859993

research-article2019
ESJ0010.1177/1746197919859993Education, Citizenship and Social JusticeWahrman and Hartaf

Original Article
ecsj
Education, Citizenship and
Social Justice
Are schools educating toward 1­–14
© The Author(s) 2019
active citizenship? The internal Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
school struggle between DOI: 10.1177/1746197919859993
https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197919859993
journals.sagepub.com/home/esj
contradictory citizenship models

Hillel Wahrman
Oranim Academic College of Education, Israel

Hagit Hartaf
Ministry of Education, Israel

Abstract
This article investigates the phenomenology of Social Education Coordinators in Israeli high schools regarding school’s
civic education. Twenty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted, followed by a two-stage coding process.
The Social Education Coordinators indicate that their schools seem to be unified behind the goal of maximal
citizenship. However, their unique position as agents of non-formal pedagogies gains them insight into the role
of pedagogy in advancing various citizenship models and the struggle in schools between opposing pedagogies
and citizenship models. Formal pedagogies are understood to be incoherent; they speak of maximal citizenship,
however, habituate minimal citizenship. Informal pedagogies are understood to be coherent, to both speak and
habituate maximal citizenship. From the Social Education Coordinators’ perspective, their attempt to insert
meaningful informal pedagogies and true maximal citizenship is subversive and a show of agency. They perceive
themselves as still weak but significant players in providing students with ‘voice’ in the public sphere. This analysis
may advance our understanding of schools as arenas of incoherency and contradictions, of simultaneously pushing
toward contradictory civic education ideals; it may highlight the civic significance of pedagogy choice and raise the
issue of cultivating informal civic education pedagogies as a basic student right, a democratic right to cultivate ‘voice’.

Keywords
civic education, democracy, formal vs informal pedagogies, minimal vs maximal citizenship models,
qualitative research

Theoretical background
Worldwide attention toward public school civic education is fueled by concern regarding the wan-
ing of civic attributes in both established and new democracies; these concerns are intensified by

Corresponding author:
Hillel Wahrman, Oranim Academic College of Education, Kiryat, Tivon 3600600, Israel.
Email: hillel_w@oranim.ac.il
2 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 00(0)

the unprecedented emigration from non-democratic to liberal societies (Abowitz and Harnish,
2006; Center for Civic Education, 2001; Galston, 2001; Naval et al., 2002; Pharr et al., 2000;
Quigley, 2000; Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Vontz et al., 2000). These concerns are growing in Israel
as strife between contesting factions, national sentiments, Jewish and Arab segregation, human
rights violations, and security threats are deepening (Avnon, 2006). Because of the need to influ-
ence how young citizens conceive of citizenship and reinforce procedural values of equality, toler-
ance and adherence to democratic institutions on one hand, and to have them participate actively,
check those in power and work toward the common good on the other hand, many perceive schools
as one of the few societal agents that may be able to address these concerns (Wahrman, 2013).
Two major rival theories exist within contemporary western liberal discourse regarding the
direction of citizenship and civic education: the minimal and the maximal (Habermas, 1994;
McLaughlin, 1992). The minimal works to instill strong tolerance toward centrifugal forces in
society, the private sphere, and heterogeneity (Galston, 1989). A thin layer of procedural values
should constitute a minimal social bond, and these are to be sanctified and protected at all cost and
become the core of a vigorous civic education (Bell and Staeheli, 2001; Gutmann and Thompson,
2009; Heater, 2004b: 219–220). The minimal strain was influenced by the liberal political thought
of John Locke (2014) and is characteristic of the English-speaking world.
The maximal contends that the population should develop citizenship as their primary identity,
promote commonality and unity (Bell and Staeheli, 2001; Gutmann and Thompson, 2009;
Habermas, 1994), and respect for centripetal forces within society (Galston, 1989). This primary
belonging induces feelings of loyalty, responsibility, and high levels of involvement in the public
sphere where the individual expends great effort to promote the public good (Aristotle, 1992;
Crittenden and Levine, 2013), conserve public assets, or mend public problems (Freire, 1972
[1968]). The maximal tradition originated from classic Greek and Roman republicanism. Plato
(1955) and Aristotle (1992) envisioned a small, tightly knit union where all citizens become per-
sonally familiar with one other. Plato in his Republic believed that citizens should act as one while
Aristotle in his Politics allowed more room for differences (Heater, 2004b). In modern times, with
the advent of mega-societies, the maximal sentiment needed to evolve and promote solidarity on a
larger scale (Heater, 2004a: 88–89, 2004b: 54–62). Various competing ideologies were offered to
consolidate large scale nations based on race, ethnicity, political commonality, and global identity
(Heater, 2004b). The first two are based on exclusion and the wish to create thick bonds for a
closed social group and the latter two on inclusion in an attempt to strengthen social bonds and
mutual responsibility among all (Osler and Starkey, 2005).
Thus, the minimal and the maximal models as well as the different maximal strains of thought
support very different visions of society and the choice between them is political. Which is embed-
ded in public schools?
An important observation regarding school civic education is its tendency toward incoherency
(Newmann et al., 2001). This occurs, in the words of Cohen (2010) when ‘conceptions of citizen-
ship are translated into educational practices that are incompatible […] at best and contradictory at
worst’. In other words, goals tend to reflect high ideals of equality, inclusion and maximal citizen-
ship intended to enhance ‘voice’ (Hirschman, 1970) among all students, social bonds and shared
responsibility, but the actual curriculum implemented varies: teachers, for example, may talk to
students about freedom of thought while insisting on their own conception of citizenship (Cohen,
2016). Schools may teach democracy while themselves being undemocratic organizations that
habituate undemocratic practices (Torney-Purta et al., 1999).
Cohen (2017a) claims that privileged groups receive maximal civic education that empowers
their voice while the unprivileged receive minimal civic education that disempowers and leads
toward lack of voice or ‘exiting’. School civic education is understood this way to perpetuate the
Wahrman and Hartaf 3

