Chapter 1

Introduction to Education Policy

This chapter provides a background for the discussion of the two main foci of the
book: (a) the processes of design and implementation of education policy, and (b)
the contemporary discourse on problems and solutions in education systems. At the
beginning of the twentieth century, education became accepted as a basic public
resource, and the idea that the government should shape the policies that guide the
education system took root. Since then, the essence of the state, its relations with its
citizens, the nature and extent of the education systems, and the importance attrib-
uted to them have undergone considerable changes. In recent decades, as a result of
the growing dominance of globalization and multiculturalism, public education has
been reshaped, and the management of public education systems is changing (Goren
H, Yemini M: Comp J Comp Int Educ 48(3):397–413, 2018; Ichilov O: The retreat
from public education: global and Israeli perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht, 2009).
In this chapter, we begin by explaining the basic concepts, such as policy and educa-
tion policy, as well as related concepts, such as educational planning. Next, we
define what public education is, discuss how a given historical period influences it,
and talk about trends in the present era that shape it. We also discuss the key ideolo-
gies that shape education, and explore how they relate to education policy.

1.1 Definitions and Basic Concepts

The word “policy” comes from the fourteenth century French word policie, which
means a plan of action or management. The root of the word is associated with the
Greek “politia,” which means state or government. Education policy can be nar-
rowly defined as “a collection of statements about activity to be carried out” and
broadly as “a system of details, overt or implicit, about the guidelines for future
action” (Inbar 1997, p. 249). This distinction emphasizes two central aspirations of

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2021
I. Berkovich, Education Policy, Theories, and Trends in the 21st Century,
Policy Implications of Research in Education 12,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63103-1_1
2 1 Introduction to Education Policy

education policymakers: on one hand, to manage what is happening in the present,

and on the other to shape what will happen in the future.
Education policy is a specific case of public policy. Anderson (2014) defined
public policy as a process by which political actors address a public problem. It also
includes government intentions and enactment patterns/routines. Public policy is
expressed in a variety of manifestations, including formal legislation, administrative
regulations that translate legislation into concrete aspects, the interpretation of court
rulings, budgeting activity that reflects government priorities, as well as the activi-
ties of field personnel and adjustments made in different contexts of implementa-
tion. Although the use of the term “education policy” has been documented in the
context of the management of education policies in African and South American
colonies under imperialist rule, the concept of education as a domain of government
interest is associated with the middle of the nineteenth century and the formation of
nation states (Fuller and Robinson 1992; Brumbaugh 1907; Committee on Native
Education 1925).
Guba (1984) reviewed a series of policies and identified three recurring concep-
tualizations of education policy: (a) policy-in-intention, which includes goals, deci-
sions, judgment, and problem-solving strategies. Those who adopt this
conceptualization explore objectives, rules, guidelines, and a set of tactics. Research
on policy-in-intention focuses on points of view that are far from the actions of the
policy itself; (b) policy-in-action, which includes sanctions on behavior, behavioral
norms, outcomes of the decision-making process, and it explores expectations,
norms, and effects. Research on policy-in-action focuses on points of view close to
the policy itself; (c) policy-in-experience, which includes building on the experi-
ences of the field personnel and on the meanings embraced in the implementation of
the policy. Research on policy-in-experience focuses on the internal points of view
of the implementers of the policy-in-action.
Ball (2015) examined other conceptualizations of education policy and discussed
the philosophical question of what policy is. Ball identified two approaches. The
first, which is modernist in nature, presupposes the existence of a single reality. This
approach views policy as an authoritative text. It explores the interpretative pro-
cesses and the translation of policy in the field, and how field personnel embody the
policy. The second approach, which is critical and post-structuralist in nature,
emphasizes the influence of those with power in society and the concepts they pro-
mote to construct social reality as objective. This approach views policy as a dis-
course and investigates the ways in which teachers are constructed as specific
subjects by a given policy, i.e., the particular manner in which they are expected to
think and act. Thus, practitioners’ interpretations also constitute policy. In Ball’s
view, much of the research in education policy today is based on a modernist
approach, and therefore focuses on “what is written and said, rather than how those
statements are formed and made possible” (Ball 2015, p. 311).
Education policy can be explored from a variety of theoretical perspectives
(Inbar 1997): (a) philosophical—policy as a series of collective philosophical prin-
ciples that shapes communal identity and is used to solve problems; (b) political—
policy as a political product that constitutes a tool whose purpose is to promote
1.2 Public Education in the Twenty-First Century 3

political goals that are sometimes close to values ​​or ideology; (c) organizational—
policy as an organizational effort to instigate change while maintaining stability; (d)
economic—policy as an allocation of resources in short supply (economic shortage
relates to the gap between what is desired and what is provided, given an unlimited
public need or desire facing limited public resources).
McDonell (2009) identified three main interrelated building blocks in education
policy: (a) institutions—the rules and norms that shape who participates in policy-
making, who has the power to decide, and what procedures take place before the
decision; (b) interests—groups that attempt to influence policy, the interests they
advance, their effects on the political process, and their part in the formation of
policy; and (c) ideas—the underlying values of ​​ the proposed policy, the strategies
underlying these beliefs, and the assumptions about how these strategies advance
the desired outcomes.
Wadi and Demsky (1995) argued that the determination of education policy and
educational planning are closely related. Planning is a common type of education
policy, with a detailed, structured, and purposeful nature. Education planning
involves analyzing the situation and assessing different options, preparing and
monitoring the implementation process for the purpose of improving policy.
Planning is the “intellectual anticipation of possible future situations, the selection
of desirable situations to be achieved (objectives) and the determination of relevant
actions that need to be taken in order to reach those objectives at a reasonable cost”
(UNESCO, n.d., p .9). Planning is divided into three levels (Wiles 2007): (a) the
strategic level, where organizational goals are derived from the definition of the
task; the goals are broadly defined and are usually few; (b) the tactical level, where
each goal is translated into applicable and measurable objectives; and (c) the
operative level, in which each target is translated into required steps, sometimes
called actions or plans. Planning an education policy is a type of strategic operation
designed to ensure that members of the organization work to promote its goals in a
changing environment (UNESCO n.d.). Mintzberg (1994) warned that organizations
often focus on strategic planning processes that are characterized by a bureaucratic
and simplistic view that seeks to draft detailed formal procedures for existing
strategies, without creative thinking about what is required or what will be required
in the future.

