Benavot y Resh Social Cobstruction of Local School Curriculum

Comparative and International Education Society
The Social Construction of the Local School Curriculum: Patterns of Diversity and
Uniformity in Israeli Junior High Schools
Author(s): Aaron Benavot and Nura Resh
Source: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Nov., 2001), pp. 504-536
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and International
Education Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1189309
Accessed: 16/10/2008 14:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Comparative and International Education Society and The University of Chicago Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Education Review.
http://www.jstor.org
The Social Construction of the Local School
Curriculum:Patterns of Diversityand Uniformity
in IsraeliJunior High Schools
AARON BENAVOT AND NURA RESH
I. Introduction
The official curriculum, prescribed by central authorities and implemented

in local schools, represents the crux of the educational enterprise. It typically
defines a select corpus of cultural knowledge (e.g., basic linguistic and nu-
merical skills, accounts of historical origins, political conceptions, and com-
munity values and norms) that is to be imparted to, and internalized by, the
younger generation as part of a planned sequence of school-based experi-
ences and educational practices.' Given the authoritative and highly legiti-
mate status of the knowledge and normative world views constituted in
school curricula, it is not surprising that they have been the object of po-
litical contestations and intense reform efforts, especially in democratic so-
cieties with expanded systems of mass schooling. Organized groups-for
example, state officials, political parties, teachers' associations, university
academics, employers, religious groups, and parents-have sought, in dif-
ferent times and places, to insert their political, social, and economic agen-
das in the official curriculum, thereby generating a considerable degree of
class and status group conflicts.2
Official curricular policies, when viewed from the perspective of local
schools, change their complexion in significant ways. For example, not all
This study was supported, in part, by a research grant from the Head Scientist's Office of the Israeli
Ministry of Education and Culture. Earlier versions of the article were presented at the ninety-third an-
nual meeting of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, August 1998, and at the European
Consortium of Sociological Research/European Research Conferences conference, Giens, France, Sep-
tember 2000. Orna Yair,Linor Hadar, and Ayelet Giladi provided valuable research assistance and helped
prepare several related research reports. We gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments ofJohn
Meyer, David Frank,John Boli, Reuven Kahane, BarbaraOkun, Israeli participants in an informal seminar
on the sociology of the curriculum, and three anonymous reviewersfor ComparativeEducation Review.The
authors are listed alphabetically.
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 Educa-
tion: Compare, Compare, Compare!" Comparative EducationReview43 (November 1999): 413-37.
2 Michael
Apple, Ideologyand Curriculum(London: RKP, 1979); Brian Holmes and Martin McLean,
TheCurriculum:A Comparative Perspective(London: Routledge, 1989); Thomas Popkewitz, "The Formation
of School Subjects and the Political Context of Schooling," in TheFormationof the SchoolSubjects,ed.
Thomas S. Popkewitz (New York:Falmer, 1987), pp. 1-24.
ComparativeEducationReview,vol. 45, no. 4.

? 2002 by the Comparative and International Education Society. All rights reserved.
0010/4086/2001/4504-0002$02.00
504 November2001
CURRICULUMPATTERNSIN ISRAELIJUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
required subjects may be taught; the allocation of instructional time to man-

dated subject areas may be altered; ability grouping and tracking often re-
duce the uniformity of intended curricular content; and the amount of class-
room time actually spent on learning (i.e., time on task) may fall short of
official standards because of insufficient or low-quality textbooks, unclear
administrative directives, teacher absenteeism and turnover, or widespread
disciplinary problems. For these and other reasons, "gaps" or "slippages"
between the official, intended curriculum and the actual implemented cur-
riculum occur, in various degrees, in all national educational systems.3More-
over, the diversification of what schools actually teach reflects broad social
trends such as the devolution of central state authority over education and
the emergence of an ideology of school autonomy. As a consequence, local
schools in many countries are being given greater discretion over curricular
decisions.4
Comparative research on the school curriculum has been conducted, by
and large, through the prism of educational achievement, and school cur-
riculum, specifically, emerges as a key factor in explaining between- and
within-country variation in student achievement levels.5 The disciplinary
knowledge and school subjects defined by the official curriculum, as well as
the actual content to which students are exposed in individual classrooms
(the "opportunity to learn"), are considered critical preconditions for learn-
ing.6 Despite this analytical focus, there are few comparative studies of the
3
Although discussions of the gap between the intended and implemented curriculum makes con-
ceptual sense, empirical research focuses mainly on content coverage-the proportion of intended con-
tent 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 im-
plemented curriculum and concentrate instead on the forces affecting local school implementation pat-
terns, including official curricular directives.
4
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, TheCurriculumRedefined:Schoolingfor
theTwenty-First Century(Paris:OECD, 1994); Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Makingthe
CurriculumWork(Paris:OECD, 1998).
5 Kenneth Traversand Ian
Westbury, The TEAStudyof MathematicsI: Analysisof MathematicsCurricula
(Oxford: Pergamon, 1989); T. Neville Postlethwaite and David Wiley, TheLEAStudyof ScienceII: Science
Achievementin Twenty-Three Countries(Oxford: Pergamon, 1992); Maryellen Harmon, Teresa Smith, Mi-
chael Martin, Dana Kelly,Albert Beaton, Ina Mullis, and Eugenio Gonzalez, PerformanceAssessment in lEA's
ThirdInternationalMathematicsand ScienceStudy (Chestnut Hill, Mass.: Center for the Study of Testing,
Evaluation and Educational Policy, 1997); Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,
MeasuringWhatStudentsLearn (Paris:OECD, 1995).
6
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
PedagogicalFlow:An Investigationof
Mathematicsand ScienceTeachingin Six Countries(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1996); William Schmidt,
Curtis McKnight, Gilbert Valverde, Richard Houang, and David Wiley, Many Visions,Many Aims:A Cross-
National Investigationof CurricularIntentionsin SchoolMathematics,vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic,
1997); William Schmidt, Senta Raizen, Edward Britton, Leonard Bianchi, and Richard Wolfe, Many Vi-
sions, Many Aims:A Cross-NationalInvestigationof CurricularIntentionsin SchoolScience,vol. 2 (Dordrecht:
KluwerAcademic, 1997).
Comparative Education Review 505