existing inequality of citizen status of the Palestinian minority (Agbaria, 2010) and students from
low income families (Cohen, 2017a). Ichilov (1999, 2004), and Pinson (2007) demonstrate how
the same curriculum may contain contradictory citizenship models, in effect aiming to provide
Jews with a maximal ethnic-exclusive model while providing the Palestinians living in Israel with
a minimal model.
Cohen (2017b: 13) and Pope et al. (2011) suggest that what is still missing from the field of
civic education is research on enacted curriculum and practiced pedagogy. Progressive pedagogies
are considered linked to education for maximal citizenship (Cohen, 2017b; Hess and McAvoy,
2014; Pope et al., 2011; Torney-Purta et al., 1999, 2001). Cohen (2018) implies that students from
privileged status may be receiving more progressive pedagogies than the unprivileged. More
research into civic education pedagogy is needed and it is the focus of this article.
In researching enacted school civic education, this article examines the perspective of a specific
group within the school environment in Israel. We aimed at the phenomenology of Social Education
Coordinators (SECs) who operate mostly in the periphery of the Israeli school experience, in the
role of moral educators (Hartaf, 2007; Zidkiyahu, 2007). The SECs oversee extracurricular activi-
ties in Israeli schools, outside the realm of formal syllabus, textbooks, exams and grades, and many
times outside the boundaries of the classroom, relying instead on informal progressive pedagogies
such as play, music, theater, field trips, workshops, student leadership, volunteering, informal gath-
ering, and so on. The research aimed at revealing their perspective regarding the civic education in
their schools and perhaps what they believe should be offered.

Methodology
This study was part of a project carried out in 2009 by a team at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem1
whose objective was to reveal the civic education perceptions held by various role-holders in the
Israeli education system. Our research focused on the perceptions held by SECs. Twenty-one semi-
structured interviews were conducted based on the qualitative-phenomenological tradition (Shlasky
and Arieli, 2001) with the following distribution: ten SECs from Jewish Secular schools (J), five
from Jewish Religious schools (JR), and six from the inspectorate in the Arab sector (A). Schools
from each category are characterized as having students of differing socio-economic backgrounds
(high, middle, low) and geographic diversification. We were assisted in choosing the SECs to be
interviewed by Ministry of Education inspectors, with the aim of reaching those schools considered
to be most active in moral-social informal education activities.
The interviews were held in locations chosen by the coordinators, in or outside the schools.
They were asked the following questions: What in your opinion is good civic education? What
civic education exists in your school? What conditions support or constrain civic education in your
school?
The interviews were transcribed verbatim and underwent two non-linear analysis stages
(Baptiste, 2001; Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Shkedi, 2003): The first, generative stage included
identifying, organizing, and establishing themes. This stage begins by recognizing emic self-con-
ceptualizations of the interviewees and is followed by etic theoretical conceptualizations in the
fields of citizenship and education (Headland et al., 1990; Jardine, 2004; Pike, 1967). The second
non-linear analysis stage is critical, where all themes, narratives, or metaphors are exposed to criti-
cal inspection (Baptiste, 2001; Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Shkedi, 2003). Findings and analysis
were periodically presented for the critique of the broad-based research group at the Van Leer
institute and were subjected to an intellectual tug-of-war among the authors. Coding proceeded
until saturation.
4 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 00(0)

Findings
Discussing the ideal civic education
Releasing students from their self-focus.  The coordinators were concerned with the students’ ten-
dency to be focused on themselves: ‘Indifference is a malady that, for me, angers me the most’
(J7). ‘I tell the students … you cannot be an amoeba …’ (J5):

We should be taking the students and extricating them from their state of indifference, a situation where
they only take and take from the Ministry of Education, from the school, from parents, and from the
environment. … Give of yourselves a little. (J4)

The first way is by educating that our passions should be checked by laws. The students should
be taught that they ‘are pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle … that I am obliged to abide by various rules
and laws even if I don’t agree with them, and I must accept them’ (JR1). The goal is that the student
‘will emerge as a person who is a law-abiding moral citizen’ (J3).
But abiding by the law should not be technical; one must consider the laws’ purpose: ‘A loyal
citizen knows the law … knows its conditions … and its purpose’ (A3). He should also judge these
purposes. Hence, when discussing Israel’s obligatory army service, the Jewish SECs felt it worth-
while to expose students to opposing views—those who support and those who reject such service
(JR4, J9). An Arab SEC led his students to question the morality of some Israeli laws and their
unequal enforcement: ‘We are both parked and I get a ticket and the other doesn’t … because he’s
a Jew he doesn’t get a ticket, and because you’re an Arab you do get a ticket?’ (A2).
Furthermore, students should engage in doing more than is required by the letter of the law.
Jewish SECs discussed obligatory military service with their students, postulating a ‘worthwhile
army service’–in a combat unit (JR1, JR2, J1, J6, J7, J9). Similarly, in areas in which the current
law has no clear say the student should think what the law should be:

A good citizen is one who cares about others … I don’t mean citizens paying their taxes on time … what
interests me is that he or she should care, be willing to do … and act and apply pressure till the things he
feels are not good will change … (JR2)

Thus, releasing students from their self-focus is accomplished by engaging them in the values
and limitations of laws: emphasizing obedience to the law but also thinking of its purpose and
evaluation and eventually acting beyond the written letter of the law.

Instilling students with tolerance.  The SECs work to instill in students respect for multiple opinions, first,
by becoming aware that there are ‘others’: the ‘Arab/Jew’ (A6, A5, A1, J3, J2), the ‘religious/secular’
(J5, J3, J2, JR2), the ‘Mizrahi [from eastern countries]/Ashkenazi [from western countries]’ (JR2, J2),
the ‘kibbutznik/urbanite’ (J3), or ‘others of the various Jewish persuasions’ (J5). Second, by granting
‘others’ the possibility to air their opinions. ‘Each one has a right to express his or her approach’ (J5).
The Arab SECs explain that all views have a rationale that any person may understand:

One must respect the person standing before you as a person, not because he/she is an Arab or Jew or
Christian; first and foremost, respect him/her as a person. The most important issue is tolerance and
patience. (A1)

Jewish SECs base their tolerance not on the idea that universal sameness will lead to under-
standing but on the premise that we can always learn from others. A religious Jewish SEC tells of
Wahrman and Hartaf 5

the value that her religious Jewish students can gain from learning from a Bedouin girl (JR6). This
version encourages respect without adhering to a universalistic self-conception.

Civic education pedagogy

The SECs portray a civic education pedagogy which relies on responding to an ever-changing,
chaotic, disorderly civic sphere, which appeals to emotions and learning not from theory but from
concrete examples, experiencing, and most importantly, by doing.

Any group identity is a starting point.  The SECs express a very pluralistic approach regarding which
collective to introduce to students in school. First, the overall aim is to promote many collective
identifications:

A good citizen relates to many circles. A small circle, starting with yourself, to love yourself, not to settle
for what is … and we widen the circle, family, neighbors, [name of community], district, country. (A3)

I’m part of an urban community, part of a national community, I’m part of the international community …
therefore it’s important to me that a person be connected to what’s happening here and abroad and also to
know how to observe, where a contribution can be made … (A5)

But second, the order in which these collective identities are introduced to students is not impor-
tant. There is an assumption that one leads to the other, meaning that once a student is pulled out
of his self-indulgence into some type of public concern he can then be more easily sensitized to
other types of public concerns and other types of publics. In the informal pedagogies used by the
SECs, the exposure to public group identities in society depends on the yearly timetable of school
events and special days. The yearly timetable dictates the order in which various ‘publics’ appear
and come into learners’ consciousness.

Discussion of current affairs as core activity.  This lack of order is obvious in what the SECs consider
to be the major content of their civic education—discussing the news with students (J2, J8, JR4).
Discussing the news is understood as the major action of good citizens, and news changes daily.
News raises controversies which inject the classroom with energy for resolution. Students are
encouraged to think hard and strongly for themselves: ‘There should be a discussion, they should
grapple’ (J8); ‘there should be a discussion and argument and each one will thus express his or her
opinion, what each one thinks’ (A5). The SECs actively seek those controversies that exhibit dilem-
mas, that is, that bring opposing values that are not easily reconciled to the discussion. These
encourage students to examine their assumptions. One SEC provided an example (JR4): ‘After the
disengagement from Gush Katif2 … we spoke of the dilemma that on the one hand they felt they
should resist and on the other hand, what–I’ll use weapons against [our own] soldiers?’ (JR3).
Discussing unresolved dilemmas is a good preparation to the harsh reality of citizenry in Israel,
where politics is extremely difficult:

Real dilemmas I think … on a small scale are in the framework of the school. But later you see them in
much larger frameworks—whether in the army with dismantling settlements, or [later on in life] when a
person is at work in a career. (JR4)

There is a typical structure for discussions: first, the SEC puts forth a concrete news item and
offers an outline of the opposing positions regarding it. Second, the students engage in a discussion
6 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 00(0)

that may become heated and remain unresolved. Third, the SECs then shift the discussion to a more
abstract form of the dilemma. One example of this is provided by a religious SEC (JR4): He creates
the setting: ‘When accepting a student to a religious school, what should be the more important
consideration: his or her level of religious observance or his or her behavior towards other people?’
After a heated discussion by students, he moves on to a related but more abstract dilemma—‘What
is preferable in general: Torah [the holy scriptures] or civility?’
A good discussion needs to air a variety of positions. ‘… you must bring variety, you bring all
the viewpoints, you don’t bring [only] your own’ (A5).

