The social construction of the local school curriculum: Patterns of diversity and uniformity in Israeli junior high schools

Comparative Education Review

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 504-533

  Benavot, Aaron ^a   Resh, Nura ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035568044     PISSN: 00104086     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1189309     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Some argue that, at its core, the school curriculum embodies a cultural conception of the ideal person that an educational system seeks to nurture. See William Cummings, "The InstitutionS of Education: Compare, Compare, Compare!" Comparative Education Review 43 (November 1999): 413-37.
2. Michael Apple, Ideology and Curriculum (London: RKP, 1979); Brian Holmes and Martin McLean, The Curriculum: A Comparative Perspective (London: Routledge, 1989);
3. Michael Apple, Ideology and Curriculum (London: RKP, 1979); Brian Holmes and Martin McLean, The Curriculum: A Comparative Perspective (London: Routledge, 1989);
4. Thomas Popkewitz, "The Formation of School Subjects and the Political Context of Schooling," in The Formation of the School Subjects, ed. Thomas S. Popkewitz (New York: Falmer, 1987), pp. 1-24.
5. Although discussions of the gap between the intended and implemented curriculum makes conceptual sense, empirical research focuses mainly on content coverage - the proportion of intended content topics in a specific school subject and grade level that has actually been taught in classrooms. A broader conceptualization of the degree to which official curricular guidelines and local school practices overlap, and the social factors influencing this phenomenon, raise problematic issues, both analytically and empirically. In the present study we downplay the notion of the gap between the intended and implemented curriculum and concentrate instead on the forces affecting local school implementation patterns, including official curricular directives.
6. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Curriculum Redefined: Schooling for the Twenty-First Century (Paris: OECD, 1994); Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Making the Curriculum Work (Paris: OECD, 1998).
7. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, The Curriculum Redefined: Schooling for the Twenty-First Century (Paris: OECD, 1994); Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Making the Curriculum Work (Paris: OECD, 1998).
8. Kenneth Travers and Ian Westbury, The IEA Study of Mathematics 1: Analysis of Mathematics Curricula (Oxford: Pergamon, 1989); T. Neville Postlethwaite and David Wiley, The IEA Study of Science II: Science Achievement in Twenty-Three Countries (Oxford: Pergamon, 1992); Maryellen Harmon, Teresa Smith, Michael Martin, Dana Kelly, Albert Beaton, Ina Mullis, and Eugenio Gonzalez, Performance Assessment in IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study (Chestnut Hill, Mass.: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, 1997); Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Measuring What Students Learn (Paris: OECD, 1995).
9. Kenneth Travers and Ian Westbury, The IEA Study of Mathematics 1: Analysis of Mathematics Curricula (Oxford: Pergamon, 1989); T. Neville Postlethwaite and David Wiley, The IEA Study of Science II: Science Achievement in Twenty-Three Countries (Oxford: Pergamon, 1992); Maryellen Harmon, Teresa Smith, Michael Martin, Dana Kelly, Albert Beaton, Ina Mullis, and Eugenio Gonzalez, Performance Assessment in IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study (Chestnut Hill, Mass.: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, 1997); Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Measuring What Students Learn (Paris: OECD, 1995).
10. Kenneth Travers and Ian Westbury, The IEA Study of Mathematics 1: Analysis of Mathematics Curricula (Oxford: Pergamon, 1989); T. Neville Postlethwaite and David Wiley, The IEA Study of Science II: Science Achievement in Twenty-Three Countries (Oxford: Pergamon, 1992); Maryellen Harmon, Teresa Smith, Michael Martin, Dana Kelly, Albert Beaton, Ina Mullis, and Eugenio Gonzalez, Performance Assessment in IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study (Chestnut Hill, Mass.: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, 1997); Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Measuring What Students Learn (Paris: OECD, 1995).