BENAVOT AND RESH
social construction of the implemented curriculum in local schools and

classrooms in general, or in relation to students' achievement.7
In this article, we propose a general framework for the comparative
study of the implemented curriculum, which we define as the organiza-
tion of educational knowledge by local schools in weekly timetables.8 We
then report a national case study investigating local school curricula with
the aim of evaluating several propositions in the proposed analytical frame-
work. In particular, we investigate between-school differences in subject
offerings and curricular emphases in Israeli junior high school curricula
(grades 7-9), based on a national representative sample of schools in the
Jewish secular sector (see Sec. IV). Given the relatively centralized nature of
the Israeli educational system, we expected to find considerable uniformity
in local school timetables but instead found a significant degree of between-
school diversity in subject offerings and emphases. Furthermore, we identify
certain curricular areas in which school variation is more (or less) pro-
nounced and discuss how the institutional status of school subjects partially
accounts for the degree to which schools vary in their construction of the
local curriculum. We conclude that the organization of educational knowl-
edge in local schools reflects complex, and often conflicting, social, organi-
zational, and institutional forces that are not well understood in existing
research.
The article is organized as follows: in Sections II and III, respectively, we
present relevant approaches to the study of the curriculum and a general
conceptual framework from which a series of research hypotheses were gen-
erated. Sections IV and V describe the institutional context in which the
study was carried out and historical changes in official curricular policies in
Israel. We detail the research design in Section VI, followed by a presenta-
tion of the study's main findings in Section VII. We discuss sociological ex-
planations accounting for the study's main findings, as well as ideas for fu-
ture research, in the final section.
II. Background
Sociological analyses of the curriculum have mainly revolved around

three research issues: (1) the socializing or stratifyingeffects of the latent or
hidden curriculum; (2) the educational and occupational effects of curricu-
lar differentiation; and (3) historical, political, social, and ideological factors
7 For
exceptions, see David Stevenson and David Baker, "State Control of the Curriculum and Class-
room Instruction," SociologyofEducation64 (January 1991): 1-10; CCSSO (Council of Chief State School
Officers), UsingData on EnactedCurriculumin Mathematicsand Science,SummaryReport(Washington, D.C.:
CCSSO, 2000).
8 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.
506 November 2001

CURRICULUM PATTERNS IN ISRAELI JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
affecting the construction of official national curricula and required school

subjects.
The first group of studies emphasizes the underlying meanings and mes-
sages experienced by pupils because of the very nature of formal schooling
and classroom life. Robert Dreeben, in his classic functionalist account, de-
scribes patterns of normative socialization (i.e., achievement orientation, an
attitude of independence, universalism, and specificity) engendered by the
hidden curriculum of modern schools.9 Other researchers, rooted in critical
perspectives, argue that schools teach one set of norms to working-class stu-
dents (e.g., conformity, obedience to authority, reliability, and diligence) and
another set to middle-class students (e.g., the importance of independent
work, creativity, flexibility, and self-motivation in fulfilling tasks).10 Thus,
through this process of differential socialization, the school curriculum ef-
fectively reproduces the prevailing capitalist class structure of industrial so-
cieties. Significantly, sociological studies in both these traditions avoid de-
tailed analyses of the explicit subject matter and activities that schools intend
to transmit via the manifest curriculum.
The second research tradition focuses on social inequalities stemming
from curricular differentiation.T" Sociological studies of ability grouping,
streaming, tracking, and other forms of curricular differentiation maintain
that these educational practices intensify student inequalities in educational
achievement and subsequent educational attainment. The tendency of mod-
ern school systems to classify, sort, and select students in (and by) ability
groups and curricular tracks results in differential pupil exposure to educa-
tional resources (e.g., quality of teachers, textbooks), hierarchical bodies of
knowledge, and differences in content coverage and future payoffs (creden-
tials). Thus, curricular differentiation, by creating unequal learning oppor-
tunities, significantly affects pupil success in the educational system and
strengthens the ascriptive ties between class origins and class destinations.12
Given the substantive interests and large-scale research designs found in this
line of research, most analyses employ gross curricular distinctions (e.g., aca-
demic vs. vocational; college-bound, general, or remedial tracks), although
in recent years, detailed data on actual course taking by pupils are analyzed
9 Robert Dreeben, On WhatIs Learnedin School

(Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley, 1968).
10See Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis,
Schoolingin CapitalistAmerica(New York: Basic, 1976);
GeoffWhitty, Sociologyand SchoolKnowledge(London: Methuen, 1985); Michael Apple, EducationandPower
(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982).
11For a
comprehensive review, seejeannie Oakes, Adam Gamoran, and Reba Page, "CurriculumDif-
ferentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meanings," in HandbookofResearchon Curriculum,ed. Phillip
Jackson (New York:Macmillan, 1992).
12 For a critical discussion of this issue, see Kevin
Dougherty, "Opportunity-to-Learn Standards:A
Sociological Critique," SociologyofEducation69, suppl. (1996): 40-65.

BENAVOT AND RESH
in order to examine the impact of curricular differentiation on subsequent

inequalities.13
A third issue in the sociology of curriculum revolves around the social
construction of official curricula and required school subjects. One ap-
proach, which compares official curricula across national space and historical
time, argues that transnational and global processes generate a high degree
of standardization and homogeneity in the curricular categories employed
by national educational authorities.14 Another approach, based on the so-
cial history of school subjects, describes how elite- and mass-based interest
groups, within particular national settings, seek to embed specific types of
social knowledge and worldviews in official school subjects as a way of re-
producing an existing social order or strengthening the privileged status of
specific social groups.15 However instructive these approaches may be, both
ignore the ways in which official curricula and mandated subjects are ac-
tually implemented in local schools and, more important, the social and
institutional forces impinging on this process.
In short, while sociological analyses of the curriculum have bloomed
in recent years, the implemented curriculum has not been the object of
sustained conceptual or empirical attention. There are two exceptions to
this summary characterization. First, cross-national studies of educational
achievement, especially those carried out since the 1980s under the auspices
of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achieve-
ment (IEA), view the implemented curriculum as an important mechanism
accounting for between-country differences in achievement levels.16 In this
research program, the implemented curriculum is defined in terms of con-
tent coverage-namely, how much of what is supposed to be taught in a
mandated subject is actually covered in individual classrooms. For example,
using data from the Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS), David
Stevenson and David Baker compared patterns of content coverage in over
13
See, e.g., Brian DeLany, "Allocation, Choice, and Stratification within High Schools: How the
Sorting Machine Copes," AmericanJournalof Education99 (February 1991): 181-207; Hanna Ayalon and
Adam Gamoran, "Stratification in Academic Secondary Programs and Educational Inequality in Israel
and the United States," ComparativeEducationReview44 (February2000): 54-80.
14John W. Meyer, David Kamens, Aaron Benavot, with Yun-KyungCha and Suk-YingWong, School
Knowledgefor the Masses:WorldModelsand National Primary CurricularCategoriesin the TwentiethCentury
(London: Falmer, 1992); David Kamens, John W. Meyer, and Aaron Benavot, "Worldwide Patterns in
Academic Secondary Education Curricula, 1920-1990," ComparativeEducationReview 40 (May 1996):
116-38; Elizabeth H. McEneaney andJohn W. Meyer, "The Content of the Curriculum," in Handbookof
theSociologyof Education,ed. Maureen Hallinan (New York:Plenum, 2000), pp. 189-211.
15 Michael Young, ed., Knowledgeand Control(London: Collier MacMillan, 1971); Ivor Goodson,
"Subjects for Study: Aspects of a Social History of the Curriculum," Journal of CurriculumStudies 15
(April 1983): 391-408, and SchoolSubjectsand CurriculumChange:Studiesin CurriculumHistory,rev. ed.
(London: Falmer, 1987).
16 Robert
Garden, "The Second IEA Mathematics Study," ComparativeEducation Review 31
(February 1987): 47- 68;John Keeves, The Worldof SchoolLearning:SelectedFindingsfrom Thirty-FiveYearsof
LEAResearch(Amsterdam: IEA, 1996); Harmon et al. (n. 5 above).
508 November 2001