I was once exposed to a social program that was approved by the Yeshiva students’ parents … there was
someone from the extreme right opposite Yossi Sarid [a prominent left-wing Israeli politician], and there
was a priest and an Islamic scholar … something perhaps unexpected in a place like a Yeshiva where
supposedly there is more constraint. This shows in my opinion that this school is not afraid. Not afraid …
it believes in its ability to educate. (JR5)

Voicing multiple positions unfettered by authority regarding what is allowed or prohibited is in

the eyes of the SECs a democratic right. Moreover, the SECs believe that when students express
their own views, they become personally invested in the discussion, engaging in it and, therefore,
becoming committed to the opinions they form. Discussion should be conducted

… in partnership, in dialogue. Dialogue is a democratic value, … it’s such a fundamental value that it
simply needs to be a part of the spoken language at school. (JR1)

One of the aims of social education is to expose [students] to as many ideas as possible and give them the
tools over the years to identify or reject, but also to know how to stand firm behind things, to consolidate
a position and consolidate values. (J2)

However, this stance causes the SECs considerable stress. The SECs are pressured to direct the
students’ value systems and not be neutral bystanders:

The entire basis of social education is to identify which values and what things the institution wishes to
imbue and what change to bring about among the students. (JR3)

The SECs portray a situation in which they need to create true dialogue on one hand, and on
the other they need to instill certain values. The practical way ‘out’ of this catch 22 is to maintain
the appearance of dialogue while artfully directing the discussion toward pre-defined values.
What is interesting to note is the chaotic not-orderly fashion in which groups, interests, news,
controversies, dilemmas and values are brought up for discussion in the reality of the SECs’ civic
education. Unlike teachers who work in the framework of a pre-defined curriculum, the SECs
respond to an ever-changing external reality, moving from one subject to the other relying more on
improvisation than on planning.

Aiming at the emotional.  SECs believe that civic education ‘cannot work only on the brain …
actually this is the role, the entire basis, of social education’ (JR3). Moreover, conflicting emo-
tions need to be awakened: on one hand feelings of ties, affinity, and loyalty to the state (JR5,
A5) and on the other feelings of anger, distrust, and criticism aimed at corruption and human
rights violations (J4, A5). The good citizen is envisaged as one who cultivates contradicting
emotions.
Wahrman and Hartaf 7

Exposing the students to public space and time.  The SECs defined the pedagogy by which the abstract
notion of the ‘public’ should be demonstrated concretely:

What is social education? It can be defined as the merging and integrating of studying in school and life
outside school which allows the student to feel—it invites him or her to feel—all layers of society … (A6)

There are a few ways to attain a concrete feeling of citizenship issues. One is by interrupting the
classroom space and tempo and going out to public places and experiencing public time. By taking
students to educational events in the hallways, gymnasium, and schoolyard, they encounter and
can visualize the larger ‘school community’ and envisage themselves as school members. By pro-
jection, they see themselves as members of a nation and state. SECs conduct tours of the neighbor-
hood, the city (J4, J8, J2), the country and state institutions such as the Knesset (parliament) and
Supreme Court (J10). They also organize visits abroad—mainly to Poland to see World War II
concentration camps.
SECs also introduce students to ‘outside’ tempo. They organize what they call school ‘peak
days’, such as traditional ethnic holidays and holy days (J8, A6), state holidays such as remem-
brance and commemoration days initiated by the government, ceremonies awarding identity cards
(J2, J3), and so on. This deconstruction of normal school tempo allows students to feel the tempo
of various publics out in society.

Role models.  Another way to achieve a concrete feeling of citizenship issues is by exposing stu-
dents to role models who exhibit good citizenship and demonstrate that being a good citizen is not
a utopian dream but a real-life option. One of the SECs (JR3) tells of an annual bike ride that takes
place at a school in memory of Dror Weinberg, a brigade commander who was killed in the city of
Hebron in the West Bank. Various activities were held at the school prior to commencement of the
bike ride, to which the soldier’s mother was also invited; she spoke about him and a movie depict-
ing his life was shown. The SEC indicated that the purpose was to exhibit to each student ‘… an
exemplary character, one that he or she may wish to emulate …’:

… The more the students are exposed to such personalities and more they participate in activities of this
kind … another and another and another, the process begins to mold the students. Becoming familiar with
exemplary personalities … educates them well. … They learn about the concrete moment, location and
context in the country where these personalities were active and were part of things, being what we call
‘good citizens’, yes?,,, an exemplary personality that he or she would like to emulate … therefore we
invest much thought in the personalities we choose to expose them to … (JR3)

Role models are thus a means to show young students that the high ideals of good citizenry are
attainable, and that the concrete behaviors needed to attain such an ideal can be emulated.

