|
| |
Privatization Policy of the Israeli Education System and its Consequences
Noga Dagan Buzaglo
January 2009
Since the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 until the 90s the education system in Israel was public. The state developed the curriculum, administered the institutes and provided them with services. All schools were financed by the Ministry of Education, though there were a few private institutions mostly church schools for Arab Christians and traditional Jewish ultra Orthodox schools.
In 1949 and 1953 basic educational laws were legislated securing mandatory and free education, initially until the age of 14 and later on extended to 16. Israeli education system was divided into cultural streams (National secular, national religious, Ultra Orthodox and Arab – each had some degree of pedagogical autonomy). These streams were branched into two main tracks: vocational and academic, along class lines.
In the mid 80s, Israel adopted the “Washington Consensus” – the neo-liberal economic policy as defined by the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund). In 1985 Israel established the “Emergency Program to Stabilize the Economy of Israel” minimizing the public sector which was dominant in Israeli economy until then and expanding the private sector to take the economic lead. As a result severe budgetary cuts were made in all governmental offices including the Ministry of Education.
The intense budget cut in education of learning hours and in development, has led to a decline in education level. In order to fill the “void” in the budget, parents in well established areas started paying for private tutoring and extra subjects. This phenomenon became known as “Gray Education”. Later, the parliamentary Education Committee approved of extra payments from parents for enrichment activities and as a result, it expanded and it became legitimate to charge for different kinds of school activities. To this day, most of the payments are defined as “permissive payments” even so these became routine and have increased, substantially, the payments for education by parents within the years.
The withdrawal of the State made way for “market forces” – social elites combining with the business sector for initiating segregated schools providing quality education based on state budget together with high parent payments. The Ministry of Education availed this by granting recognition and funding to schools established by private initiatives. While failing to control the private funding involved.
The practical education policy evolved and strove to improve education by providing conditions for competition between schools. The policy emulates the business model of the education system and its institutions. The basic tenets are as follows:
* Decentralization of authority from the Ministry of Education to local authorities and to schools (i.e., school autonomy) and in particular to “self management”. According to it, schools are operating as profit heads responsible for managing their own budget, allowed to source independently for educational services, to hire teachers on an hourly basis contrary to collective agreements; encouraged to raise independent funding and to use school facilities for profit (such as letting the facilities).
* Increase of the private funding in the education system through parent fees in all schools. These payments include mandatory and permissive payments used to fund complementary basic learning, additional enrichment programs, purchasing trips, additional textbooks, computers, social activities, educational equipment and more.
* Encouraging and recognition of private initiatives to establish selective regional schools and specialized schools by subject of ideology ( Democratic, Anthroposophic, Scientific etc) these schools are enjoying state funding but also allowed to collect school fees and private funding. In the last 20 years hundreds of these schools were established becoming the centre of educational innovation in the Israeli education system.
* Initiating a standardization and evaluation policy, emphasizing what is defined as the “product” – students’ achievements. An independent unit of measurement and evaluation was established (RAMAH), conducting a series of evaluation tests and comparative measurements.
*The unique element of the privatization in Israel is that it did not result in two education systems – one public and one private, as in many other countries. Many of the schools we have listed and more are considered public schools under the category of “informal acknowledged schools” enjoying a full state budget.
As a result, there are two separate education systems within the public education system. One is “public-state”, completely under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education, being administered and financed by it. The second system is the “public-private”, operating on a larger budget – state and private funding.
Launching areas of admission and the competition to recruit students generated an industry of admission testing, so that in reality the powerful schools do the screening of the students. This process is subject to the “integration quota” as instructed by the Ministry of Education - in some cases, these schools are obliged to assign limited seats to students from low-income communities.
The supervision of the Ministry of Education in these schools is limited and sometimes absent, consequently there is a growing innovative education system led by the market forces that diminishes the status of the Ministry of Education as the developer of educational policy in
Israel. The opening of areas of admission and allowing parents to choose schools has helped parents of middle and high socio-economical classes to send their children to public-private schools and receive better educational services. Parents with low income are not capable of paying fees and end up with a limited “choice” between free of charge state institutes within the boundaries of their admission areas.
Nowadays, hundreds of educational and enrichment programs are operated by independent units (NGO’s and businesses) in educational institutes. Many programs operate on parent funding (fully or partially) and are aimed to over compensate the budget cuts in the education system and that of the reduction of teaching hours that is allocated by the Ministry of Education to schools. According to “
BeitBerlAcademicCollege” appointed by the Ministry of Education two years ago in order to identify the external programs and organizations operating in the education system, at least 500 NGO’s and businesses operate in the education system, today. In approximately 90% of the schools there are external programs, the majority of them are active in well-established schools.
The policy of decentralization and self administration, and the withdrawal of the Ministry of Educations activities have also led to a decline in the teachers’ status. Private organizations that began developing and operating education programs and diverse activities in schools, employ teachers and tutors privately on temporary basis, with lesser terms than the teachers employed by the state governed by collective agreements. As a result, plausibly, several forms of teacher status were generated. Likewise, teacher union power is also in decline. While until the 70’s teachers unions had an active role in lobbying for educational policies, since then they have restricted the role to fighting the erosion of teachers’ status and wage.
Business initiatives in school operating under the disguise of “community contribution” are supposed to be approved by a committee in charge of commercial activities in schools. In effect, a large number of them operate without the committee’s authorization.
The process of privatization in the public education in Israel increased the gaps in quality of education between students from diverse economical background. Nowadays, the quality of education depends on parents’ economical capacity also linked to students’ nationality and ethnicity. Within the years, the education ministry has been implementing affirmative action programs such as, subsidizing additional educational programs in schools that are situated in low income areas and some differential budgeting based on the background of the population. However, the increase in a competitive market and massive private funding in the education system, the lack of control and initiation by the Ministry of Education and the limited resources, has undermined all efforts to minimize the gaps.
Due to decentralization of the education system, there is no basic package of educational services that guarantees a universal basic education. Instead, the quality of education students receive varies according to their background and schools resources. Nowadays, due to the financial crisis, the extents of private and philanthropic activities in schools are in decline. Schools in low income areas which rely heavily on philanthropy and less on parent payments are the first ones to suffer.
Over the years, the Ministry of Education constituted, through directive of the General Manager (Internal legislation) regulations restricting the operation of additional educational programs in schools. However, such programs are often authorized to operate in schools by local authorities or the school, without seeking the Ministry’s permission. Other programs are approved by the Ministry as “experimental” and continue to operate in this way for years. The pedagogical council of the Ministry of Education is authorized to approve additional learning programs. However, there is no official procedure to approve programs that are offered to schools or to inform parents about these programs. Private funding enables schools to grant education: more tutoring basic subjects, more enrichment programs, making classes smaller by hiring additional teachers and improving school infrastructure neglected by the state.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|