1.2 Public Education in the Twenty-First Century

In a survey of the development of public education in the US, Thattai (2001) identi-
fied the roots of public education in the seventeenth century, when Christian com-
munities of Puritans and Protestants established their frameworks of religious
education. After the declaration of independence and the establishment of the US,
in 1776, education became a local issue and was accessible mainly to the wealthy.
Katz (1976) identified the establishment of public education as a central concept in
modern societies at the end of the nineteenth century. In the mid-nineteenth century,
4 1 Introduction to Education Policy

reformers called for common education as a basis for citizenship, solidarity, crime
prevention, and reduction of poverty. They gained public support, and by the end of
the nineteenth century, free primary education was offered throughout the US
(Thattai 2001). Previously, the few schools that existed were arbitrarily organized,
each having its own individual outlook and level of public support. Only after the
organization has grown, the number of schools increased, and the task of learning
was newly defined, did the public education system that we know today come
into being.
The design of education as a public system resulted in several key functions
(Katz 1976): (a) a formal organization that operates hierarchically, (b) is operated
by a team of experts who are trained in a particular way, (c) its services are free and
often enshrined in a legal obligation, and (d) contains services for a range of ages.
Public education was intended to socialize children, encourage discipline for shap-
ing the social order, and promote economic development. Soon, many states enacted
laws that made primary education mandatory through attendance of public or pri-
vate schools. Katz argued that four key developments that occurred during the late
nineteenth century are responsible for the expansion of the public education sys-
tems: (a) the industrial revolution and growing urbanization; (b) increased under-
standing of the state as responsible for the welfare of its citizens; (c) the spread of
the bureaucratic idea that the establishment of specialized institutions can resolve
social issues; and (d) redefining of the family, from traditional to modern. The
importance of the extended family declined, and that of the nuclear family increased,
as a consequence of urbanization. Also as a result of the process of urbanization, a
separation was created between work and home spaces. Therefore, it became neces-
sary to establish an agency that would replace the extended family in its role as
educator. Throughout the twentieth century, many countries expanded their public
school systems and enacted laws requiring attendance until the age of 16. As a
result, the higher education system was also expanded. According to Schofer and
Meyer (2005), the ratio of those enrolled in higher education institutions in 1900
was about 1% of world population; by the year 2000, the proportion increased to 20%.
Talshir (2006) offered a broader perspective on the development of education in
Western democracies, arguing that the concepts of citizenship, civil society, and
education are interconnected, and that they vary and are continually redefined in
different historical periods. The researcher presented a historical analysis that
divides the different periods by century, dominant values of the time, and the effect
of these values on concepts of citizenship, civil society, and education. Whereas in
the past education and the public sphere were controlled by the religious institu-
tions, in the eighteenth century the supremacy of religion as the constitutive value
of society was replaced by focus on human reason and judgment. Recognition of
this insight necessitated that individuals have personal human rights (the right to
liberty, the right to own property, and so on) and a role in shaping the public sphere.
As a result, civil society and private education rose in importance. In the nineteenth
century, the constitutive value was the nation. Recognition of the nation as a foun-
dational value resulted in the rise of national policy. In consequence of this recogni-
tion, political rights were granted to individuals: the right to criticize the government,
1.2 Public Education in the Twenty-First Century 5

the right to vote, the right to be elected, and so on. This period is also that of the
industrial revolution, which creates a new class system. Talshir’s understanding is
that during this period civil society served as a broker between the private and the
public, and education, appropriated by the monopoly of the state, acquired a social/
national function. Talshir observed that in the twentieth century, the worth of an
individual life becomes especially important after the destruction brought about by
the world wars. As a consequence of this value, social rights were granted to indi-
viduals, and the model of the welfare state was formed. The welfare state is based
on an array of government mechanisms related to the collection of resources (usu-
ally through taxation) and their redistribution in a manner designed to reduce
inequality (usually through the operation of broad public systems, transfer of pay-
ments, etc.). The model of the welfare state creates a synthesis between the political
and economic spheres, which were previously separate. In this way, the state builds
upon civil society. The state takes education under its wing, perceiving it as a means
of shaping its citizens. It mandates attendance and extends public education to
include the post-primary level (high school). Thus, education is not only considered
a fundamental civic right but also a civic responsibility. According to Talshir, in the
twenty-first century, the constitutive value is cultural definition. Various arenas
(political, social, economic) are divided into separate parts. The country is perceived
as a framework that contains many different cultural communities, and as a result
the education system changes to adopt a multi-cultural and communal aspect. Civil
society, operating alongside the state and the economy, offers a space for demo-
cratic expression and civic participation.
Talshir’s analysis of the twenty-first century coincides closely with many
researchers’ analyses of the processes that are affecting us, characterized by func-
tional effects (related to the strengthening of the processes of globalization and
changes in the patterns of the state and the mode of national governance), and ethi-
cal effects (related to the rise of post-modernist values) on the public school system.
Therefore, in this section, we focus on the expansion of the concept of globalization
and its influence on education systems and their management. Ram (2007) defined
globalization as a process in which societal interaction beyond the borders of the
country becomes meaningful for societies and individuals. According to Ram, the
nation-state model that dominated the twentieth century was founded on the combi-
nation of land, population, and government, which is how a common ground and
collective identity were formed.
In the second half of the twentieth century, however, new information and com-
munication technologies have created new financial networks, as well as networks
of production and consumption that have shaped the global capitalist economy. This
reality is characterized by a global market, division of labor, and financial markets.
These processes have various manifestations, dominant among them being the lib-
eralization of national markets and their opening to foreign elements, immigration,
ethnic diversity, and an increase in the power of international organizations.
Technological changes have thus resulted in economic, social, and cultural activities
no longer being confined to a defined national territory, and have weakened the abil-
ity of the national political power to manage its resources and policies, reducing its
6 1 Introduction to Education Policy