11. Kenneth Travers and Ian Westbury, The IEA Study of Mathematics 1: Analysis of Mathematics Curricula (Oxford: Pergamon, 1989); T. Neville Postlethwaite and David Wiley, The IEA Study of Science II: Science Achievement in Twenty-Three Countries (Oxford: Pergamon, 1992); Maryellen Harmon, Teresa Smith, Michael Martin, Dana Kelly, Albert Beaton, Ina Mullis, and Eugenio Gonzalez, Performance Assessment in IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science Study (Chestnut Hill, Mass.: Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, 1997); Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Measuring What Students Learn (Paris: OECD, 1995).
12. See, e.g., recent Third International Mathematics and Science Study-related studies: W. Schmidt, D. Jorde, L. Cohan, E. Barrier, E. Gonzalez, U. Moser, K. Shimizu, T. Sawada, G. Valverde, C. McKnight, R. Prawat, D. Wiley, S. Raizen, E. Britton, and E. Wolfe, Characterizing Pedagogical Flow: An Investigation of Mathematics and Science Teaching in Six Countries (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1996); William Schmidt, Curtis McKnight, Gilbert Valverde, Richard Houang, and David Wiley, Many Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Mathematics, vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997); William Schmidt, Senta Raizen, Edward Britton, Leonard Bianchi, and Richard Wolfe, Many Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Science, vol. 2 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997).
13. See, e.g., recent Third International Mathematics and Science Study-related studies: W. Schmidt, D. Jorde, L. Cohan, E. Barrier, E. Gonzalez, U. Moser, K. Shimizu, T. Sawada, G. Valverde, C. McKnight, R. Prawat, D. Wiley, S. Raizen, E. Britton, and E. Wolfe, Characterizing Pedagogical Flow: An Investigation of Mathematics and Science Teaching in Six Countries (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1996); William Schmidt, Curtis McKnight, Gilbert Valverde, Richard Houang, and David Wiley, Many Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Mathematics, vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997); William Schmidt, Senta Raizen, Edward Britton, Leonard Bianchi, and Richard Wolfe, Many Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Science, vol. 2 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997).
14. See, e.g., recent Third International Mathematics and Science Study-related studies: W. Schmidt, D. Jorde, L. Cohan, E. Barrier, E. Gonzalez, U. Moser, K. Shimizu, T. Sawada, G. Valverde, C. McKnight, R. Prawat, D. Wiley, S. Raizen, E. Britton, and E. Wolfe, Characterizing Pedagogical Flow: An Investigation of Mathematics and Science Teaching in Six Countries (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1996); William Schmidt, Curtis McKnight, Gilbert Valverde, Richard Houang, and David Wiley, Many Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Mathematics, vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997); William Schmidt, Senta Raizen, Edward Britton, Leonard Bianchi, and Richard Wolfe, Many Visions, Many Aims: A Cross-National Investigation of Curricular Intentions in School Science, vol. 2 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1997).
15. For exceptions, see David Stevenson and David Baker, "State Control of the Curriculum and Classroom Instruction," Sociology of Education 64 (January 1991): 1-10;
16. CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers), Using Data on Enacted Curriculum in Mathematics and Science, Summary Report (Washington, D.C.: CCSSO, 2000).
17. This definition highlights between-school rather than within-school variation in the implemented curriculum. The rationale for this definition is discussed in the next section.
18. Robert Dreeben, On What Is Learned in School (Reading, Mass.: Addlson-Wesley, 1968).
19. See Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America (New York: Basic, 1976); Geoff Whitty, Sociology and School Knowledge (London: Methuen, 1985); Michael Apple, Education and Power (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982).
20. See Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America (New York: Basic, 1976); Geoff Whitty, Sociology and School Knowledge (London: Methuen, 1985); Michael Apple, Education and Power (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982).
21. See Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America (New York: Basic, 1976); Geoff Whitty, Sociology and School Knowledge (London: Methuen, 1985); Michael Apple, Education and Power (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982).
22. For a comprehensive review, see Jeannie Oakes, Adam Gamoran, and Reba Page, "Curriculum Differentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meanings," in Handbook of Research on Curriculum, ed. Phillip Jackson (New York: Macmillan, 1992).
