1988
DOI: 10.2307/1503117
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From Centralisation to Decentralisation: The Case of Israel as a Unique Pattern of Control in Education

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This reform was initiated by the Ministry of Education for two main reasons. First, central officials turned to decentralization as a last resort after realizing that all the other control mechanisms had failed (Gaziel and Romm 1988). Second, educators in Israel have long recognized the negative pedagogical effect of strong centralization, curriculum uniformity and the fragmented nature of the system (Vollansky and Bar-Elli 1995).…”
Section: The Introduction Of Sbm In the Israeli Educational Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This reform was initiated by the Ministry of Education for two main reasons. First, central officials turned to decentralization as a last resort after realizing that all the other control mechanisms had failed (Gaziel and Romm 1988). Second, educators in Israel have long recognized the negative pedagogical effect of strong centralization, curriculum uniformity and the fragmented nature of the system (Vollansky and Bar-Elli 1995).…”
Section: The Introduction Of Sbm In the Israeli Educational Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in other countries, the decentralization process occurred in response to broader socio-political factors such as the multi-cultural and multireligious structure of society and its political diversities. Gaziel and Romm (1988) summarized four additional factors associated with the transition to decentralization in education: (1) the inefficiency of the centralized system in promoting the educational system; (2) the gap between the policy formulated at the central level and its implementation at the local level; (3) failure of the educational system to advance disadvantaged students necessitated a relocation of resources allocated to helping such students; and (4) teachers' job dissatisfaction, which led to the quest to expand their professional autonomy. These trends, which occurred along with a decrease in the central government's monetary provision allocated to the local authorities, had an affect on the localities' (municipalities, local councils and regional councils) educational role, responsibilities and ability to provide proper educational services (Volansky, 2006;Yair, 2005).…”
Section: Research Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 1992, however, the minister of education commissioned a steering committee to explore the possibility of expanding the scope of school autonomy and local-level accountability and introducing SBM in Israel. This was done after centralized control mechanisms failed (Gaziel & Romm, 1988) and the negative pedagogical effect of strong centralization, curriculum uniformity, and the fragmented nature of the system became visible (Vollansky & Bar-Elli, 1995).…”
Section: Contextmentioning
confidence: 99%