The introduction of controlled school choice in Tel Aviv An attempt to attain a balance between integration and pluralism

Israel – location globalization individualism marketisation competition

The purpose of the chapter The examination of the introduction of school choice reform in Israel in general and in Tel Aviv in particular as an attempt to balance long-held views about the importance of social integration (the "melting pot" policy) with new conceptions of pluralism, individualism and liberalism. A special attention in given also to schools’ and parents’ major responses to arrangements brought about by this new reform.

My argument School choice In Tel Aviv A mixture of Integrative & Individualistic values Schools intensify market ideologies Schools highlight individualism Parents’ considerations are Individual-oriented

A support for this argument Opponents of school choice claimed that market forces result in:  Mechanism of class reproduction  Legitimization of the relative advantages of middle and upper classes  Social class disparities are expressed in the way parents choose their child’s school

Israel – a multicultural society  A nation of immigrants  A multi-religious state (Jews 78%, Moslems 16%, Christians 4%, others 2%)  Multi-ethnic state (Jews from North America + Europe, North Africa + Asia)  Level of observance (Jewish population): Ultra-Orthodox, Secular, National Religious  17% of the Jews – immigrants from Former Soviet Union (since 1990s)

Four educational systems State-Education System (Secular) Ultra-Orthodox (private) Arab State Education System (Moslems/ Christians) Religious-State Education System Private/ Church

The cultural background of the reform planners  Centralized public administration  Uniformity of education provision  Education as a means to integrate immigrant groups (Melting Pot policy)  Pursuit of equal educational opportunities for disadvantaged children  Equality in educational achievements is a perquisite for social equality

The transition from… Integrative value system  Collectivism  Social cohesiveness  Integration  Equal opportunities  Uniformity  Egalitarianism Liberal individualistic value system  Self-development  Pluralism  Individualization  Excellence  Diversity  competition

The social fabric of TA

Controlled school choice - TA  A compromise between egalitarian, integrative and liberal, individual values  Intention: a better balance of ethnic equality  Common curriculum: a means to bring together pupils of different groups  Schools have no freedom to choose pupils  LEA’s criteria to choose: community’s composition in school, relatives, proximity

Founders’ basic assumption Controlled School Choice Integrative and liberal Value systems Policy makers Educators parents Verbal & Symbolic Expressions of both systems (in schools’ & In parents’ accounts

Data  Schools’ brochures  Interviews with school principals  Interviews with families  Policy drafts

Schools’ marketing messages  “Every pupil is unique and special in our school”  “The school is dedicated to the uniqueness of the individual”  “The pupil’s needs determine the school policy,”  “school staff believes in your uniqueness and aspires to create an atmosphere which enables you to express yourself and your competencies.”

The promotion of achievements  “Excellence is our school”  “In our school every pupil finds his or her own way to personal excellence”  “Personal excellence and social values”  “We pursue humanistic and personal excellence”  “Promoting curiosity, activism, and flexibility in youth.”

Minor attention to social values Reinforcement of pupils’ social respect and consideration for others  “We want to see our graduates more tolerant and open to the other”  “We aim at developing an adult who espouses social and universal values,”  “We educate our pupils to be good citizens”  “We develop adults who contribute to their community.”

The image of the teacher  “Excellent teachers,” “our teachers have PhD degrees,” “in our school you study with the best teachers in city,” “young staff,” “up- dated teachers,” and “expert teachers,”  “The staff is totally involved in your progress”  “We are totally committed to your advancement.”

Parents’ considerations: An Internalization of market-led values School curriculum – a key motive:  “Q: What did you think of the third option?  A: The three schools differed in the subjects they offered; in the third school there is an academic track that is not present in the other schools. They don’t have that option. Perhaps that is the reason my daughter wanted to be there.”

Continued The peer group, i.e., the ethnic group  Mother: “the most important thing in my eyes was that she would be with her friends,” Child  Q: Why didn’t you choose, finally, the other school?  A: Because all my friends decided to go to LD school…

Questions for further discussion  Do we need to adhere to integrative values in an era of individualism and marketisation?  Could the planners of the TA school choice program do more in order to enhance an integrative, egalitarian value system?  Who benefits from the TA controlled choice program? Who loses?  Say “choice”, say disintegration?