maneuvering space. Ram argued that in the current reality, national frameworks are
being redesigned from the ground up and are changing their role in response to
global processes and dictates.
Ben-Peretz (2009) identified four changes associated with globalization that affect
education policy: (a) migration between countries, which produces multi-­cultural
societies; (b) the rise of the global economy, and with it the demand for graduates of
the education system to integrate and compete in the global labor market; (c) changes
in the content and patterns of knowledge acquisition and its transience following the
rise of communication technologies; and (d) increasing awareness of environmental
and climatic changes, and of the humans’ role in these changes. Globalization pro-
cesses affect the education system both directly and indirectly (Stromquist and
Monkman 2014) in several ways: new technologies undermine the status of the
teacher as an authoritative source of knowledge; growing similarity between educa-
tion systems worldwide, following comparisons by international organizations and
the creation of global standards of “quality” education; increased cultural and ethnic
diversity in the student population as a result of the global labor market; and growing
perceptions of a global citizenship through electronic communication, which creates
“an imagined community” worldwide (i.e., a large group of people converging around
an idea that binds them into a collective, although the connection and similarity
between them is small or nonexistent; see Anderson 1983).
In the wake of globalization, education policymakers need to reconsider educa-
tional goals and the structure of the public education system, examine the training and
skills of educators, establish evaluation systems in education, and formulate a new
conception of the role of government in the design and supply of public education and
of the place of other organizations in these processes (Hallak 2000; Pizmony-Levy
2017). Hay (2008) argued that globalization is challenging and tampering with the
power of the national public policymakers for several reasons: (a) globalization
requires certain types of policy choices involving privatization and technocratization,
and therefore disrupts the local accountability of policymakers toward their public; (b)
it requires international capital, reducing the maneuvering room of economic
policymakers; (c) it reduces the governing ability of governments and their autonomy
because national and international institutions assume a part in public functions; and
(d) it creates a convergence and a similarity between countries in their public policies.
In this way, globalization creates constraints and dictates the choices to policymakers
while remaining itself outside of the sphere of influence of those policymakers.
Inglehart (2000) identified a global value change when the need for economic
and physical security, after World War II, was replaced by the need for self-­
expression and quality of life. One explanation he offered for the change is that
societal values develop as a collective response to the socioeconomic and political
environment in which people grow up, as dissatisfaction with certain psychological
or physical needs emphasizes their importance. In contrast, Aviram (1996) argued
that the accumulation of social-cultural-technological changes produced a society
with new features, which he called post-modern. In his view, the post-modern soci-
ety is characterized by ethical relativism (as opposed to the absolute morality that
shapes societies in which religion or nationality are constitutive parameters). As a
1.2 Public Education in the Twenty-First Century 7

result, there is an increase in the importance of individualism and self-realization

and a decrease in the importance of the collective. In parallel, a demand is created
for social frameworks that are based on satisfying the needs of the individual, and a
variety of social frameworks advocating cultural pluralism. According to Aviram, a
value change creates a wide gap between the social reality and the education sys-
tem, turning the education system into an “anomaly,” i.e., deviating from the situa-
tion that is deemed consistent with reality. In his opinion, the gap is extremely wide
because it touches on many aspects of education: (a) its goals—in the past, educa-
tion was intended to make students internalize and implement a high moral ideal,
whereas today relativism places self-realization as its target; (b) the target audience
of education—in the past, the target audience consisted of children who need an
“addition” of knowledge to reach adulthood, whereas today the cultural distinctions
between children and adults are blurred; (c) the attitude toward the target audi-
ence—in the past, students were forced into the system, whereas today children
have the right to choose; (d) the content of educational activity—in the past, curri-
cula were based on the study of disciplines that conferred a unique status on theo-
retical knowledge, whereas today, as a result of relativism, there is no recognition of
an “absolute truth;” (e) the organizational structure of the educational system—in
the past, education was dependent on a physical place and a regular time, and
adopted a pattern of authoritative management, whereas today technology enables
learning to occur in different places and times, and requires network management
patterns; (f) instructional strategies—in the past, instruction was based on books
and frontal lectures, whereas today various media create experiential and interactive
patterns of learning and communication.
Apart from these broad changes, it is possible to identify specific changes related
to the management of public institutions and the education system. This change is
reflected in the widespread adoption by these systems of the pattern of New Public
Management (NPM), which aims to streamline public systems by implementing the
ideas of market, competition, and privatization. Some researchers perceive the
change in the management of public services stemming from the effects of
globalization and the value changes in society, discussed above. The literature
attributes the idea of privatizing education to Milton Friedman, who argued that
market forces can contribute to public education more than government involvement
can (Miron 2008). Michaeli (2015) suggested that the classification of the education
system according to public and private poles touches on three aspects: policy
planning, policy financing, and policy execution. He argued that in characterizing the
school system as public or private one can follow two approaches: a restrictive and a
broader one. The restrictive approach holds that only when the responsibility of the
state is removed from all three aspects, does public education become privatized.
Under this approach, even if the state does not in practice operate the educational
institutions, but establishes policies that guide the outcome or finance it, the education
system remains public in its essence. The broader approach claims that the public
nature of education becomes private when the state withdraws from one of the three
aspects (i.e., policy planning, policy financing, and policy execution). Despite the
differences between them, the two approaches embody a formalistic conception of
8 1 Introduction to Education Policy

the “publicness” of education. Miron argued that there are two competing conceptions
of publicness in education: formalistic, having to do with legislation and rulings that
identify the authority and administrative control of the state, or of its representatives,
as decisive characteristics of the publicness of education; and functionalist, adopted
by the supporters of an education market (based on privatization and choice), which
identifies the publicness of education not with the powers and influence of the state,
but with the ability to achieve public purposes. Michaeli (2015), for example, claimed
that the public school system has three main goals: (a) provision of vocational
education, (b) provision of equal opportunities and reducing social gaps, and (c) the
creation of a common cultural and ethical foundation in society.