Experience and reflection.  The importance of learning from concrete examples is mostly highlighted
in the SECs’ wish to promote active citizenship by the virtue of being active (JR5, JR2, J6, JR2).
Thus, studies about the Supreme Court should be supplemented by visiting it, talks about volun-
teering should be complemented by volunteering, recognizing class strata within society should be
augmented by meeting students from other schools, and other socio-economic strata and talking
about injustice should be enhanced by fighting it.
The structure resembles Paolo Freire (1972 [1968]) concept of ‘praxis’, combining ‘Talking’ and
‘doing’. The SECs begin with a preparatory talk. The students arrive at an activity ‘after a lesson or
two that discussed the issue, preparing them regarding its importance’ (J9). Then the students are
8 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 00(0)

sent out to ‘do’. After the experience the students reflect, one SEC told of a time when several of his
students were volunteering at army emergency warehouses. They felt that they were doing work that
active duty soldiers should have been doing and that they were ‘just suckers’ for doing the work
instead of them:

This was a great opportunity for the educators and me … to raise this issue. Hang on—are we suckers or
not? What’s a sucker? In the next war if the emergency stores are not ready—who will suffer? Like, is it
the army’s problem that the emergency stores aren’t ready or is it my problem …? (JR3)

It would appear, then, that the SECs perceive a good citizen as one who is active and also thinks
and talks about his actions.

Participation in school administration. Students were given expanding responsibilities in running

school affairs such as in designing ceremonies, planning yearly field trips (J4, J3, JR1), and elect-
ing the student council:

The student council is first of all democracy in practice … here you are like a nation in the school, you
decide who will represent your class … who will be your candidate for chairman … (J4)

The school is understood as a little ‘state’ and students are its citizens. Participation in running
the school is understood as parallel to a citizen participating in running the state.

The conditions influencing school civic education

The SECs talked about the conditions that exist in schools that support but mostly impair their civic
education efforts.
First, school is immersed in the larger culture of the country, and culture in Israel is perceived
by them as rewarding contrary values in regard to citizenship: individual achievement and mate-
rial welfare, apathy toward the community, and growth of extremist groups on all sides of the
political spectrum accompanied by a lack of hope that conflicts in Israel will ever be resolved.
There is quiet desperation and hopelessness. As a result, students arrive at school ‘semi attentive–
they won’t open a newspaper and read it, they won’t sit and listen to the news’ (J4), ‘They are
disconnected, … this is a generation absorbed in television, in computers … with a very limited
circle of things that interest them …’ (J6). Mass media celebrities are socializing the young for
extreme individuality:

For my part I see myself struggling against these trends in society. Because I’m an agent of socialization
and they are agents of socialization. Mass media, politicians, celebs … and this is a very difficult struggle
for me as an educator. How, despite this, do we bring students to the point that they believe in things—like
friendship or that money isn’t everything in life? … I’m aware of my position as a weak agent, because in
this era and in this period of adolescence the celebs and the mass media are much stronger agents. (P19)

This culture is mirrored in the internal school culture as well. The dominant formal pedagogies
in the schools focus the entire school system on measurable academic achievements:

The pressure of matriculation exams and teachers who are evaluated by percentages and success rates …
then a teacher, much to our distress, is more intent on academic achievements than on values or social
problems. (J4)
Wahrman and Hartaf 9

Sometimes I meet with various inspectors, at various inspectorate meetings, and I feel as if the discussion
is only about how many kids have matriculation accreditation and what were the average grades in the
exams. (JR3)

The SECs contend that this counters their attempt to encourage good citizens. One pleads:
‘Subtract 10% [from grades] but [have] an enriched program that promotes good kids’ (JR3):

There was an enormous argument whether the education should constitute more or less than formal
pedagogy, and we began calculating seventy-five/twenty-five. Really! seventy-five percent [formal
pedagogy] and twenty-five percent [informal social education] … look, there are also months that … a
whole month for instance that you do nothing informal with the students because they need to study … (J8)

Because of the growing political intolerance in Israel, the SECs worry that when sensitive issues
come up in school, they will get an angry reaction from students, parents, and authorities. One SEC
(JR5) tells that leading up to the last elections, she organized a panel comprised of representatives
from different political parties, but due to the dissatisfaction voiced by several intolerant teachers,
she desisted from organizing a similar panel with representatives of several religions. Other SECs
report that various groups connected to the school, such as parent groups, the municipality, politi-
cal parties, local newspapers, and so on, continuously review their work critically and apply pres-
sure to control the way school treats sensitive political issues. An Arab SEC (A1) reports being
constantly wary, ‘diplomatic’ (he called it) in order to enlist the various groups so that ‘they’ll be
on my side’. The SECs are not free agents, they are under unsympathetic scrutiny.
The Arab coordinators added that they are constrained by their un-privileged position in Israeli
society. On one hand, they are expected to instill democratic values and Israeli identification: ‘We
are striving to integrate the children into Israeli society’ (A5) ‘In order to succeed I must be able to
push forward and integrate into the Israeli society’ (A1). On the other hand, Israeli society is not
entirely accepting:

You demand that I be a good and loyal citizen, therefore I deserve to study anywhere. I deserve entrance
everywhere. I deserve to build everywhere. Because if I’m a citizen in this country and I hold an identity
card of this country, then I deserve to be everywhere. If I am not entitled, … and I am subjected to profiling
… then … we teach the value of equality, and suddenly in society he or she [the Arab student] receives …
the exact opposite message. (A6)

Discussion
This research aimed at revealing the phenomenology of 21 SECs from Jewish and Arab schools in
Israel, regarding their schools’ civic education. SECs provide a rich perspective held by those who
operate in the periphery of mostly extra-curricular school activities. Their emic conceptualizations
will be interpreted through a larger etic theoretical framework.