2,200 eighth-grade mathematics classrooms in 15 distinct educational sys-

tems and found the following: (a) educational systems differ widely in the
extent to which individual classrooms "conform" to official content guide-
lines, and (b) in more centralized educational systems, in which authority
over curricular issues is located at the national level, classroom coverage is
more extensive and standardized.17
Other exceptions are studies that evaluate the introduction or imple-
mentation of curricular innovations in targeted schools (e.g., a new or re-
vised school subject, new textbooks, pedagogical practices, or evaluation
methods).18 In these studies, two different views of curricular implementa-
tion have been advanced: first, that implementation is a simple linear pro-
cess in which external experts develop curricular guidelines and practices
that local principals and teachers are expected to carryout fully, and second,
that it is a more complex process of mutual adaptation and accommodation
by external actors, on the one hand, and local principals and teachers, on
the other.
In both "exceptional" cases, the focus of interest is the classroom: the
degree to which teachers uniformly teach the intended content of a given
subject or syllabus in their classes, and the amount and types of learning that
take place as a result of such classroom practices. The implemented curricu-
lum is operationalized either in terms of content coverage and instructional
standardization-in order to explain pupil achievement-or as the degree
to which teachers adhere to administrative directives defining proper cur-
ricular content, pedagogy, or teaching methods. The common, underlying
aim is to identify the causes and consequences of discrepancies between of-
ficial curricular directives and the "curriculum-in-use" at the classroom
level.
Undoubtedly, classrooms are an important site for the unequal produc-
tion of curricular content, but the fact that classrooms are nested within
schools as well as other organizational layers (e.g., districts, regions, nation-
state) has implications for curriculum implementation. At the school level,
authorized actors make decisions mediating between the wider system,
where official guidelines concerning the curriculum are developed and pro-
nounced, and the classroom level, where actual instruction occurs. Specifi-
cally, curriculum-related decisions taken at the school level effectively enable
or constrain instruction occurring in individual classrooms. For example,
17 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 class-
room 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.
18See Jon
Snyder, Frances Bolin, and Karen Zumwalt, "Curriculum Implementation," inJackson,
ed., pp. 402-35.
EducationReview
Comparative 509
BENAVOT AND RESH
schools may decide to exclude, redefine, or de-emphasize a mandated sub-

ject; new educational programs may be incorporated, thereby altering time
allocations for existing subjects because of the "zero-sum" nature of instruc-
tional time; and decisions to continue or discontinue the hierarchical sort-
ing of pupils in ability groups can alter course syllabi.
These points become even more salient in light of changing patterns
of governance and finance in many national educational systems.19As a re-
sult of educational decentralization and privatization, many local schools
have acquired greater flexibility and maneuverability in organizing the edu-
cational knowledge they teach and have more autonomy in relation to offi-
cial curricular directives. Under these conditions, certain officially man-
dated subjects may be considered indispensable, others more expendable.
Schools may be given opportunities to alter the distribution of instructional
time in weekly timetables or to repackage educational contents. In this
sense, the curricula that schools put into practice not only reflect the di-
rectives of central or regional authorities but also reflect a complex arrayof
social forces: local conditions, institutionalized rules, individual worldviews,
and collective decision-making processes. In short, as control over curricu-
lar decisions becomes less centralized and educational authority more dis-
persed, local schools become a critical site for the social construction of the
implemented curriculum. And to the extent that school principals and
teacher teams possess some autonomy over the design of the curriculum,
then it becomes germane to investigate the extent of uniformity-diversityin
local school curricula, and the factors that account for differences between
schools.
III. Uniformity and Diversity in Local School Curricula
In this section, we outline major societal factors and institutional condi-

tions that, we contend, affect patterns of curriculum implementation in local
schools. We first discuss macrosocietal conditions that contribute to overall
curricular uniformity-diversity,then consider explanations emphasizing as-
pects of school subjects themselves, and, finally, point to local factors that
may impinge on decisions taken by school administrators regarding course
offerings and time allocations.20We present major hypotheses derived from
these arguments.
19See William
Cummings and Abby Riddell, "Alternative Policies for the Finance, Control and De-
livery of Basic Education," InternationalJournalofEducationalResearch21, no. 8 (1994): 751-76.
20
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.
510 November 2001

A. Structural Features of Educational Systems

It is widely assumed that the implementation of school curricula will be
more uniform in centralized educational systems and less so in decentralized
systems. The rationale for this argument stems from prevailing dynamics
thought to exist in centralized educational systems, including, but not lim-
ited to,
1. An explicitly defined, standardized official curriculum for each grade
level and school type (including the definition of authorized text-
books);
2. Regular assessments of implementation through on-site inspections
or the submission of written reports;
3. A centralized system of school finance based predominantly on na-
tional and regional funding sources, rather than local ones, together
with the use of standard formula for the allocation of instructional
resources;
4. Uniform teacher training programs overseen by central credentialing
agencies; and
5. Standardized achievement examinations at various levels of the edu-
cation system, especially at the conclusion of secondary (or compul-
sory) schooling.
While the specific institutional mechanisms underlying these dynamics
vary, the anticipated outcomes are similar: a tighter coupling between offi-
cial curricular statements and the actual organization of subjects and con-
tents in local schools, resulting in a high degree of between-school unifor-
mity. Thus, to the degree that a national (or subnational) educational system
is centrally structured, between-school variation in curricular implementa-
tion should be reduced, other things being equal.
Institutional differentiation and competition are two additional struc-
tural features of educational systems thought to affect curricular uniformity-
diversity. Institutional differentiation tends to increase by educational level:
primary and lower secondary schools are structurally undifferentiated rela-
tive to upper secondary schools (organized by track and educational pur-
pose) and higher education institutions (organized by institutional status,
chartering association, occupational purpose, and degree program). While
numerous rationales underlie the differentiation of educational institutions
(e.g., addressing the heterogeneous educational needs of pupils, preparing
them for diverse positions in higher education or the labor market), we hy-
pothesize that the greater the degree of institutional differentiation, the
greater the degree of between-school variation in implemented curricula.21
21In 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