23. For a critical discussion of this issue, see Kevin Dougherty, "Opportunity-to-Learn Standards: A Sociological Critique," Sociology of Education 69, suppl. (1996): 40-65.
24. See, e.g., Brian DeLany, "Allocation, Choice, and Stratification within High Schools: How the Sorting Machine Copes," American Journal of Education 99 (February 1991): 181-207; Hanna Ayalon and Adam Gamoran, "Stratification in Academic Secondary Programs and Educational Inequality in Israel and the United States," Comparative Education Review 44 (February 2000): 54-80.
25. See, e.g., Brian DeLany, "Allocation, Choice, and Stratification within High Schools: How the Sorting Machine Copes," American Journal of Education 99 (February 1991): 181-207; Hanna Ayalon and Adam Gamoran, "Stratification in Academic Secondary Programs and Educational Inequality in Israel and the United States," Comparative Education Review 44 (February 2000): 54-80.
26. John W. Meyer, David Kamens, Aaron Benavot, with Yun-Kyung Cha and Suk-Ying Wong, School Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and National Primary Curricular Categories in the Twentieth Century (London: Falmer, 1992); David Kamens, John W. Meyer, and Aaron Benavot, "Worldwide Patterns in Academic Secondary Education Curricula, 1920-1990," Comparative Education Review 40 (May 1996): 116-38; Elizabeth H. McEneaney and John W. Meyer, "The Content of the Curriculum," in Handbook of the Sociology of Education, ed. Maureen Hallinan (New York: Plenum, 2000), pp. 189-211.
27. John W. Meyer, David Kamens, Aaron Benavot, with Yun-Kyung Cha and Suk-Ying Wong, School Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and National Primary Curricular Categories in the Twentieth Century (London: Falmer, 1992); David Kamens, John W. Meyer, and Aaron Benavot, "Worldwide Patterns in Academic Secondary Education Curricula, 1920-1990," Comparative Education Review 40 (May 1996): 116-38; Elizabeth H. McEneaney and John W. Meyer, "The Content of the Curriculum," in Handbook of the Sociology of Education, ed. Maureen Hallinan (New York: Plenum, 2000), pp. 189-211.
28. John W. Meyer, David Kamens, Aaron Benavot, with Yun-Kyung Cha and Suk-Ying Wong, School Knowledge for the Masses: World Models and National Primary Curricular Categories in the Twentieth Century (London: Falmer, 1992); David Kamens, John W. Meyer, and Aaron Benavot, "Worldwide Patterns in Academic Secondary Education Curricula, 1920-1990," Comparative Education Review 40 (May 1996): 116-38; Elizabeth H. McEneaney and John W. Meyer, "The Content of the Curriculum," in Handbook of the Sociology of Education, ed. Maureen Hallinan (New York: Plenum, 2000), pp. 189-211.
29. Michael Young, ed., Knowledge and Control (London: Collier MacMillan, 1971); Ivor Goodson, "Subjects for Study: Aspects of a Social History of the Curriculum," Journal of Curriculum Studies 15 (April 1983): 391-408, and School Subjects and Curriculum Change: Studies in Curriculum History, rev. ed. (London: Falmer, 1987).
30. Michael Young, ed., Knowledge and Control (London: Collier MacMillan, 1971); Ivor Goodson, "Subjects for Study: Aspects of a Social History of the Curriculum," Journal of Curriculum Studies 15 (April 1983): 391-408, and School Subjects and Curriculum Change: Studies in Curriculum History, rev. ed. (London: Falmer, 1987).
31. Michael Young, ed., Knowledge and Control (London: Collier MacMillan, 1971); Ivor Goodson, "Subjects for Study: Aspects of a Social History of the Curriculum," Journal of Curriculum Studies 15 (April 1983): 391-408, and School Subjects and Curriculum Change: Studies in Curriculum History, rev. ed. (London: Falmer, 1987).