At the surface unified, below the surface contradicting and competing

The SECs show how their schools seem to be unified behind a common goal of maximal citizen-
ship. Curricula, textbooks, exams, lesson plans, all call for high ideals of equality, tolerance, strong
social bonds, civic solidarity, responsibility, and involvement. However, the SECs’ unique position
as agents of non-formal pedagogies focused their attention on the civic implications of pedagogical
choices, and it is here that two opposing factions in school are revealed: those who stress the
10 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 00(0)

advancement of academic achievements through formal pedagogies versus those who stress educa-
tion for values and group identification through informal values:

There is always this tension, between two domains that comprise every school … the scholarly domain …
and education for social values … Clearly the scholarly domain is considered more important, the one on
which, it is believed, a school will rise or fall—its scholastic achievements. However, one must never
forget the soul of the school and education for social values. We are not sending forth a person like a
computer or machine, rather we want him or her to be human and sensitive, with a mantle of social values
and ethics. (J1)

These two goals live together side by side in the official school ‘talk’ which emphasizes both.
However, the SECs observe that pedagogy choice is not technical; rather it is at the core of the citi-
zenship model being cultivated. This is because unrelated to content, pedagogy type influences the
habits being formed (Bowles and Gintis, 2002), and formal and informal pedagogies promote
contradictory civic habits. To illustrate, teaching ‘active democracy’ through formal classroom
lectures forms habits that are contrary to active democracy: passivity, obedience, and a focus on
individual achievements. A declared ‘maximal’ educational program is therefore minimalist and
incoherent with the explicit goals (Newmann et al, 2001). This incoherency may explain why the
learning of civics is considered ineffective in changing civic aptitudes (Cohen, 2017b; Pope et al.,
2011) and why schools in general do not promote the growth of democratic attitudes (Cohen, 2016;
Torney-Purta et al., 1999).
Informal pedagogies, in contrast, talk about maximal citizenship and form maximal civic
habits. They are therefore coherent. To illustrate, learning ‘active democracy’ through ‘discus-
sion’ and ‘dialogue’ habituates symmetry of power among equals, and through volunteering
habituates caring, acting, and thinking of the type that is concrete and utilizes implicit and
inductive knowledge. Choice of pedagogy is therefore the choice of the civic education model
itself (Freire, 1972 [1968]).
Leaving content aside, on the level of habit formation, the school is divided between those who
through the formal pedagogies habituate minimal citizenship and those who through the informal
pedagogies habituate maximal citizenship. School is conceived of as a messy arena of competing
agendas (Ball, 1994).

The subversive informal civic education

These two civic educations in school are not equal in their influence. The civic education embed-
ded in the informal pedagogies remains in the periphery of the mostly formal school experience
and goes against the currently strong inclination of schools to form minimalist civic habits. The
voice of informal pedagogies is therefore subversive and is a show of agency to act against com-
mon practice. Such agency in educators was researched in Singapore (Sim, 2011), the Philippines
(Almonte-Acosta, 2011), and Israel (Cohen, 2016). The agency can be explained by two factors.
One is the higher level of freedom that SECs enjoy in relation to teachers who are subordinated to
written curricula, supervisors, exams, and grading systems. SECs are free to improvise, change
pace, move from one pedagogy to another, and experiment. But more importantly, the agency of
the SECs originates from their will to address the substance of good citizenry. In the terms of Eyal
and Gross-Yarm (2018), the SECs are not satisfied with reproducing the existing core practices of
school routine, because these formal routines do not correlate with their deeply held beliefs regard-
ing good citizenship. It is because they are addressing the substance of good citizenship in their
own lives and are immersed in the problems and needs of Israel’s public sphere that they wish to
Wahrman and Hartaf 11