BENAVOT AND RESH
Other things being equal, there should be more diversity in the imple-
mentation of secondary school curricula as compared with primary school
curricula.22
School systems also vary in the extent to which students-together with
their parents-are allowed to choose the school they attend. Like institu-
tional differentiation, the degree of school choice usually increases as stu-
dents move from primary schools to lower secondary and then upper sec-
ondary schools. However, not all institutionally diverse educational systems
provide a wider range of choices for students and vice versa. Nevertheless,
the basic principle is similar: to the extent that schools compete among
themselves for pupils, organizational resources, and community recogni-
tion, then the actual organization of subjects in curricula will be less uniform
across schools, as schools seek different ways to "market" attractive features
of their educational programs.
Worldwide, but especially in more expanded educational systems, insti-
tutional differentiation and competition have increased in recent decades.
These trends reflect the strengthening of market-based strategies for educa-
tional finance and governance, often promoted by international agencies as
a means of increasing efficiency, expanding opportunity, and managing eco-
nomic contraction.23 The devolution of state-national control over educa-
tion and the expansion of alternative deliverers and funding mechanisms
should enhance curricular diversification, in part because new school forms
(e.g., magnet schools, experimental schools, charter schools, and commu-
nity schools) often receive authorized charters to provide educational ser-
vices. Thus, from a cross-national perspective, governmental policies legiti-
mating educationally distinct, but formally equivalent, school types should
increase between-school diversity in curriculum implementation.
B. The Institutional Status of School Subjects
Not all subjects have the same institutional status in school curricula.24
School subjects with strong institutional moorings-namely, those trans-
mitting highly legitimate, economically valued, or developmentally essential
knowledge and skills-represent subjects with powerful claims to a central
place in both the official and implemented curriculum. For example, the
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.
22
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 diversityin second-
ary schools, especially in academic or comprehensive programs, by obliging them to concentrate on
exam-relevant school subjects.
23
24
Cummings and Riddell.
Meyer, Kamens, and Benavot (n. 14 above); William Reid, ThePursuitof Curriculum:Schoolingand
thePublicInterest(Norwood, NJ.: Ablex, 1992); Pamela Grossman and Susan Stodolsky, "Content as Con-
text: The Role of School Subjects in Secondary School Teaching," EducationalResearcher24 (Novem-
ber 1995): 5-11.
512 November 2001

development of basic literacy and numeracy, as well as the inculcation of

moral and aesthetic principles, are considered by politicians and academics
alike as a necessary component of primary school curricula.25Mathemat-
ics and science education are increasingly perceived as critical factors for
economic growth and thus garner greater instructional time in secondary
school curricula.26
Indications of school subjects with high institutional status include a well-
defined subject matter with clear roots in an academic (university-based)
discipline, an established professional subject association, endorsements in
the policy recommendations of international agencies, and a subject's cen-
trality in national matriculation exams.27Political battles and policy debates
over the curriculum have been joined historically over the institutional
status of particular school subjects-for example, science versus religion,
social studies versus history and geography, and new subjects like ecology
or environmental studies.28Thus, while historical and cultural forces-na-
tional as well as international-alter the centrality and status of school sub-
jects over time, the basic argument is clear: the stronger the institutional
status achieved by a school subject, the more widespread it will be taught in
schools and the smaller the degree of between-school variation in actual
time allocations. Highly valued school subjects (e.g., mathematics, official
languages, and national history) will be taught in greater uniformity than
subjects whose institutional status is historically or socially contingent (e.g.,
civics, arts and crafts, foreign languages, social studies, and religion).
C. Local Conditions and Curricular Implementation
The curriculum that schools actually put into practice often represents
the outcome of an extensive decision-making process, influenced by local
conditions and school circumstances as well as community expectations. In
addition to the obvious impact of previous implementation patterns, cur-
ricular decisions in local schools are frequently conditioned by key organi-
zational inputs such as the quantity of discretionary instructional resources
25Robert Dottrens, ThePrimarySchoolCurriculum(Paris:UNESCO, 1962); Marlaine Lockheed and

Adriaan Verspoor, ImprovingPrimaryEducation in DevelopingCountries(Washington, D.C.: World Bank,
1990); Massimo Amadio, "Instructional Time and Teaching Subjects during the First Four Years of Pri-
mary Education," EducationalInnovation96 (September 1998): 1-7.
26Aaron Benavot, "Curricular Content, Educational Expansion and Economic Growth,"
Compara-
tive EducationReview 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,"Ameri-
canJournalofEducation99 (February 1991): 137-80.
27 Goodson, SchoolSubjects(n. 15 above); Susan
Stodolsky and Pamela Grossman, "The Impact of
Subject Matter on Curricular Activity: An Analysis of Five Academic Subjects," AmericanEducational
ResearchJournal32 (Summer 1995): 227-49.
28Herbert Kliebard, The
Strugglefor theAmericanCurriculum,1893-1958 (Boston: Routledge & Ke-
gan Paul, 1986); Ivor Goodson, ed., InternationalPerspectives
in CurriculumHistory(London: Croom Helm,
1987); Suk Ying Wong, "The Evolution of Social Science Instruction," Sociologyof Education64, no. 1
(1991): 33-47.

