The construction of a managerial education discourse and the involvement of philanthropic entrepreneurs: the case of Israel

Abstract

Similar to many other countries, an educational reform anchored in a managerial discourse was proposed in Israel in 2004 by the Dovrat Committee, encouraged by the 'inter-state education gap' social problem that economist Dan Ben-David formulated on the basis of international examinations, such as PISA and TIMMS. Through a neo-Weberian approach this study follows the construction of a managerial discourse from the 1970s onwards that led to the Dovrat report. In the first period, managerial discourse was constructed around decentralization, parent choice and school autonomy 'social objects' by an expanding reformist network of educational scholars and figures from the Ministry of Education and local authorities. The pervasion of managerial discourse paved the way for the nomination of Shlomo Dovrat, a philanthropic entrepreneur, as head of the committee for revision of the education system. The second period was characterized by an increasing involvement of public policy departments and philanthropic associations in the formulation of education policies and the construction of social objects, mainly: evaluation; standards and measurement; principals' training; and teacher status reforms. The construction of these social objects, despite the rejection of the Dovrat reform, shows that the managerial has already pervaded the professional and public arena.

A comparative case-study of school-LEA-NGO interactions across different socio-economic strata in Israel

“…Among other changes, the neoliberal policy allowed and even promoted the entry of third sector entities 1 into community management and educational practicesthrough decentralizing, shrinking states' responsibility, and encouraging inter-governmental cooperation (Rappleye, 2011;Resnik, 2011). The proliferation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the education landscape can be attributed to the tendency of the public enterprises and governments to seek private solutions to public problems (Edwards & Hulme, 1995) by producing and sustaining partnerships and associations or as described by Kamat (2004:158) "NGOs are seen as fully cognizant rational actors capable of going beyond sectarian interests and acting upon matters of general welfare".…”

The role of the OECD in the development of global policies for migrant education

“…In discussing the issue of global education policy in terms of the development of global networks and flows supporting neoliberalism, Exley et al (2011) draw upon the Foucaultian concept of "governmentality" to explain that OECD studies such as PISA and TIMMS tend to create a push for the adoption of globalised neoliberal policies as so-called "solutions" to what is perceived by countries around the world as national "crises" because of global "surveillance" produced by OECD performance indicators on education. Such solutions are based on managerial and market models of education that are substantiated by comparative argumentation produced by the OECD claiming that as such policies worked in other countries they may bridge the "interstate education gap" showcased by international assessment tools (Resnik, 2011). To this end, Barnett (2000) utilises Lyotard's concept of "performativity" to argue that marketisation has become a new universal theme manifested in the trends towards the commodification of teaching and research and the various ways in which universities meet the new performative criteria, both locally and globally in the emphasis upon measurable outputs.…”

Neoliberal Governance and the “New Professionalism” of Israeli Principals

“…Numerous countries around the world have embraced human capital theory, suggesting that a qualified and flexible workforce is crucial for the maintenance of a competitive global economy, thus placing a great focus on education (Francis 2006). Resnik (2011) links the increase of isomorphic pressures on education to globalization trends that show a markedly higher range of activity among international organizations (Meyer et al 1997), and a growing domination of capitalist interests (Apple 2005). These pressures enhance the homogeneity of educational systems worldwide despite attempts by local agencies to provide a national context for the "imported" policies (Ball 1998).…”

“…The recommendations of the Dovrat Committee, submitted in 2005, included reforms that were similar to neo-liberal reforms found abroad (Resnik 2011 6 The Ministry of Education has been sharply criticized for its ambivalence regarding the privatization and marketization processes, because in some cases it allows (some say, encourages) privatization and on other cases it attempts to restrain it and decrease its negative effects. 7 During 2000-2011, 176 semi-private schools were authorized by the Ministry (Nesher 20 July 2012).…”

“…The neo-liberal educational discourse in Israel dates back to the early 1980s and includes two distinct yet overlapping periods. During the first period (1980s-2000) the concepts of "school autonomy," "school based-management," "parental choice," and "accountability" were introduced to the public discourse as legitimized by academic and Ministry professionals (Resnik 2011;Yonah et al 2008). During the second period (2000 until the present), coinciding with the rise of the "competition state" (Hay 2004), the discussion began to focus on the "gap in inter-state education" as revealed by international testing and interpreted by researchers and policymakers with respect to the future of the Israeli economy (Resnik 2011).…”