Academies in England
An example that can be analyzed based on both perceptions of public educa-
tion, those of formalism and functionalism, is that of academies in England.
The academies were established in the early 2000s by the Labor government,
headed by Tony Blair, with the intention of improving the quality of education
and achievement of children from disadvantaged and poor populations. The
creation of academies is related to a move in which many schools have been
detached from the local authorities and became “independent” (Woods et al.
2020). Academies are also referred to as “sponsored academies,” as they are
often established by companies, religious groups, charities, universities, col-
lages, and even “successful” schools (Woods et al. 2020). These schools have
been granted greater authority in the areas of teacher recruitment, fundrais-
ing, and the ability to make changes in the curriculum, but they are subject to
government supervision conducted by Ofsted, the Office for Standards in
Education, Children’s Services and Skills. Yet, the move to decentralize pub-
lic education in England did not create autonomous schools in practice. In
early 2018, about 75% of secondary schools and about 25% of primary
schools were academies (Woods et al. 2020). Over two thirds of all academies
were run by multi-academy trusts that formed a centralized leadership and
governance structure (some more hierarchical than others) (Woods et al.
2020). Moreover, local authorities remained somewhat active because they
continue to support schooling services, and negotiate partnerships and agree-
ments between schools (Woods et al. 2020). The schools participate in
national exams. It is not yet clear to what extent this model is effective,
because the schools show mixed results (The Economist 2016, August 27).
Some scholars have been critical of academies, viewing them as one more
step in the privatization of public education in England because they allow the
transfer of education and responsibility for its quality from public to private
hands (West and Bailey 2013; Woods et al. 2007). Thus, a formalist analysis
of the “publicness” of education that adopts a restrictive approach may argue
that this initiative is privatizing education in England, because these schools
are managed by private or non-governmental entities. A functionalist analy-
sis, however, may consider this initiative as public education because it serves
public goals.
1.2 Public Education in the Twenty-First Century 9

Hill (2001) criticized the disappointing results of US public schools, especially

urban institutions serving poor populations, and argued that the public schools we
know today are not an ideal model but rather “accidents of politics and history”
(p. 316). Hill supported schools defined as “private” and argued against public edu-
cation. In his view, people who laud public education associate it, incorrectly, with
certain characteristics, such as a neighborhood building, control by public represen-
tatives, and free public service supported by tax money. According to Hill, public
education supporters who frequently criticize private education make a basic logical
mistake because they confuse means with goals. He further argued that public edu-
cation is not a specific means but an array of public goals, including (Hill 2001): the
provision of universal education that focuses on learning; creating economic, social,
and political opportunities for all; and cultivating a community, citizenship, and
tolerance. Therefore, in his view, private schools also provide public education if
they serve these purposes.
In contrast to Hill’s analysis of the publicness of the American education system
from a functionalist perspective, Michaeli (2015) analyzed the publicness of the
education system in Israel from a formalist perspective. Michaeli identified changes
in three key areas related to the publicness of the education system in recent decades.
The first concerns the trend of the privatization of funding, whereby the state with-
draws from funding public education. This phenomenon is reflected in increasing
cuts in the government budget for education and in increased rate of private funding
in national spending on education (e.g., Addi-Raccah 2019). The second is the trend
of pedagogical privatization, in which the state withdraws from planning and sup-
plying content for public education. This phenomenon is manifest in the growing
involvement of non-governmental and private organizations in public schools (e.g.,
Eyal and Yarm 2018), as well as in the founding of schools by private non-­
governmental organizations with public funding. The third concerns administrative
privatization, in which the state withdraws from managing public education. This is
reflected in the transfer of administrative powers to school principals, setting
standards for student achievement and establishing a system of assessment, and the
widespread adoption of flexible employment for the teaching staff (e.g., Berkovich
2014; Resnik 2020).

Legislative Framework of Israeli Public Education

In 1949, the Israeli parliament passed the Compulsory Education Act that
imposed on the state exclusive responsibility for the education of all children,
and mandated state funding for elementary schools (grades 1-8) (Michaeli
2015). Several years later, in 1953, the State Education Act was passed, aim-
ing to unite all educational streams into a common public education system,
with one curriculum, and thereby sever the link between educational institu-
tions and political bodies.
According to Israeli legislation, schools may belong to one of three legal
categories: (a) an officially legal institution, owned by the state, where teach-
ers are directly employed by the state, and schools are fully funded by the

(continued)
10 1 Introduction to Education Policy

state and subordinated to all state demands and regulations; (b) a recognized
institution that is not officially owned by the state, where teachers can be
employed directly by the state or indirectly by non-governmental organiza-
tions, but still be public employees, and schools are partly (75%) funded by
the state and partly subordinated to state demands and regulations, but enjoy-
ing some independence in accepting students, employing teachers, and devis-
ing a curriculum, and (c) an exempt institution, owned by a non-­governmental
organization, partly (55%) funded by the state but not subordinated to state
demands and regulations. Only after the expansion of the law for compulsory
education to grade 10, introduced by the Israeli parliament in the late 1960s,
did secondary education become a central stage in the Israeli education sys-
tem. As a result, most primary state schools have an official legal status, and
most secondary state schools have a recognized unofficial status.

1.3 Values and Ideologies in Education

Many have argued that values ​​and ideologies play a special role in education policy.
Values ​​are “concepts or beliefs about patterns of behavior, goals, or action that help
to direct, evaluate, or judge behaviors, situations, or events” (Almog-Bareket and
Friedman 2010, p. 32). Ideology is defined as “a fairly coherent set of values and
beliefs about the way the social, economic, and political systems should be organized
and recommendations about how these values and beliefs should be put into effect”
(Isaak 1987, p. 133). These concepts are often discussed in contrast with the concept
of interests, which describe the tangible personal or group gains of political actors
(Campbell 2002). Campbell described three approaches to the relationship between
policy processes, interests, and ideologies. One approach is the materialist one,
which holds that the desire of players to achieve personal or group gain drives policy
processes. According to this approach, various policy actors operate out of an
economic rationale to maximize their benefit. Scholars of the critical school have
argued that political elites make cynical strategic use of ideological frameworks to
justify the policy that serves them. According to this approach, “particular ideas are
nothing more than a smokescreen for the institutional and personal interests that are
really animating and guiding action” (Moore 1990, p. 71). On the other side of the
divide is the idealistic approach that emphasizes ideas rather than interests as the
engine that motivates players to act in political processes. Therefore, in this view,
arguments about policy are intrinsically about values. A third approach connects the
other two and argues for the interaction of interests and values to ​​ drive policy pro-
cesses. According to this approach, a values-based conception of personal identity
affects how key players in the policy process regard their interests. In this way, the
rational interest takes on a more concrete meaning within the framework of the
ideological perspective that plays a role in translating it into a practical program. In
1.3 Values and Ideologies in Education 11