BENAVOT AND RESH
and the availability of teachers in specialized subjects. Teacher availability

and instruction-related inputs are themselves related to structural school
features such as geographical location (center vs. periphery), size (larger
schools have a broader pool of resources at their disposal), and ties to other
educational units (e.g., links between schools and universities or teacher
training colleges, institutional ties between junior high and senior high
schools). Hence, to the degree that local conditions and resources vary sig-
nificantly across schools, greater variation in curriculum implementation
patterns is expected.
Moreover, insofar as central educational authorities permit schools some
leeway in curricular matters, previous research suggests that principals play
an important role in the articulation of curricular emphases and pedagogi-
cal practices.29Apart from their ability to maneuver around organizational
constraints, principals may establish subject priorities on the basis of per-
sonal ideological or pedagogical preferences (e.g., disciplinary background,
academic training, and notions of fairness-equity). Principals' perceptions
of the social value placed on different subjects by pupils, parents, and other
community members can also affect the relative emphases subjects receive
in the local school curriculum.
Furthermore, the academic, social class, or ethnic composition of stu-
dents often plays an important role in determining how schools reorganize
extant resources and instruction-related costs to particular curricular ends.
Weaker students are seen as needing more learning time, especially in diffi-
cult or highly valued subjects. As a result, principals in schools with high
proportions of academically weak or low-socioeconomic status (SES) pu-
pils may construct a "no-frills" curriculum emphasizing basic or core sub-
jects as a strategy to enhance prospects for future pupil success in track
placement and overall attainment. (Intensive learning time in smaller classes
is an alternative strategy.) In addition, such schools, if located in a peripheral
locality, may have limited access to specialized teachers in certain subjects,
which constrains curricular offerings. The above arguments lead to a variety
of hypotheses highlighting the relationship between principal background
and student composition, on the one hand, and the degree of diversity-
uniformity in school curricula, on the other.
A valid test of many arguments and hypotheses raised in this section
would demand a broader research design-cross-nationally, longitudinally,
or across different educational levels-than we report in our investigation
29Steven Bossert, Steven

Dwyer, David Rowan, and Brian Lee Ginney, "The Instructional Manage-
ment Role of the Principal," EducationalAdministrationQuarterly18 (Summer 1982): 34-64;Joseph Mur-
phy and Philip Hallinger, eds., RestructuringSchooling:Learningfrom OngoingEfforts(Newbury Park, Calif.:
Corwin, 1993); Michael Chen and Audrey Addi, "School Principals' Involvement in Curriculum Plan-
ning" (paper presented at the International Sociological Association, Mid-TermConference of the Soci-
ology of Education Research Committee 04, Jerusalem, December 1995).
514 November 2001

of Israeli junior high school curricula. Nevertheless, the conceptual frame-

work we have outlined played an important role in the analyses we carried
out and in the interpretations we advanced for the study's main findings. As
such, we believe that it is not only appropriate, but informative, to present
these general arguments, despite the study's clear empirical limitations. We
also contend-a point we shall take up in the conclusion-that our model
of the antecedents of the implemented curriculum provides a sound basis
for future comparative research.
IV. The Research Context: The Israeli Educational System
Formal schooling in Israel is, by and large, publicly funded and centrally
controlled by the state through the Ministry of Education and Culture. Pub-
lic schools are institutionally organized in semiautonomous sectors based
on ethnicity-nationality (Jewish, Arab, Druze) and religion (State Jewish-
secular; State Jewish-religious; Independent Jewish orthodox, State Mos-
lem, and State Druze). Vertical differentiation in Israeli schooling is typical
of most national educational systems: a four-tier system consisting of kinder-
garten, elementary (grades 1-6), middle or lower secondary (grades 7-9),
and senior high or upper secondary schools (grades 10-12).30 All children
are compelled to attend 1 year of kindergarten and 10 years of formal
schooling. Automatic grade progression is common; grade retention is rare.
Within this framework of compulsory free education, middle schools are
nonselective and programmatic tracking or streaming is rare; senior high
schools, by contrast, are differentiated by school-type (academic, vocational,
comprehensive) and by track (e.g., humanities, social sciences, and sciences
in academic schools; electronics, mechanics, management, and other pro-
grams in vocational schools).
Central government authorities set forth an official curriculum for each
sector in the relatively segregated public state system (Jewish-secular,Jewish-
religious, Arab, and Druze), with a considerable degree of subject overlap
across sectors. Some have called this "a system of centrally sanctioned plu-
ralism."31 Curricular emphases in each sector partially cater to the cultural
distinctiveness of each religious and ethnic community but mainly reflect
political and educational considerations embedded in official government
policies. Limited curricular variation between sectors, which is officially sanc-
tioned, strengthens the expectation for curricular standardization within
each sector.
30 Certain areas of the

country have yet to establish ajunior 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.
1Vered Kraus,Yossi
Shavit, and Meir Yaish, "Gender and Ethnic Differences in the Transition from
School to Work in Israel," in FromSchoolto Work:A ComparativeStudyof EducationalQualificationsand Oc-
cupationalDestinations,ed. Yossi Shavit and Walter Muller (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), p. 224.

BENAVOT AND RESH
By most accounts (i.e., those articulated by educational practitioners as

well as university academics), and based on many of the indicators outlined
in the previous section, the Israeli education system is relatively centralized.
This characterization aptly describes patterns of educational governance
and finance in the period following national independence in 1948.32Like
many newly independent nations, political authorities in Israel tightly con-
trolled educational affairsduring the first decades of statehood. They viewed
the burgeoning educational system as a critical force for "nation-building"
and the "in-gathering of the exiles." (After doubling in the first 3 years fol-
lowing statehood, the original Jewish population tripled during the next
10 years, because of waves of Jewish immigrants from Europe, the Middle
East, and North Africa.)
A central bureaucracy tightly controlled the allocation of educational
resources nationwide. The main rationale for this administrative structure
was twofold: first, to ensure a high degree of between-school equality, and
second, to augment, especially through a unified national curriculum, the
state's influence over the socialization of the young, in general, and the as-
similation of new immigrant children, in particular. This pattern of a highly
centralized administration was not limited to the area of education: many
economic and welfare activities were centrally controlled by agencies of the
Israeli state as well.33
In recent decades, the tight seams of centralized control have become
torn and tattered. Partlyin response to changing ideological currents, which
seek to redistribute educational authority less hierarchically, and partly be-
cause of greater parental involvement in schools and an expanding market
of specialized schools, formal schooling is marked by less centralization and
standardization than in the past.34At the senior high school level, these
trends are especially salient: the former system of highly structured aca-
demic streams (or tracks) has weakened; curricular offerings and educa-
tional opportunities in vocational schools have become more academically
oriented; and the rules governing matriculation examinations have become
more flexible, enabling greater numbers of "weaker" pupils to acquire the
Bagrut, a key qualification for higher education and the labor market.35
32 See Abraham
Yogev, "From Decentralization to Centralization in Israeli Education" (paper pre-
sented at Mid-Term Conference of the Sociology of Education Research Committee 04, International
Sociological Association, Paris, 1980).
33 Dan Horowitz and Moshe
Lissak, Origins of the Israeli Polity (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979).
34Jo-Ann Harrison, Unityand Diversityof Cultureand Curriculumin theIsraeliEducationSystem(Jeru-
salem: Institute for the Study of Educational Systems, 1994).
35Yaacov Iram and
Mirjam Schmida, "Recurring Reforms and Changes in the Israeli Educational
System," InternationalJournal of EducationalDevelopment13, no. 3 (1993): 217-26; Hanna Ayalon, "Mo-
nopolizing Knowledge? The Ethnic Composition and Curriculum of Israeli High Schools," Sociologyof
Education67, no. 4 (1994): 264-79.
516 November2001
Overall, these developments and policy reforms have created a less uniform
educational system than previously existed.
Nevertheless, in comparative terms, the degree of educational central-
ization in Israel remains quite high, accurately captured in this recent as-
sessment: "The Israeli educational system is hierarchically organized and is
administered by a central ministry that directs the operation and policies.
The Ministryof Education ... allocates resources to all seven school districts,
and to local educational authorities. Schools in Israel align their instruc-
tional timetables and content with a national curriculum, and have rather
restricted degrees-of-freedom in choosing particular subjects for instruction.
Parents in this system have traditionally been mute actors, although during
the last few years a greater attempt has been made to involve parents in
school matters."36
V. The Official, Intended Curriculum of Israeli Middle Schools
Official policies delineating the curriculum of State Secular middle