transform school core practices. Their work to transform school practices is their own show of
good citizenry.
This agency offers an alternative civic education on at least three distinct levels (Heater, 2004a:
198–213).
The first is the identity of the students. While formal pedagogies are understood as encouraging
a commitment to own personal achievement at the habit formation level, the informal pedagogies
are understood as promoting commitment to the public or multiple publics. The informal pedago-
gies juggle possible loyalties: global, national, ethnic, vocational, interest groups, locality, and so
on: ‘A good citizen relates to many circles’ (A3). A ‘good citizen’ is viewed as one who exerts
cognitive and emotional energy to examine his loyalties, reconcile tensions that arise between them
and constantly prioritizes commitments.
The second is the level of civic responsibility students should develop. The formal pedagogies
are understood at the habit formation level as encouraging students to direct their energy toward
their own personal scholarly achievements. The informal pedagogies are understood as encourag-
ing the direction of energy toward civic issues—how much to commit to thinking, feeling, and
acting upon them. (a) The formal pedagogies reward thinking which develops students as well-
versed in authorized knowledge while informal pedagogies entice students to think about issues
that are without clear authorized knowledge, news that is ever-changing and evolving, where
important information is at times purposefully concealed. The SECs seem to advocate a view of
good citizens who are committed to think harder than is required in formal classes. (b) The formal
pedagogies focus mostly on cognitive work while the informal pedagogies work on emotional
development. They evoke emotions and advocate citizens who care. Cultivating emotions is
‘harder’ than just thoughts or knowledge; it requires delicate, empathic, tactful, and discreet inter-
actions. Emotions are not easily visible, they may dwindle or intensify in varying contexts. Students
need to be committed to exerting high levels of energy to handle their own and other people’s emo-
tions, particularly when conflicted issues are discussed and both tolerance and commitment are
expected. (c) The formal pedagogies habituate—if successful—a life of intellectual pursuit while
informal pedagogies offer more opportunities for doing. The students are encouraged to obey the
law but also to act beyond the letter of the law, and at times against unjust laws. They require stu-
dents to commit to the harder life of action.
The third is the way students develop ‘procedural values’. The formal pedagogies are under-
stood as promoting tolerance but in a weak sense, since it is constructed from a theoretical, emo-
tionally distant, and not strongly invested stance. The informal pedagogies, however, are understood
as promoting tolerance in a stronger sense, one that exists among players who despite their com-
mitment to issues, have taken sides and need to deal with others who threaten their interests. This
tolerance entails painful compromise and is harder to cultivate (Krathwohl et al., 1964). First, it
means allowing other views to be heard. But second, in paying prolonged attention to them, it
requires giving them serious consideration and allowing them to change you. This stronger sense
of tolerance encourages citizens who actively exercise discretion or prudence on civic issues they
encounter, waiting to fully examine all sides of an issue, sanctifying a constant ‘discussion’, and
seeking moderate solutions for political problems, that is, those that serve competing interests. The
good citizen envisaged by the SECs through the informal pedagogies seems to correlate with the
ideals of ‘deliberative democracy’ theory (Cohen, 1989; Fishkin and Luskin, 2005; Habermas,
1984, 1996).
Although the SECs envisage themselves as marginal in the current formal school culture, they
believe their voice is important for advancing students who truly care, feel responsibility, and turn
to action in Israel’s public sphere. As such they conceive of themselves as significant players in the
shaping of Israel’s future. We suggest that it is worth listening to the SECs’ perspective on school
12 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 00(0)

civic education and considering their appraisal of schools as encumbered by contradictions, inco-
herencies, and struggle and as pushing toward contradictory citizenship models. SECs stress the
advancement of informal pedagogies in schools, perhaps considering exposure to such pedagogies
as a basic right—the democratic right of each young student to develop habits of voice in public
affairs. We believe that this perspective should receive more attention.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1. Headed by Prof. Hanan Alexander and Dr. Halleli Pinson.
2. The reference is of the State of Israel’s disengagement from control in Gaza in 2005, which was accom-
panied by extreme differences in opinion in Israeli politics. The quotation was made by a coordinator
indicating the dilemma that confronted those protesting disengagement with respect to just how far to go
to oppose it.

ORCID iD
Hillel Wahrman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6621-6141

References
Abowitz KK and Harnish J (2006) Contemporary discourses of citizenship. Review of Educational Research
76(4): 653–690.
Agbaria A (2010) Civic education for the Palestinians in Israel: dilemmas and challenges. In: Alexander H,
Pinson H and Yonah Y (eds) Citizenship Education and Social Conflict: New Insights and Lessons from
Israel. New York: Routledge, 217–237.
Almonte-Acosta SA (2011) Pedagogical approaches to citizenship education in the varied contexts of second-
ary schools in the Philippines. In: Kennedy KJ, Lee WO and Grossman DL (eds) Citizenship Pedagogies
in Asia and the Pacific. Dordrecht: Springer, 175–201.
Aristotle (1992) Politics. London: Penguin Books.
Avnon D (2006) Mavo: Madua ein la-democratia ha-israelit safa ezrachit mefutachat [Introduction: Why
hasn’t Israeli democracy developed a civic language?] In: Avnon D (ed.) Sfat ezrach be’israel [Civic
Language in Israel]. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Press, 1–20. (In Hebrew)
Ball S (1994) What is policy? Texts, trajectories, and tool boxes. In: Ball S (ed.) Education Reform: A Critical
and Post-Structural Approach. Buckingham: Open University Press, 15–27.
Baptiste I (2001) Qualitative data analysis: common phases, strategic differences. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 2(3): 22. Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/
urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0103226
Bell JE and Staeheli LA (2001) Discourses of diffusion and democratization. Political Geography 20(2):
175–195.
Bowles S and Gintis H (2002) Schooling in capitalist America revisited. Sociology of Education 75: 1–18.
Center For Civic Education (2001) An International Framework for Education in Democracy (Draft—For
review purposes only). Calabasas, CA: Center For Civic Education.
Cohen A (2010) A theoretical model of four conceptions of civic education. Canadian Social Studies 44(1):
17–28.
Wahrman and Hartaf 13