the spirit of this approach, Moore (1990) concluded that “ideas matter because they
establish the contexts within which policy debates are conducted, organizational
activities are rendered coherent and meaningful, and people’s actions are animated
and directed,” (p. 78) and as such, ideas have the ability to destabilize the power
structure.
Goldstein (1993) elaborated on the relationship between beliefs and policy.
According to Goldstein, beliefs contain cognitive paradigms (which describe how
the world works, for example, in cause-and-effect relationships) and normative
frameworks (describing how the world should run, for example, expectations of a
proper personal and social life) that affect (a) the delegitimization process of a plan
in the eyes of policymakers; (b) the judgment of policymakers on the question of
which alternative plan is “logical;” (c) the motivation of policymakers to adopt and
implement a plan; and (d) the efforts of policymakers to institutionalize the program
as an integral part of the government mechanisms. It is important, therefore, to
question the values that
​​ guide a particular policy, its value conflicts, and its assump-
tions about the essence of man, society, economy, and governance.
According to the literature, ideologies become dominant in a particular govern-
ment in two ways: infiltration and embeddedness (Campbell 2002). Infiltration of
ideas occurs through institutional filters, such as academic intellectual elites that
legitimize and advance them. Intellectuals play an important role in translating new
ideas into governmental tactics and operating mechanisms of authority. The impor-
tance of intellectuals and academics in promoting ideologies stems not only from
their formal role as disseminators of ideas, but also from the informal relations that
often exist between members of elites, which leads to personal relations with politi-
cians and the formation of trust. In the transfer of dominant ideas into government
by embeddedness, ideologies that have been translated into applicable mechanisms
become part of the DNA of the government because they have been institutionalized
by legislative, procedural, and bureaucratic tools, and have become durable organi-
zational arrangements with a long lifespan.
Among the common political ideologies discussed in the context of education
policy are the liberal, the social democratic, and the neoliberal ideologies.
1. Liberal ideology is an individualistic political philosophy based on the principle
of human liberty, which emphasizes the protection of individual rights, including
freedom of religion, freedom of expression, property rights, freedom of associa-
tion, and free trade. The liberal ideology holds that the state must ensure the
liberty of individuals by maintaining political equality and equality before the
law (formal equality), separating religion from state, and establishing a free cap-
italist economy (Vincent 2009).
2. Social democratic ideology is a philosophy based on the idea that society is
responsible for the welfare of its constituent individuals. This assumption is at
the bottom of the desire to ensure not only political equality and equality before
the law that prohibits discrimination, but also economic and social equality of
opportunity. To this end, the supporters of this ideology adopt a central planning
approach in these issues. According to this approach, it is the role of the state to
12 1 Introduction to Education Policy

intervene in socioeconomic matters to create equality of opportunity (e.g., by

taxation of the stronger classes, the transfer of payments to the weaker classes,
etc.) (Vincent 2009).
3. Neoliberal ideology is a philosophy that serves as an alternative to classical eco-
nomic liberalism and central social democratic design. This ideology empha-
sizes broad economic liberalization and free trade, alongside a reduction in
government spending and in its involvement in socioeconomic issues. According
to this ideology, it is vital for the state to withdraw from economic and social life,
to enable the private sector to follow its path and contribute to economic growth
and society (Ward et al. 2015). In contrast to classic liberalism, which claims
that the market has its own dynamics and the ability to regulate itself, and there-
fore encourages passivity on the part of the central government in the economic
sphere, the neoliberal approach holds that the state must intervene to enable
markets to function optimally. The neoliberal state agenda is capitalist, and it
supports privatization of public services, deregulation of markets, and increased
competition (Oplatka 2018; Saunders 2010).
• Alongside neoliberalism, an ideological approach called “neoconservatism,”
whose proponents support the strengthening of national motifs and
“traditional” values is often mentioned. Many scholars perceive this ideology
as complementary to the neoliberal one because it seeks to return to a distinct
hierarchy and sees the success of individuals and groups in the market as a
central element in the creation and justification of the social hierarchy (Apple
2006). We discuss in detail the practical expressions associated with the
application of the neoliberal ideology to education policy, in particular,
promoting effectiveness in education (with respect to such issues as parents’
choice of school and standard assessment tests).
When discussing education policy, not only political ideologies, but also educa-
tional ones should be taken into account, including detailed concepts of the nature
of the educational process. Jones (2009), who has studied the discourse on values ​​in
the Australian school system, argued that several value approaches can be identified
in Western educational discourse:
1. Conservative values ​​gain expression in authoritative schools and teaching. This
concept assigns students the role of passive recipients of knowledge, the primary
goal of education being preparation for the workforce. Conservative values can ​​
stem from religious or secular perceptions. This form of education endeavors to
guide students to integrate into society and comply with social norms.
Conservative values ​​are often translated into goals, such as character education,
civic education, or vocational education. Pedagogical methods include frontal
teaching, the personal example of the educators, and rules enforced through
reward and punishment.
2. Liberal values ​​are manifest in the desire to develop students’ knowledge and
skills, especially with regard to inquiry and autonomous decision-making. This
approach perceives students holistically and relates to them as individuals.
1.3 Values and Ideologies in Education 13