schools were crystallized in two influential administrative directives. The first
directive was circulated in 1971, subsequent to a major school reform that
created the middle school system, and the second was circulated in 1996 and
incorporated the curricular recommendations of three highly publicized,
blue-ribbon commissions after they completed their deliberations in the
early 1990s (see app. A). During the interim period (1971-96), Israeli soci-
ety experienced considerable political and social transformations; so, too,
did the educational system in terms of ideological foci, structural reforms,
and financial soundness. However, the official, intended curriculum of secu-
lar middle schools in Israel remained unaltered.37
A comparison of government policy in the two aforementioned docu-
36
Gad Yair, "When Classrooms Matter: Implications of Between-Classroom Variabilityfor Educa-
tional Policy in Israel," Assessmentin Education4, no. 2 (1997): 271.
37
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 educa-
tional projects in order to enrich subject offerings in school curricula. In addition, the ministryreiterated
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'sdeclarations were
directed at elementary and senior high schools; some involved middle schools. While these official state-
ments 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 majorityof 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 Ministryof Education began to oscillate between declarations
in favor of school autonomy and continued centralized control, perhaps as early as the 1970s, these con-
ditional 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
diversitywe report. We thank an especially well-informed reviewer for bringing this issue to our attention.

BENAVOT AND RESH
ments reveals three characterizations. First, the middle school curricu-

lum outlined in the 1971 directive was organized according to 12 required
school subjects, whereas educational knowledge was reorganized into nine
subject clusters in the 1996 policy statement. The reduction and redefinition
of curricular categories was intended to weaken the disciplinary basis of
school knowledge taught in middle schools, to encourage the teaching of
interdisciplinary subjects and innovative curricular projects, and to reduce
the overall number of subjects that pupils were required to take during
grades 7-9.
Second, detailed weekly time allocations defined by school subject and
grade level were outlined in the 1971 directive. By contrast, the 1996 guide-
lines organized instructional time in global terms, that is, in overall instruc-
tional hours to be allocated to subject clusters across grades 7-9. This
change was meant to enhance school autonomy and flexibility since it en-
abled schools to decide (within certain parameters) which subjects to offer,
and in which grades. Instead of mandating a rigid weekly timetable for each
subject (e.g., 2 hours of language and 2 hours of literature for each grade
level), schools could allocate, for example, 12 hours to both subjects to be
distributed over the course of middle grades as they saw fit.
Third, in terms of subject emphases (as measured by the percentage of
total time devoted to major subject areas), the two curricular guidelines dis-
play considerable continuity. The relative emphases of most subjects were
unaltered. Slight modifications were made in the following school subjects:
vocational subjects and electives disappeared entirely in the new directive;
foreign languages, natural sciences, social education, and, to a lesser extent,
mathematics received small increases in time allocations.
Without overstating their impact (only during the 1999-2000 academic
year did they become required policy), the new curricular guidelines aug-
mented the discretion and responsibility of middle school principals in the
construction of school curricula, while projecting a less hierarchical relation-
ship between central administrative authorities and local school officials. In
this sense, the new policy legitimated and strengthened ongoing trends to-
ward greater school autonomy. Moreover, it created ripe conditions-at
least potentially-for greater curricular diversity than is thought to have ex-
isted previously.
One final issue concerns the curricular consequences of deep cutbacks
in educational funding during the 1980s.38Reductions in educational spend-
ing, which comprised part of the government's effort to stabilize the econ-
38 See Haim
Gaziel, Politicsand PolicyMakingin IsraeliEducationalSystem(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).
518 November 2001

omy during this period, were not followed by explicit Ministry of Education
instructions detailing how school administrators were to render reduced
budget allocations in local school curricula. Instructional resources were
curtailed and class sizes increased, but the ministry avoided explicit policy
statements regarding which subjects, if any, should be affected by the slash-
ing of educational budgets. Given the state's inability (or unwillingness) to
compel schools to implement official guidelines during this period, it be-
came, by default, the responsibility of school principals to reconstruct a
pared-down curriculum-either by cutting instructional hours per subject
or by reducing the number of subjects taught-from a reduced resource
pool. This de facto autonomy apparently strengthened the growing diversity
of implemented school curricula.
VI. Research Design and Methodology
The present study, carried out during the 1996-97 school year, investi-
gates school curricula in Israeli middle schools belonging to the largest sector
of the public system: the Jewish-secular sector.39Of all Jewish students en-
rolled in grades 7-9, some 80 percent attend secular schools. Using official
records supplied by the Ministry of Education, 235 secular middle schools
were identified as the target population. After classifying these schools into
24 profiles using four variables (school size, institutional structure, the socio-
economic composition of attending pupils, and the locality served by the
school), a stratified, nationally representative sample of 104 schools was
selected.40
Complete curricular information was obtained from 98 of the 104 sam-
pled schools. Principals were asked to send a weekly timetable detailing
all the school subjects and educational projects taught at each grade level.41
39The 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 andJewish-religious sectors). See also
Benavot and Resh.
40 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-yearjunior 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 in-
come, family size, parental educational attainment, proportion of immigrant children, and whether a
school is located in the country's geographical center or periphery).
41 Most schools sent a typical weekly timetable of curricular subjects taught at each
grade level, de-
tailing 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