32. Robert Garden, "The Second IEA Mathematics Study," Comparative Education Review 31 (February 1987): 47-68; John Reeves, The World of School Learning: Selected Findings from Thirty-Five Years of IEA Research (Amsterdam: IEA, 1996); Harmon et al. (n. 5 above).
33. Robert Garden, "The Second IEA Mathematics Study," Comparative Education Review 31 (February 1987): 47-68; John Reeves, The World of School Learning: Selected Findings from Thirty-Five Years of IEA Research (Amsterdam: IEA, 1996); Harmon et al. (n. 5 above).
34. Of special significance is the manner by which implemented curricula were analyzed by Stevenson and Baker (n. 7 above). Experts first determined the specific contents (i.e., mathematical items) that constitute the "official" eighth-grade mathematics curriculum in each country, then they estimated classroom coverage of the "official" curriculum (i.e., the percentage of mathematics items actually taught by each teacher in each classroom), and, finally, the researchers calculated the mean amount of the official curriculum taught in each country and the degree of variation around this mean.
35. See Jon Snyder, Frances Bolin, and Karen Zumwalt, "Curriculum Implementation," in Jackson, ed., pp. 402-35.
36. See William Cummings and Abby Riddell, "Alternative Policies for the Finance, Control and Delivery of Basic Education," International Journal of Educational Research 21, no. 8 (1994): 751-76.
37. Ideological and historical traditions shaping national educational policies (e.g., an emphasis on cultural and ethnic pluralism vs. national integration and uniformity) represent an additional category of influences on curricular implementation (see Holmes and McLean [n. 2 above]). However, since structural features of educational systems embody, to a considerable extent, these traditions, this group of influences were excluded from our discussion.
38. In most cases, states set forth a modified official curricula for each formally distinct school type in an educational system. We would maintain that while between-school variation is obviously apparent across school types, it would also be salient within the same school type, in part because of the diversified institutional environments in which such schools exist.
39. Important mitigating factors in this regard are standardized matriculation exams at the end of high school or standard college entrance requirements, which may reduce curricular diversity in secondary schools, especially in academic or comprehensive programs, by obliging them to concentrate on exam-relevant school subjects.
40. Cummings and Riddell.
41. Meyer, Kamens, and Benavot (n. 14 above); William Reid, The Pursuit of Curriculum: Schooling and the Public Interest (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1992); Pamela Grossman and Susan Stodolsky, "Content as Context: The Role of School Subjects in Secondary School Teaching," Educational Researcher 24 (November 1995): 5-11.
42. Meyer, Kamens, and Benavot (n. 14 above); William Reid, The Pursuit of Curriculum: Schooling and the Public Interest (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1992); Pamela Grossman and Susan Stodolsky, "Content as Context: The Role of School Subjects in Secondary School Teaching," Educational Researcher 24 (November 1995): 5-11.
43. Meyer, Kamens, and Benavot (n. 14 above); William Reid, The Pursuit of Curriculum: Schooling and the Public Interest (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1992); Pamela Grossman and Susan Stodolsky, "Content as Context: The Role of School Subjects in Secondary School Teaching," Educational Researcher 24 (November 1995): 5-11.
44. Robert Dottrens, The Primary School Curriculum (Paris: UNESCO, 1962); Marlaine Lockheed and Adriaan Verspoor, Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1990); Massimo Amadio, "Instructional Time and Teaching Subjects during the First Four Years of Primary Education," Educational Innovation 96 (September 1998): 1-7.
45. Robert Dottrens, The Primary School Curriculum (Paris: UNESCO, 1962); Marlaine Lockheed and Adriaan Verspoor, Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1990); Massimo Amadio, "Instructional Time and Teaching Subjects during the First Four Years of Primary Education," Educational Innovation 96 (September 1998): 1-7.
46. Robert Dottrens, The Primary School Curriculum (Paris: UNESCO, 1962); Marlaine Lockheed and Adriaan Verspoor, Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1990); Massimo Amadio, "Instructional Time and Teaching Subjects during the First Four Years of Primary Education," Educational Innovation 96 (September 1998): 1-7.