Liberal values ​​are reflected in choices involving morality, personal initiative, and
self-fulfillment, and in pedagogic methods that include democratic school frame-
works, instruction that addresses both cognitive and emotional domains, group
work, and individual work. One pedagogical approach that reflects these values​​
is the constructivist approach, which emphasizes the role of the learners in con-
structing knowledge and the importance of their activity and responsibility.
3. Critical values ​​are expressed in active involvement in multicultural and social
issues. This approach seeks to enable students to take an active role in creating
the social knowledge and values ​​of society. Values ​​are translated into topics con-
cerning economic classes, multiculturalism, feminism, sexual orientation, paci-
fism, and ecological sustainability. They manifest in student-centered pedagogical
methods, as well as in political and social involvement through participatory
community processes.
4. Post-modern values are ​​ reflected in criticism of the social constructs of “truth”
and “reality.” This approach attempts to deconstruct knowledge, values, and
practices in a way that reveals how they serve the hegemonic groups in social
power relations. Post-modern values ​​are translated into a discussion of the “natu-
ral” social order and its dominant values, which manifest in pedagogic methods
of reflective inquiry, and discourse analysis.
Jones (2009) elaborated that these four approaches are accepted in many coun-
tries worldwide, but each country applies a different local emphasis. For example,
in Israel it is generally argued that pedagogy and the dominant values in ​​ the national
education system are nationalist-conservative (Sabar and Mathias 2003; Yosifon
and Shmida 2006). The reason is that Israel is defined as the nation-state of the
Jewish people. Nevertheless, the Israeli Jewish population (about 75% of the
state’s population) is heterogeneous (Central Bureau of Statistics 2018): 45% define
themselves as “secular,” 25% as “traditional,” 16% as “religious,” and 14% as
“ultra-Orthodox.” The Arab minority (20%) and other minority groups (5%) com-
prise 25% of the state’s population (Central Bureau of Statistics 2018). The strug-
gles over political and educational ideologies are often reflected in the design of the
curriculum.
Sabar and Mathias (2003) identified several periods in the design of the curricu-
lum in Israel. According to them, the first period began with the system that was
implemented at the establishment of the state, in 1948, when a unified curriculum
was introduced that emphasized the internalization of national values. Its goal was
to ensure formal equality and to promote a melting pot. In the 1970s, in response to
the strengthening of liberal values ​​of the Israeli elites, and to the ethnic and political
awakening of minority groups, the Ministry of Education formulated new educa-
tional programs that have been perceived as more academic and “objective” source
of content. With the absence of national and Zionist elements, which had previously
been part of the state education system, these plans encountered resistance (Sabar
and Mathias 2003). The researchers note that since the 1990s, as a result of signifi-
cant demographic changes following immigration from the former Soviet Union
and the growth of the Jewish ultra-Orthodox and of the Arab populations, pluralism
14 1 Introduction to Education Policy

in the curriculum was strengthened, and the criticism of the plans by opponents over
the weakening of the national perspective has intensified. Sabar and Mathias (2003)
argued that the ideological struggle over curriculum is especially evident in the
discipline of history, in which there are conflicts between different values in the
shaping of collective memory in Israel. Abu-Saad (2008, 2019) argued that even in
the absence of certain topics from the curriculum, the attempt of the state to dictate
the shaping of a national narrative is clear, as the curriculum seeks to “de-educate”
weakened populations, causing them the loss of knowledge about their group and its
history. Another curriculum that has become the subject of a value debate in recent
years is that of civics (Pinson 2007, 2020). Kashti (2015, November 13) described
changes in the content that Israeli schools are required to teach in civics, and changes
in civics textbooks that reflect a transition from the concept of liberal democracy
(which emphasizes individuals and gives priority to protecting their rights) to a
republican democracy (which emphasizes society and gives precedence to the ben-
efit of the community over individual rights).
The above discussion concerned the explicit curriculum, but schools also have an
implicit curriculum, as part of which values ​​and behaviors are taught without having
been formally included in the official educational program (Alpert 2002). The overt
and covert curricula are seen as complementary aspects that express political and
educational ideologies. Scholars have argued that ideologies must be understood
beyond their implications for learning and organization, because all ideologies
address human nature and relations within society (Susser 1999). According to the
literature, values ​​shape several fundamental concepts underlying education (Cheong
2000), such as: (a) the character of human nature, which determines whether the
basic assumption is that human beings are intrinsically good, inherently evil, or
devoid of a definite character; (b) the nature of social relations concerns the question
whether the “right” ideal is that of a collaborative act by group members or an indi-
vidual act; (c) the nature of human activity asks whether the “right” ideal is passive
or pro-active, conservative or entrepreneurial; (d) a connection between humanity
and nature refers to whether humans should control the natural environment or try
to live in harmony with it; (e) the value of human diversity determines whether dif-
ferences between people should be the basis for a social structure or whether all
should be treated equally; (f) the nature of truth determines whether “real” knowl-
edge is found in external authority figures or it is revealed by personal investigation.
Different basic concepts have a direct connection to specific educational models.
Harpaz (2013) discussed the theory of “conflicting theories of instruction,” pos-
tulated by the educational philosopher, Zvi Lamm. This theory holds that in educa-
tion there are three different models of desirable adults: (a) the integrated adults
who have acquired the knowledge, skills, and habits required for their social roles
(for example, being a parent) and professional roles (e.g., being a physician); (b) the
civilized adults, who have internalized the beliefs and values ​​of the preferred culture
and are committed to them in their personal positions and actions (for example,
being a religious or a liberal person); and (c) the self-actualized adults who have
discovered and developed themselves independently and authentically. These mod-
els are associated with three corresponding educational rationales—socialization,
1.3 Values and Ideologies in Education 15

acculturation, individuation—that shape educational processes aimed at developing