BENAVOT AND RESH
Several follow-up calls to school officials resulted in the study's high re-
sponse rate.
Weekly timetables specify required and optional subjects for each grade
level and represent the organizational tool by which schools standardize the
educational knowledge they wish to impart. In the present study, all curricu-
lar labels or names denoting a distinct educational activity in the weekly
timetables were coded separately and then classified into 20 general curricu-
lar categories (see app. B). Subject offerings and time allocations were ana-
lyzed according to these 20 curricular categories. Specifically, we calculated
(a) the percentage of middle schools offering instruction in each curricular
category, overall for grades 7-9, and for each grade level separately; and
(b) the mean weekly instructional hours allocated to each category, overall
(grades 7-9), and by grade level. Schools that did not offer any courses
in a particular curricular category were given a value of zero. Measures of
between-school variation in curricular categories were examined to assess
the degree of curricular uniformity-diversity in implemented school cur-
ricula. Correlations among subjects' emphases were calculated in order to
determine the degree to which specific curricular trade-offs were being em-
ployed by schools in the construction of school curricula.42
VII. Findings
A. SubjectLabels Employed in School TimetablesLack Uniformity

A surprising total of 135 different subject labels were identified in the
weekly timetables used by Israeli middle schools.43As expected, a significant
proportion of these labels represented conventional names of school sub-
jects used in educational systems worldwide (e.g., literature, history, geogra-
phy, physical education, art, mathematics, science, English, French, etc.).
The frequency with which these conventional labels were employed in the
sampled schools was high.
However, an unexpectedly large proportion of the 135 labels (about
60 percent) represented "nonstandard" curricular labels-at least at the
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.
42
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).
43This
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 activi-
ties 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.
520 November 2001

junior high school level-since they refer to less institutionalized school

subjects or educational programs. We identified three types of "unconven-
tional" labels: (1) interdisciplinary subjects such as ecology, Judaism, lit-
eracy, and democracy; (2) idiosyncratic educational programs initiated by
individual schools, such as scientific investigation, quality of life, one's call-
ing, good morning, and print media; and (3) highly specialized subjects
rarely offered in middle schools, such as art history, astrophysics, graphics,
Jewish philosophy, communications, and archaeology.
Overall, the proliferation of nonstandard labels was more prevalent in the
arts, the natural sciences, social education, and vocational education than in
other curricular areas. As might be expected, each nonstandard subject was
offered byvery few schools, often less than 5 percent of the total sample.
The proliferation of nonstandard curricular labels to denote the instruc-
tional activities of middle schools was unexpected, especially in light of Israel's
relatively centralized educational system. We were tempted to explain this
finding as a semantic artifact: schools are simply using different labels to de-
scribe the same educational content. In other words, standard subject con-
tents are being "repackaged" in a multiplicity of curricular labels as an astute
marketing strategyor educational gimmick. While we cannot discount this ar-
gument entirely, indirect evidence-based on telephone conversations with
school staff, examinations of detailed class syllabi and instructional materials
in over 50 schools (primarilyin the humanities), and discussions with Ministry
of Education officials involved in curricular policy implementation-sup-
ports an alternative claim. Namely, differences in the labels found in weekly
school timetables reflect substantive variation in the organization of curricu-
lar content and in the types of pedagogical practices employed.
The prevalence and composition of courses with nonstandard curricular
labels-while not a central focus of the present study-certainly deserves
further analytical attention. Unreported analyses suggest, for example, that
the use of unconventional labels in curricular timetables is more prevalent
in schools serving high-SES pupils than in schools with higher proportions
of low-achieving or low-status pupils. While suggestive, these preliminary
findings raise questions concerning the meanings and social implications of
the use of standard versus nonstandard curricular labels in schools: do un-
conventional labels reflect significant school-based innovation or do they
represent a reactive response by schools to pupil and parent demands? Can
course labels be systematically analyzed to tease out subtle mechanisms of
social reproduction? Further work is needed in this regard.
B. The Prevalence of School Subjects in Middle School Curricula

Table 1 examines the relative frequency of school subjects in middle
school curricula and reports the proportion of middle schools offering in-
struction in 20 curricular categories by grade level. The top 12 subjects

BENAVOT AND RESH
TABLE 1
OFSCHOOL
PREVALENCE IN MIDDLESCHOOL
SUBJECTS 1996/97-
CURRICULA,
PROPORTIONSOF SCHOOLSTEACHINGSPECIFICSUBJECTSBY GRADE LEVEL
Schools (%)
Teaching Subject
Schools Teaching Subject (%) achin Least
t
School Subject Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 One Grade Level
Subjects taught in all schools and

at almost all grade levels:
Mathematics 100 100 100 100
English 100 100 100 100
Social education-homeroom 100 100 100 100
Sports-physical education 100 100 100 100
Natural and physical sciences 98 99 100 100
Hebrew language 91 95 100 100
Literature 96 98 98 99
Bible 97 100 98 100
History* 97 99 99 99
Subjects taught in almost all schools
but not at all grade levels:
Arts and crafts 85 82 55 99
Geography 76 92 84 97
Arabic 95 92 91 95
Subjects taught in majority of schools
and at certain grade levels:
Computers 59 57 53 88
Technology 49 55 36 67
Land of Israel-Zionism 10 10 57 61
Oral law-Jewish studies 38 31 21 54
Citzenship-civics 22 28 24 51
Other curricular subjects-subject areas
taught in a minority of schools:
French 31 33 32 39
Vocational subjects 24 21 13 38
Social sciences 14 13 14 28
Other foreign languages (Russian, Italian,
German, Amharic) 4 5 3 6
NOTE.-n = 98 schools.
*Jewish history is an integral part of history and not taught as a separate subject in middle school
curricula.
(mathematics, sciences, Hebrew language, literature, history, Bible, English,