47. Aaron Benavot, "Curricular Content, Educational Expansion and Economic Growth," Comparative Education Review 36 (May 1992): 150-74; David Kamens and Aaron Benavot, "Elite Knowledge for the Masses: The Origins and Spread of Mathematics and Science Education in National Curricula," American Journal of Education 99 (February 1991): 137-80.
48. Aaron Benavot, "Curricular Content, Educational Expansion and Economic Growth," Comparative Education Review 36 (May 1992): 150-74; David Kamens and Aaron Benavot, "Elite Knowledge for the Masses: The Origins and Spread of Mathematics and Science Education in National Curricula," American Journal of Education 99 (February 1991): 137-80.
49. Goodson, School Subjects (n. 15 above); Susan Stodolsky and Pamela Grossman, "The Impact of Subject Matter on Curricular Activity: An Analysis of Five Academic Subjects," American Educational Research Journal 32 (Summer 1995): 227-49.
50. Goodson, School Subjects (n. 15 above); Susan Stodolsky and Pamela Grossman, "The Impact of Subject Matter on Curricular Activity: An Analysis of Five Academic Subjects," American Educational Research Journal 32 (Summer 1995): 227-49.
51. Herbert Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893-1958 (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); Ivor Goodson, ed., International Perspectives in Curriculum History (London: Croom Helm, 1987);
52. Herbert Kliebard, The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893-1958 (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986); Ivor Goodson, ed., International Perspectives in Curriculum History (London: Croom Helm, 1987);
53. Suk Ying Wong, "The Evolution of Social Science Instruction," Sociology of Education 64, no. 1 (1991): 33-47.
54. Steven Bossert, Steven Dwyer, David Rowan, and Brian Lee Ginney, "The Instructional Management Role of the Principal," Educational Administration Quarterly 18 (Summer 1982): 34-64;
55. Joseph Murphy and Philip Hallinger, eds., Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts (Newbury Park, Calif.: Corwin, 1993);
56. Michael Chen and Audrey Addi, "School Principals' Involvement in Curriculum Planning" (paper presented at the International Sociological Association, Mid-Term Conference of the Sociology of Education Research Committee 04, Jerusalem, December 1995).
57. Certain areas of the country have yet to establish a junior high school system. As a result, schooling in these areas consists of 1 year of kindergarten, 8 years of elementary school, and 4 years of high school. This patterns accounts for about 30 percent of all pupils enrolled in grades 7-9.
58. Vered Kraus, Yossi Shavit, and Meir Yaish, "Gender and Ethnic Differences in the Transition from School to Work in Israel," in From School to Work: A Comparative Study of Educational Qualifications and Occupational Destinations, ed. Yossi Shavit and Walter Muller (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), p. 224.
59. See Abraham Yogev, "From Decentralization to Centralization in Israeli Education" (paper presented at Mid-Term Conference of the Sociology of Education Research Committee 04, International Sociological Association, Paris, 1980).
60. Dan Horowitz and Moshe Lissak, Origins of the Israeli Polity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
61. Jo-Ann Harrison, Unity and Diversity of Culture and Curriculum in the Israeli Education System (Jerusalem: Institute for the Study of Educational Systems, 1994).
62. Yaacov Iram and Mirjam Schmida, "Recurring Reforms and Changes in the Israeli Educational System," International Journal of Educational Development 13, no. 3 (1993): 217-26; Hanna Ayalon, "Monopolizing Knowledge? The Ethnic Composition and Curriculum of Israeli High Schools," Sociology of Education 67, no. 4 (1994): 264-79.
63. Yaacov Iram and Mirjam Schmida, "Recurring Reforms and Changes in the Israeli Educational System," International Journal of Educational Development 13, no. 3 (1993): 217-26; Hanna Ayalon, "Monopolizing Knowledge? The Ethnic Composition and Curriculum of Israeli High Schools," Sociology of Education 67, no. 4 (1994): 264-79.