the specific adult model. For example, the logic of socialization offers an educa-
tional process based on demonstration and practice, whose purpose is to encourage
obedience and promote success in integration into society. The logic of accultura-
tion offers an educational process based on identification and internalization of the
values ​​and actions that teachers and other role models (in canonical texts or out-of-­
school meetings) embody. The individuation logic suggests an educational process
based on self-motivation, personal guidance, and a flexible curriculum. Harpaz
(2013) offered a vocational school as an example of socialization, a religious high
school as an example of acculturation, and a democratic school as an example of
individuation. He stressed that the three models of teaching are fundamentally
contradictory because each one requires different teaching and evaluation patterns,
and because no educational institution can effectively teach divergent curricula.
Other researchers have criticized Harpaz’s view of the logic of education. These
researchers regard public education as a system committed to meeting conflicting
demands. For example, Nir and Eyal (2008) argued that the introduction of a
national curriculum entails an understandable duality, rooted in the fact that public
education operates in a competitive educational environment and in a relativistic
society. As a result, public education is currently faced with multiple challenges,
including: (a) being flexible in responding to a diverse population and adapting to
technological changes, (b) being authentic and unique, (c) the economic challenge
of providing educational results, and (d) the challenge of being relevant for students
and parents. In light of this analysis of the challenges of public education, Nir and
Eyal identified several basic dilemmas in shaping the national curriculum. The
dilemmas have to do with tensions between uniformity and pluralism, between pro-
moting equality and promoting excellence, between emphasizing efficiency (the
ratio of inputs and outputs) and emphasizing effectiveness, and between conserva-
tism and innovation. In their view, as a result of the multiple challenges and of the
duality involved in shaping policy, we can also identify duality in the content of the
national curriculum. According to the researchers, in the contradictory content ele-
ments reflected in the national curriculum it is possible to identify a preoccupation
with national identity alongside global identity, an emphasis on depth and on
superficiality, processes of repetition and memorization together with those aimed
at fostering critical thinking, constructing the study of areas of knowledge in a
disciplinary manner in which each field is separate from the other alongside the
multi-­disciplinary learning process in which subjects are studied in an integrated
fashion (Nir and Eyal 2008).
Harpaz, as well as Nir and Eyal emphasize the connection of education with
social goals and the manner in which politics uses education for social purposes.
Others posit an even tighter link between politics and education, and suggest that all
education is political and ideological in essence (Ichilov 1991). This view is reflected
in Michaeli’s (2014) analysis of Israeli policy regarding political education, which
can be defined as dealing with ideological positions within the school. Michaeli
(2014) identified three periods in policy regarding political education in the Israeli
education system: (a) the period of streams, from pre-state days until the enactment
16 1 Introduction to Education Policy

of the State Education Law in 1953, during which time funding and the provision of
education were connected to political parties (also referred to as “ideological educa-
tion”); (b) the state period, from the enactment of the State Education Law until the
1980s, during which period education was severed from party affiliation to establish
a state education system, when political activity in schools and political statements
by teachers were prohibited (also referred to as “apolitical” education which was
criticized for trying to preserve the dominant narrative in society and prevent objec-
tions); and (c) the period of decentralization and privatization, which began in the
1980s and continues to this day. This last period is characterized by the withdrawal
of the state from various aspects of education and the increasing involvement of
private entities. Education preserves a political “sterility” during regular school
hours, but provides a platform for economic and political interests in external pro-
grams operated by non-governmental organizations serving as “moral education
contractors” (also referred to as pseudo-neutral education) (Michaeli 2014). By
contrast, Agbaria (2018) suggested that currently political “sterility” is present
mainly in Arab state education, whereas the Jewish state education is enlisted to
promote the political ideology of the right.

1.4 Summary of the Chapter

This chapter is an introduction to education policy in general and in the Israeli con-
text in particular. A discussion of basic concepts related to education policy was
followed by the presentation of the development of public education and the con-
nection between this development and trends related to the concepts of citizenship
and civil society. The chapter also highlighted the nature of the key processes affect-
ing public education in the twenty-first century, including globalization, privatiza-
tion, as well as changes in the management patterns of public systems and the rise
of post-modern values. Finally, the chapter dealt with the complex relationship
between ideology and education policy, and described common political and educa-
tional ideologies.

References

Abu-Saad, I. (2008). Present absentees: The Arab school curriculum in Israel as a tool for de-­
educating indigenous Palestinians. Holy Land Studies: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(1), 17–43.
Abu-Saad, I. (2019). Palestinian education in the Israeli settler state: Divide, rule and control.
Settler Colonial Studies, 9(1), 96–116.
Addi-Raccah, A. (2019). Private tutoring in a high socio-economic secondary school in Israel
and pupils’ attitudes towards school learning: A double-edged sword phenomenon. British
Educational Research Journal, 45(5), 938–960.
Agbaria, A. K. (2018). The ‘right’ education in Israel: Segregation, religious ethnonationalism,
and depoliticized professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 59(1), 18–34.
References 17

Almog-Bareket, G., & Friedman, I. (2010). The school in the eyes of students: Values and ​​ orga-
nizational culture. Studies in Educational Administration and Organization, 31, 56–31. [in
Hebrew].
Alpert, B. (2002). Concepts and ideas in the curricula as leading texts. In A. Hofman & I. Schnell
(Eds.), Values and goals in Israeli school curricula (pp. 9–29). Even Yehuda: Reches. [in
Hebrew].
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism.
London: Verso.
Anderson, J. E. (2014). Public policymaking (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Apple, M. W. (2006). Understanding and interrupting neoliberalism and neoconservatism in edu-
cation. Pedagogies, 1(1), 21–26.
Aviram, R. (1996). The educational system in a post-modern society: An abnormal organiza-
tion in a chaotic world. In I. Gur-Ze’ev (Ed.), Education in the era of post-modern discourse
(pp. 103–120). Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. [in Hebrew].
Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3), 306–313.
Ben-Peretz, M. (2009). Policy-making in education: A holistic approach in response to global
changes. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
Berkovich, I. (2014). Neo-liberal governance and the ‘new professionalism’ of Israeli principals.
Comparative Education Review, 58(3), 428–456.
Brumbaugh, M. G. (1907). An educational policy for Spanish-American civilization. The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 30(1), 65–68.
Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 21–38.
Central Bureau of Statistics (2018). The face of Israeli society report, No. 10. Jerusalem: Central
Bureau of Statistics. [in Hebrew].
Cheong, C. Y. (2000). Cultural factors in educational effectiveness: A framework for comparative
research. School Leadership & Management, 20(2), 207–225.
Committee on Native Education. (1925). Education policy in British tropical Africa. London: Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Eyal, O., & Yarm, M. (2018). Schools in cross-sector alliances: What do schools seek in partner-
ships? Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 648–688.
Fuller, B., & Robinson, R. (1992). The political construction of education. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Goldstein, J. (1993). Ideas, interests, and American trade policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Goren, H., & Yemini, M. (2018). Obstacles and opportunities for global citizenship education under
intractable conflict: The case of Israel. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education, 48(3), 397–413.
Guba, E. G. (1984). The effect of definitions of policy on the nature and outcomes of policy analy-
sis. Educational Leadership, 42(2), 63–70.
Hallak, J. (2000). Globalisation and its impact on education. In T. Mebrahtu, M. Crossley, &
D. Johnson (Eds.), Globalisation, educational transformation and societies in transition (pp.
21-40). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Harpaz, Y. (2013). The desired graduates: Towards a redefinition. Hed Hachinuch, 47(4), 37–32.
[in Hebrew].
Hay, C. (2008). Globalisation and public policy. In R. E. Goodin, M. Rein, & M. Moran (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 587–606). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, P. T. (2001). What is public about public education. In T. M. Moe (Ed.), A primer on America’s
schools (pp. 285–316). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Ichilov, O. (1991). Political socialization and schooling effects among Israeli adolescents.
Comparative Education Review, 35(3), 430–446.
Ichilov, O. (2009). The retreat from public education: Global and Israeli perspectives. Dordrecht:
Springer.
18 1 Introduction to Education Policy