Cohen A (2016) Navigating competing conceptions of civic education: lessons from three Israeli civics class-
rooms. Oxford Review of Education 42(4): 391–407.
Cohen A (2017a) Between teachers’ perceptions and civic conceptions: lessons from three Israeli civics
teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies 49(4): 542–560.
Cohen A (2017b) Israel’s civic education wars: a review of the literature and theoretical implications.
Educational Review 71: 287–305.
Cohen A (2018) Examining civic education pedagogies from a sociocultural curricular perspective: lessons
from three Israeli classrooms. Citizenship Teaching & Learning 13(3): 311–327.
Cohen J (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: Hamlin A and Pettit P (eds) The Good Polity.
Oxford: Blackwell, 17–34.
Crittenden J and Levine P (2013) Civic education (ed. EN Zalta). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2013 Edition). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/civic-educa-
tion/.
Eyal O and Gross-Yarm M (2018) Schools in cross-sector alliances: what do schools seek in partnerships?
Educational Administration Quarterly 54(4): 648–688.
Fishkin JS and Luskin RC (2005) Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public
opinion. Acta Politica 40(3): 284–298.
Freire P (1972) [1968]) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (trans. MB Ramos). New York: Herder.
Galston WA (1989) Civic education in the liberal state. In: Rosenblum NL (ed.) Liberalism and the Moral
Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 89–101.
Galston WA (2001) Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of
Political Science 4(1): 217–234.
Gutmann A and Thompson D (2009) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Habermas J (1994) Three normative models of democracy. Constellations 1(1): 1–10.
Habermas J (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hartaf H (2007) Being Israeli and Jewish: Social education and the construction of identity. Submitted
Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. (In Hebrew)
Headland T, Pike K and Harris M (eds) (1990) Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. London:
SAGE.
Heater D (2004a) A Brief History of Citizenship. New York: New York University Press.
Heater D (2004b) Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Hess DE and McAvoy P (2014) The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education.
New York: Routledge.
Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States,
vol. 25. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ichilov O (1999) Citizenship education in a divided society: the case of Israel. In: Torney-Purta J, Schwille
J and Amadeo J (eds) Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-Four National Case Studies from the
IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: IEA, pp. 371–393.
Ichilov O (2004) Political Learning and Citizenship Education Under Conflict: The Political Socialization of
Israeli and Palestinian Youngsters. London: Routledge.
Jardine N (2004) Etics and emics (not to mention anemics and emetics) in the history of the sciences. History
of Science 42: 261–278.
Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS and Masia BB (1964) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: Affective
Domain (The Classification of Educational Goals). New York: David Mckay.
Locke J (2014) Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of
Civil Government. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
McLaughlin TH (1992) Citizenship, diversity and education: a philosophical perspective. Journal of Moral
Education 21(3): 235–250.
14 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 00(0)

Marshall C and Rossman GB (1999) Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Naval C, Print M and Veldhuis R (2002) Education for democratic citizenship in the new Europe. European
Journal of Education 37(2): 107–128.
Newmann FM, Smith B, Allensworth E, et al. (2001) Instructional program coherence: what it is and why it
should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23(4): 297–321.
Osler A and Starkey H (2005) Changing Citizenship: Democracy and Inclusion in Education. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
Pharr SJ, Putnam RD and Dalton RJ (2000) A quarter-century of declining confidence. Journal of Democracy
11(2): 5–25.
Pike KL (ed.) (1967) Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Structure of Human Behavior, 2nd edn.
The Hague: Mouton.
Pinson H (2007) Inclusive curriculum? Challenges to the role of civic education in a Jewish and democratic
state. Curriculum Inquiry 37(4): 351–382.
Plato (1955) The Republic. London: Penguin Books.
Pope A, Stolte L and Cohen A (2011) Closing the civic engagement gap: the potential of action civics. Social
Education 75(5): 265–268.
Quigley CN (2000) Global Trends in Civic Education (A speech given at the seminar for the needs for New
Indonesian Civic Education). Center for Indonesian Civic Education (CICED) Available at: http://www.
civiced.org/papers/articles_indonesia.html
Shkedi A (2003) Words Attempt to Touch. Tel Aviv, Israel: Ramot.
Shlasky S and Arieli M (2001) From interpretive approaches to postmodernist approaches in educational
research. In: Sabar-Ben Yehoshua N (ed.) Traditions and Genres in Qualitative Research. Or Yehuda,
Israel: Dvir, 31–76. (In Hebrew)
Sim JBY (2011) ‘Simple ideological ‘dupes’ of national governments’? Teacher agency and citizenship edu-
cation in Singapore. In: Kennedy KJ, Lee WO and Grossman DL (eds) Citizenship Pedagogies in Asia
and the Pacific. Dordrecht: Springer, 221–242.
Torney-Purta J, Lehmann R, Oswald H, et al. (2001) Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries:
Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam: IEA Secretariat.
Torney-Purta J, Schwille J and Amadeo J (1999) Mapping the distinctive and common features of civic edu-
cation in twenty-four countries. In: IEA (ed.) Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-Four National
Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: IEA, pp. 11–35.
Vontz TS, Metcalf KK and Patric JJ (2000) Project Citizen and the Civic Development of Adolescent Students
in Indiana, Latvia, and Lithuania. Bloomington, IN: ERIC, Clearinghouse.
Wahrman H (2013) Citizenship between the Lines: A Critical Look at Civics Studies in Israel. Resling: Tel-
Aviv. (In Hebrew)
Zidkiyahu S (2007) Social education in school: stability versus change. In: Romi S and Schmida M (eds) Non
Formal Education in the Postmodern Era. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes, 379–386, 393–398. (In Hebrew)