64. Gad Yair, "When Classrooms Matter: Implications of Between-Classroom Variability for Educational Policy in Israel," Assessment in Education 4, no. 2 (1997): 271.
65. Since the mid-1970s and at several points during the 1980s, the general director of the Ministry of Education issued a variety of pronouncements in support of local school initiatives and special educational projects in order to enrich subject offerings in school curricula. In addition, the ministry reiterated its permission to elementary schools (based on the 1953 Law of State Education) to change up to 25 percent of the officially mandated hours, subject to parental approval, but this provision lay dormant for many years. In the 1980s this provision became the basis for allowing schools to provide specialized classes and electives (e.g., drama, art, literature, etc.). In general, many of the ministry's declarations were directed at elementary and senior high schools; some involved middle schools. While these official statements provided opportunities for "innovative" schools to establish new programs or meet the demands of vocal parents, they were, more often than not, highly conditional on bureaucratic authorization (e.g., approval by school inspectors; by regional offices; by the ministry itself, following the school's submission of a detailed plan; or by an overwhelming majority of the school's parents). Although the extent to which local schools seized such opportunities and made significant changes to their course offerings is difficult to gauge, the main point is clear. While the Ministry of Education began to oscillate between declarations in favor of school autonomy and continued centralized control, perhaps as early as the 1970s, these conditional curricular "openings" did not constitute a set of comprehensive and mandatory curriculum guidelines such as we analyze in this section. They do, however, help to explain some of the curricular diversity we report. We thank an especially well-informed reviewer for bringing this issue to our attention.
66. See Haim Gaziel, Politics and Policy Making in Israeli Educational System (London: Sussex Academic, 1996); Aaron Benavot and Nura Resh, "Governance and Curriculum Implementation: Uniformity and Diversity among Jewish and Arab Schools in Israel," working paper (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, School of Education, 2001).
67. See Haim Gaziel, Politics and Policy Making in Israeli Educational System (London: Sussex Academic, 1996); Aaron Benavot and Nura Resh, "Governance and Curriculum Implementation: Uniformity and Diversity among Jewish and Arab Schools in Israel," working paper (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, School of Education, 2001).
68. The fact that only one educational level of one sector of the public state system was investigated and that panel data on curricular emphases are unavailable make it difficult to address certain theoretical arguments outlined in Sec. III. Nevertheless, we believe that the heuristic value of the overall model for future comparative research is clear, and we are presently testing additional aspects of the model by expanding our study to other sectors of middle schools (the Arab and Jewish-religious sectors). See also Benavot and Resh.
69. These four variables were defined operationally as follows: school size (small schools with 65-560 pupils, large schools with 561-1590 pupils), institutional structure (separate 3-year junior high schools, junior high schools attached to 3-year senior high schools), type of locality served by school (large urban city, medium size city, small city, or small agricultural settlement such as kibbutz or moshav), and SES background of pupils (low SES or high SES, based on official index weighting parental household income, family size, parental educational attainment, proportion of immigrant children, and whether a school is located in the country's geographical center or periphery).
70. Most schools sent a typical weekly timetable of curricular subjects taught at each grade level, detailing weekly instructional hours allocated to each subject. Some schools provided detailed class-by-class timetables for each grade 7-9 homeroom class (middle schools have between 3-8 classes per grade level). In most schools, time allocations per subject were virtually identical across homeroom classes; in cases where weekly timetables differed by class, an "average" weekly timetable was calculated by averaging figures for all classes at the same grade level. Curricular timetables for special education classes, which disproportionately emphasize basic-skill subjects, were excluded from the analyses. "Optional" subjects were subjects among which students would have to choose within a required school hour(s). So, if four optional subjects were offered during a required weekly hour, then each received the value of .25 in our coding scheme.
71. Subject emphases are calculated in two ways: first, by simply summing the total number of weekly instructional hours that a school allocates to each subject (absolute hours), and second, by calculating the proportion of total instructional time in all three timetables (grades 7-9) devoted to each subject area (relative hours). The latter measure controls for school differences in the overall number of weekly hours that schools require students to be in class (see Sec. VIIB).