Inbar, D. (1997). Education policy. In Y. Kashti, M. Arieli, & S. Shalsky (Eds.), Lexicon of educa-
tion and teaching (pp. 250–249). Tel Aviv: Ramot. [in Hebrew].
Inglehart, R. (2000). Globalization and postmodern values. Washington Quarterly, 23(1), 215–228.
Isaak, A. C. (1987). An introduction to politics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Company.
Jones, T. M. (2009). Framing the framework: Discourses in Australia’s national values education
policy. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 8(1), 35–57.
Kashti, O. (2015, November 13). The Ministry of Education rewrites citizenship studies: More
Judaism, less democracy. Haaretz. Retrieved from http://www.haaretz.co.il [in Hebrew].
Katz, M. B. (1976). The origins of public education: A reassessment. History of Education
Quarterly, 16, 381–407.
McDonell, L. M. (2009). A political science perspective on education policy analysis. In G. Sykes,
D. N. Plank, & B. L. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 57–70).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Michaeli, N. (2014). Introduction: Education and politics in the Israeli education system. In
N. Michaeli (Ed.), Yes in our school, articles on political education (pp. 29–29). Tel Aviv:
Hakibbutz Hameuchad and the Mofet Institute. [in Hebrew].
Michaeli, N. (2015). Privatization trends in the Israeli education system. In I. Galnoor, A. Paz-­
Fuchs, & N. Zion (Eds.), Privatization policy in Israel: State responsibility and the boundaries
between the public and the private (pp. 237–183). Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.
[in Hebrew].
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1),
107–114.
Miron, G. J. (2008). The shifting notion of “publicness” in public education. In B. S. Cooper &
J. G. Cibulka (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 338–349). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Moore, M. (1990). What sort of ideas become public ideas. In R. B. Reich (Ed.), The power of
public ideas (pp. 55–83). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nir, A., & Eyal, O. (2008). Setting a national curriculum: Bridging the gap between professional-
ism and politics. In J. N. Casey & R. E. Upton (Eds.), Educational curricula: Development and
evaluation (pp. 235–251). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Oplatka, I. (2018). Reforming education in developing countries: From neoliberalism to commu-
nitarianism. London: Routledge.
Pinson, H. (2007). At the boundaries of citizenship: Palestinian Israeli citizens and the civic educa-
tion curriculum. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 331–348.
Pinson, H. (2020). The new civics curriculum for high schools in Israel: The discursive construction
of Palestinian identity and narratives. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 15(1), 22–34.
Pizmony-Levy, O. (2017). Big comparisons, little knowledge: Public engagement with PISA in the
United States and Israel. In A. W. Wiseman & C. S. Taylor (Eds.), The impact of the OECD on
education worldwide (pp. 125–156). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
Ram, U. (2007). The globalization of Israel: McWorld in Tel Aviv. Jihad in Jerusalem. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Resnik, J. (2020). From government to governance: The incorporation of managerial regulation at
the ministry of education in Israel. In G. Fan & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Handbook of education
policy studies (pp. 187–221). Singapore: Springer.
Sabar, N., & Mathias, Y. (2003). Curriculum planning at the threshold of the third millen-
nium: The Israeli case. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research
(pp. 381–400). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Saunders, D. B. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the United States.
Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 41–77.
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth
century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920.
Stromquist, N. P., & Monkman, K. (Eds.). (2014). Globalization and education: Integration and
contestation across cultures. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
References 19

Talshir, G. (2006). Citizenship, civil society and education: The Israeli case in the perspective of
Western democracies. In D. Avnon (Ed.), Civic language in Israel (pp. 201–233). Jerusalem:
Magnes. [in Hebrew].
Thattai, D. (2001). A history of public education in the United States. Journal of Literacy and
Education in Developing Societies, 1(2), 2001–2011.
The Economist (2016, August 27). After freedom, what? The Economist. Retrieved from http://
www.economist.com
UNESCO (n.d.). Educational planning: Approaches, challenges and international frame-
works. Distance education programme on education sector planning. Module I. Paris:
UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.jo/Files/(22-­12-­2013)(1-­01-­43%20PM).pdf
Vincent, A. (2009). Modern political ideologies. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wadi, H., & Demsky, T. (1995). Education policy-planning process: An applied framework. Paris:
International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO.
Ward, S. C., Bagley, C., Lumby, J., Woods, P., Hamilton, T., & Roberts, A. (2015). School lead-
ership for equity: Lessons from the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
19(4), 333–346.
West, A., & Bailey, E. (2013). The development of the academies programme: ‘Privatising’
school-based education in England 1986–2013. British Journal of Educational Studies, 61(2),
137–159.
Wiles, M. R. (2007). What is strategic planning? In M. R. Wiles (Ed.), Strategic planning for the
chiropractic practice (pp. 1–6). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Woods, P. A., Woods, G. J., & Gunter, H. (2007). Academy schools and entrepreneurialism in
education. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 237–259.
Woods, P. A., Roberts, A., Jarvis, J., & Culshaw, S. (2020). Autonomy and regulation in the school
system in England. In H. Ärlestig & O. Johansson (Eds.), Educational authorities and the
schools: Organisation and impact in 20 states (pp. 111–130). Dordrecht: Springer.
Yosifon, M., & Shmida, M. (2006). Towards a new educational paradigm in the Israeli educa-
tional system in the post-modern age. Tel-Aviv: CET Innovations in Education. [in Hebrew].
Susser, B. (1999). Nationalism: Alive and well. In From left and right (pp. 308–270). Tel Aviv:
Schocken. [in Hebrew].