CERC Studies in Comparative Education, No. 18 [Google Scholar]), Frank et al. (2000 Frank, D. J., Wong, S.–Y., Meyer, J. W. and Ramirez, F. O. 2000. What counts as history: a cross‐national and longitudinal study of university curricula. Comparative Education Review, 44(1): 29–53. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Gabler and Frank (2005 Gabler, J. and Frank, D. J. 2005. The natural sciences in the university: change and variation over the 20th century. Sociology of Education, 78(3): 183–206. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), and Ramirez et al. (2006 Ramirez, F. O., Suarez, D. and Meyer, J. W. 2006. "The worldwide rise of human rights education". In School Knowledge in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Changing Curricula in Primary and Secondary Education, Edited by: Benavot, A. and Braslavsky, C. 35–52. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Press. CERC Studies in Comparative Education, No. 18 [Google Scholar]). 5. Another strand of research delves into patterns of curricular implementation by individual teachers in classrooms: the specific topics or items being taught, as well as pedagogical styles of teaching these topics (e.g. Stevenson and Baker 1991 Stevenson, D. and Baker, D. P. 1991. State control of the curriculum and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 64(1): 1–10. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], Snyder et al. 1992 Snyder, J., Bolin, F. and Zumwalt, K. 1992. "Curriculum implementation". In Handbook of Research on Curriculum, Edited by: Jackson, P. W. 402–435. New York: Macmillan. [Google Scholar], Kelly 2004 Kelly, A. V. 2004. The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, , 5th edn, London: Sage. [Google Scholar]). 6. E.g. Astiz et al. (2002 Astiz, M. F., Wiseman, A. W. and Baker, D. P. 2002. Slouching towards decentralization: consequences of globalization for curricular control in national education systems. Comparative Educational Review, 46(1): 66–88. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Phillips (1995 Phillips, G. 1995. Measuring What Students Learn, Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organization for Economic Co‐operation and Development. [Google Scholar]), and Regan (1998 Regan, L. 1998. "Primary education: an Australian perspective". In The Primary Curriculum: Learning from International Perspectives, Edited by: Moyles, J. and Hargreaves, L. 158–180. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). The US education system is an exception. Despite a historical legacy of decentralization, there are growing signs of federal involvement (and financing) in the US system accompanied by greater central administration and control. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has contributed to this trend. In other contexts, the pendulum regarding curriculum control continues to oscillate: pressures to ensure 'high standards' and school accountability strengthen calls for greater central control in the form of a 'national (or core) curriculum' (e.g. Moyles and Hargreaves 1998 Moyles, J. and Hargreaves, L., eds. 1998. The Primary Curriculum: Learning from International Perspectives, London: Routledge. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], White 2003 White, J., ed. 2003. Rethinking the School Curriculum: Values, Aims, and Purposes, London: RoutledgeFalmer. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). 7. See Meyer et al. (1992 Meyer, J. W., Kamens, D. H. and Benavot, A. 1992. School Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and National Primary Curricular Categories in the Twentieth Century, London: Falmer. [Google Scholar]), Goodson (1993 Goodson, I. F. 1993. School Subjects and Curriculum Change: Studies in Curriculum History, , 3rd edn, London: Falmer. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), Grossman and Stodolsky (1995 Grossman, P. L. and Stodolsky, S. S. 1995. Content as context: the role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8): 5–11. 23[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), and Reid (1992 Reid, W. A. 1992. The Pursuit of Curriculum: Schooling and the Public Interest, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [Google Scholar]). 8. Based on student enrolment, the relative size of sectors at the lower‐secondary level is 63% Jewish secular, 14% Jewish religious, less than 1% ultra‐orthodox (but larger at the elementary level), and 22% Arab (Central Bureau of Statistics 2000 Central Bureau of Statistics. 2000. Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract, Jerusalem: Government Pub. (In Hebrew.) [Google Scholar]). The religious composition of pupils in Arab‐sector schools is ∼ 76% Muslim, 15% Christian, and 9% Druze. At the elementary level, the Jewish‐Arab distribution is about the same (78%–22%). As the small ultra‐orthodox 'independent' sector usually does not allow researchers in its schools, it was not included in the present study. 9. The remainder of the paper refers to the 'Arab' sector, which is meant to include schools attended by Arab Moslems, Arab Christians, Druze, and Bedouin. 10. See Al Haj (1995 Al Haj, M. 1995. Education, Empowerment and Control: The Case of the Arabs in Israel, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. [Google Scholar]), Lavy (1998 Lavy, V. 1998. Disparities between Arabs and Jews in school resources and student achievement in Israel. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(1): 174–192. [Google Scholar]), and Mazawi (1999 Mazawi, A. E. 1999. Concentrated disadvantage and access to educational credentials in Arab and Jewish localities in Israel. British Educational Research Journal, 25(3): 355–370. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]). 11. See Nir (2002 Nir, A. E. 2002. School‐based management and its effect on teacher commitment. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(4): 323–341. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]). 12. In recent years, the change of government (a conservative right‐wing government, 2001–2005) as well as concerns about the great diversification of the system and the 'non‐curriculum' of the ultra‐orthodox sector, has reversed this trend somewhat, and the Ministry of Education is involved in a controversial process of preparing 'core curriculum' guidelines for elementary and middle schools (Katz n.d. Katz, Y. n.d.. "The Israeli school core curriculum: a social perspective". Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Bar Ilan University. Unpublished paper [Google Scholar]). 13. This trend of greater decentralization in elementary level was prevalent at the time of data collection. Curriculum differentiation (tracking and differentiated matriculation certificates) in Israel is postponed to senior high school (grade 10 and up), hence the assumption about greater variation because of greater differentiation at the higher school level can be effectively tested only with data on the high school level. 14. The Ministry's measure, which uses various SES‐like indicators to estimate the proportion of 'disadvantaged' pupils in the school, serves as a basis for differential resource allocation. 15. A coefficient of variation (CV; standard deviation/mean) standardizes variations across means and allows a comparison of between‐school variation for the different subject categories. To estimate between‐sector variations, we ran a set of ANOVAs for the subject categories. 16. The term 'hour' is used throughout this paper to denote one learning period (in Israel, 45 minutes). 17. Arab schools tend to allocate almost all of their resources to formal classroom hours, in order to ensure implementation of the required curriculum and, at times, to emphasize school subjects deemed most important. Very few resources are allocated for supplemental or non‐instructional purposes (e.g. special administrative positions, school counsellors, or the division of classes into ability groups or among electives). 18. For example, at the junior‐high school level (consisting of three grades), the range of weekly hours in the timetable of the 'poorest' and 'richest' schools was 92–138 hours in the Jewish secular sector, 75–165 hours in the Jewish religious sector and 96–129 hours in the Arab/Druze sector. The respective ranges at the elementary school level (also three grade levels) were as follows: 58–144 hours; 81–141 hours, and 86–135 hours. As learning time is an indicator of potential exposure to learning opportunities, both between‐sector and between‐school differences in learning time may be responsible for differential educational outcomes (Kilgore and Pendleton 1993 Kilgore, S. B. and Pendleton, W. W. 1993. The organizational context of learning: framework for understanding the acquisition of knowledge. Sociology of Education, 66(1): 63–87. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], Lavy 1998 Lavy, V. 1998. Disparities between Arabs and Jews in school resources and student achievement in Israel. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(1): 174–192. [Google Scholar]). 19. Originally, these subject categories appeared in many more schools. However, once we obtained more detailed estimates from those schools as to what subjects were expected to be taught, we were able to move many of the hours to other subject categories, so that 'Choice' and 'Flexible time' were reduced to a relatively minor category. 20. For details, see Benavot and Resh (2001 Benavot, A. and Resh, N. 2001. The social construction of local school curriculum: patterns of diversity and uniformity in Israeli junior high schools. Comparative Education Review, 45(4): 504–536. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). 21. A few exceptions to this general trend appear, however, suggesting interactions between school level and school subject. For example, the subject categories of 'arts and crafts' and 'skills and enrichment' appear to be more uniform on the elementary level than the lower‐secondary level: these subjects are implemented in most elementary schools (art in the Arab sector is an exception), are more strongly emphasized there, and are taught with a lower degree of variation in time allotment than in middle schools. In contrast, the subject of civics is found in many more middle schools than elementary schools, where related issues may be integrated in social education or some other interdisciplinary project. This suggests that certain subjects are regarded as more appropriate for younger children, while learning in middle schools is more 'serious' and so also more specialized, leaving less time for 'non‐essential' subjects (such as the arts). 22. Labelling this category 'religious education' may be misleading: only in the Jewish religious sector is a great deal of 'Jewish studies' geared to instill religious belief and the accompanying daily practice of religious commandments. In the Jewish secular sector, this category mostly reflects the study of Bible, mainly as a national cultural heritage. In the Arab sector, it combines cultural tradition and the study of holy books (Koran, New Testament, Druze heritage) for each of the Arab cultural/religious groups. 23. An exceptional case in point is physical education, which seems to be established as a highly institutionalized, but not highly valued subject. There is a strong consensus on its implementation as part of the weekly curriculum: it is implemented very uniformly and allotted a minimum amount of weekly time. 24. E.g. McEneaney and Meyer (2000 McEneaney, E. H. and Meyer, J. W. 2000. "The content of the curriculum: an institutionalist perspective". In Handbook of the Sociology of Education, Edited by: Hallinan, M. T. 189–211. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. [Google Scholar]) and Pinar et al. (2002 Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P. and Taubman, P. M. 2002. Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses, New York: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]). 25. E.g. Bowles and Gintis (1976 Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. 1976. Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life, New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]), Oakes (1985 Oakes, J. 1985. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]), and Oakes et al. (1992 Oakes, J., Gamoran, A. and Page, R. N. 1992. "Curriculum differentiation: opportunities, outcomes, and meanings". In Handbook of Research on Curriculum, Edited by: Jackson, P. W. 570–608. New York: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]).