72. This figure does not include an additional 20 labels for special enrichment classes emphasizing basic learning skills, which are usually organized for weaker pupils. Given that such classes almost always involve specially targeted pupils, rather than the entire student body, this category of educational activities was excluded from the analyses. We estimate that, on average, only 1 percent of total instructional time was devoted to such enrichment or skill-enhancement programs.
73. Budgetary cutbacks in the 1980s apparently affected local schools in different ways. In some cases, local schools found non-Ministry of Education sources (e.g., parents, local municipalities, educational foundations) to make up for funding shortfalls, thereby creating a less uniform system of educational finance. In other cases, schools simply reduced allocations for management personnel, counselors, and special educational projects. A diverse array of funding sources continues today and provides opportunities for especially enterprising school principals to augment standard ministry allocations with "external" funds and, in doing so, to create the conditions for less conventional and potentially more innovative school curricula. Having said that, central ministry funds still predominate: by our estimate, they constitute over 90 percent of the instructional budgets of middle schools.
74. Given the tendency for the variance to increase as the mean increases, we calculated coefficients of variation (the standard deviation divided by the mean) for each subject. The higher the coefficient of variation, the greater the extent of between-school variation.
75. The results of these analyses are available on request.
76. Two explanations for this pattern may be proposed. First, schools are treating such subject pairs as part of a single cluster, as defined in the new curricular guidelines, and not as separate subjects needing to be taught in tandem. Second, middle schools (more so than senior high schools) serve multiple, often conflicting, purposes (e.g., the acquisition of academic knowledge, the transmission of basic skills, the enhancement of self esteem, and the development of a positive personality and social identity). Because of these conflicting interests and purposes, middle schools end up with a too-long list of subjects to be taught and seek ways to de-emphasize - or simply not teach - one of two interrelated subjects.
77. See William Schmidt and Richard Prawat, "What Does the Third International Mathematics and Science Study Tell Us about Where to Draw the Line in the Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Debate?" Edu-cational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21 (Spring 1999): 85-91.
78. Explanations of this phenomenon, which have considerable face validity in light of recent developments in Israeli society, include (a) growing interest among school officials and curriculum designers in integrating subject matter from different academic disciplines and offering more interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary school subjects; (b) increased school autonomy, in conjunction with greater parental involvement in school affairs, producing more school-based initiatives; (c) increased institutional competition following the creation of special magnet-like schools, resulting in attempts by school officials to design more attractive curricula, mainly for upper secondary programs; (d) public schools deciding to offer special classes funded by outside agencies as a way of augmenting school budgets in an era of fiscal uncertainty; and (e) the effects of organizational inertia - some schools continue to teach subjects mandated in previous cunricular guidelines (e.g., classes in vocational education) while concurrently implementing new curricular directives. Many of these explanations are undoubtedly valid in other educational contexts as well.
79. Harrison (n. 34 above).
80. As previously noted, we have partially embarked on such a task; see Benavot and Resh (n. 38 above).
81. Explanations combining different approaches are quite plausible. For example, weak organizational linkages and loosely coupled schools-indications of less centralized control and increased school autonomy - create a context in which local factors and principal discretion take on added significance in the construction of the school curriculum. In our estimate, such an explanation closely approximates historical developments in Israel.
82. Another set of issues, which are not addressed in the present study, highlights the impact of the implemented curriculum on broader societal inequalities. For example, does between-school variation in curricular emphases create and reinforce unequal learning opportunities for social or ethnic minorities? Are existing social inequalities reproduced or reduced by local patterns of curricular organization? To address these issues requires multilevel research designs incorporating information on curricular differences between schools as well as patterns of pupil course taking and exposure to different curricular subjects. International studies of course taking, curriculum exposure, and pupil achievement, especially those which rely too heavily on official declarations of curricular guidelines, need to begin systematic analyses of school-based implementation patterns.