social education, physical education, arts and crafts, geography, and Arabic)
are taught in almost all schools and grade levels and constitute the core cur-
riculum of Israeli middle schools. The remaining eight curricular subjects
(computers, technology, land of Israel, oral law, citizenship, French and
other foreign languages, vocational education, and social sciences) repre-
sent peripheral categories. Among the latter category, the prevalence of
some subjects (e.g., computers, citizenship, and French) is stable across the
middle school grades, while others (e.g., land of Israel, oral law, and voca-
tional subjects) become more (or less) prevalent over the course of the
middle school curriculum.
522 November2001
We should note that the status of peripheral subjects does not stem from
their exclusion in official curricular guidelines (see app. B). On the contrary,
almost all of these subjects are mandated for instruction, in one way or an-
other, in the official curriculum. One tentative conclusion is that, notwith-
standing official guidelines, some schools are consciously choosing to devote
more time to basic school subjects by not offering courses in the peripheral
subjects; others are apparently forced to do so because of the unavailability
of suitable teachers in such subject categories or other logistical problems.
Table 2 reports actual time allocations overall and for each subject area
in the middle school curriculum. First, Israeli middle schools differ in the
TABLE2
DISTRIBUTION
OFWEEKLY TIMEBYSCHOOL
INSTRUCTIONAL 1996/97-
SUBJECT,
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS ALLOCATED TO SUBJECTS BY GRADE LEVEL AND FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADES
Mean Weekly Instructional Hours Total Weekly Hours,

School Subject Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grades 7-9
Subjects taught in all schools and

at almost all grade levels:
Mathematics 4.7 4.8 4.9 14.41
English 4.3 4.2 4.4 12.86
Social education-homeroom 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.38
Sports-physical education 2.2 2.1 2.0 6.31
Natural and physical sciences 3.5 3.6 5.4 12.48
Hebrew language 2.0 2.6 3.0 7.64
Literature 2.2 2.2 2.2 6.49
Bible 2.5 2.6 2.5 7.59
History 2.6 2.7 2.7 8.01
Subjects taught in almost all schools
but not at all grade levels:
Geography 1.5 1.9 1.6 5.09
Art and crafts 1.8 1.6 1.2 4.58
Arabic 2.3 2.2 2.1 6.65
Subjects taught in majority of schools
and at certain grade levels:
Computers-multimedia .8 .8 .7 2.29
Technology .8 .8 .5 2.11
Land of Israel-Zionism .1 .1 .7 .89
Oral law-Jewish studies .8 .5 .4 1.62
Citizenship-civics .2 .3 .2 .75
Other prevalent school subjects-subject
areas taught in a minority of schools:
French and other foreign languages
(Russian, Italian, German, Amharic) .6 .5 .5 1.61
Social sciences .2 .1 .2 .48
Vocational subjects .5 .2 .1 .84
Other subjects (enrichment-
learning skills) .5 .5 .3 1.30
Total instructional hours 35.7 36.1 37.6 109.3
NOTE.-n = 98. Mean instructional hours allocated to subjects are calculated from the entire sample.
Schools not teaching a course in a particular curricular subject were given the value of zero. The last
column refers to the total weekly hours allocated to the subject in grades 7, 8, and 9.

BENAVOT AND RESH
grand total of instructional hours that they distribute in the curriculum. On

average, the typical middle school distributes a total of 109 weekly class
hours in grades 7-9 (i.e., about 36 weekly instructional hours or 6 daily
hours for each grade). However, variation around this mean is apparent:
one-seventh of the sampled schools have 100 hours or fewer and, at the
other extreme, one-seventh have more than 115 hours (the minimum and
maximum values were 91 and 136 hours, respectively). Having assumed that
resource allocation in the Israeli educational system is relatively standard-
ized, we found the extent of between-school variation in total in-classinstruc-
tional time-a basic administrative resource affecting the implemented cur-
riculum-quite surprising.44
Second, the distribution of instructional hours across subject categories
clearly depicts the centrality of mathematics, English, and the natural and
physical sciences in the implemented curricula of middle schools: on aver-
age, they receive 14.4, 12.9, and 12.5 weekly hours, respectively (remember,
these figures represent the sum of instructional time over three grades).
Other core subjects receive an average of 5-8 weekly hours (or about 1.5-2
hours per grade). Finally, the peripheral status of subjects usually translates
into smaller time allocations in middle school curricula (see the lower two
sets of subjects); peripheral subjects receive, on average, no more than 1
weekly hour per grade level, and often much less.
C. School Differences in Instructional Time Allocations
We present different measures of between-school variation in allocated
instructional time to subject areas in table 3. These include the range of
values, the lower and upper quartiles, the standard deviation, and the coef-
ficient of variation.45
While a certain degree of between-school variation is found in all 20 sub-
ject areas, three points are noteworthy. First, between-school variation in
time allocations varies by school subject. In general, variation is lower in the
12 core subject areas (with the possible exception of arts and crafts) and is
higher among the eight peripheral school subjects. Second, among core sub-
ject areas, the sector-wide consensus is high with respect to mathematics, En-
glish, and physical education. These curricular areas have high institutional
44
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 arrayof funding sources continues today and provides opportuni-
ties 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 consti-
tute over 90 percent of the instructional budgets of middle schools.
45 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.
524 November 2001

TABLE3
MEASURES OF BETWEEN-SCHOOL VARIATION IN IMPLEMENTED CURRICULA BY SC
Schools Mean Coefficient

Teaching Weekly of
School Subject or Subject Area Subject (%) Hours SD Variation
Mathematics 100 14.41 1.55 .11

English 100 12.86 1.66 .13
Social education-homeroom 100 5.38 1.71 .32
Sports-physical education 100 6.31 .86 .14
Natural and physical sciences 100 12.48 2.34 .19
Hebrew language 100 7.64 2.56 .34
Literature 100 6.49 1.64 .25
History 99 8.01 1.67 .21
Bible 100 7.59 1.60 .21
Subjects taught in almost all schools but not
at all grade levels:
Geography 97 5.09 1.80 .35
Arts and crafts 99 4.58 3.70 .81
Arabic 95 6.65 2.58 .39
Subjects taught in majority of schools and
at certain grade levels:
Computers-multimedia 88 2.29 2.20 .96
Technology 67 2.11 2.31 1.09
Land of Israel-Zionism 61 .89 1.99 1.11
Oral law-Jewish studies 53 1.62 1.88 1.16
Citizenship 51 .75 1.01 1.35
Other prevalent school subjects-subject areas
taught in a minority of schools:
French and other foreign languages 44 1.72 2.52 1.47
Social sciences 28 .48 1.13 2.35
Vocational education 38 .84 1.41 1.68
NOTE.-n = 98. For purposes of cross-subject comparisons, figures in the first two columns are extracted fr
variation is calculated as the ratio of the SD to the mean. Values for the middle two quartiles (unreported) fall b
quartiles. In one subject, sports, more than half of the schools allocated exactly 6 hours to this area, which ex
reported quartiles are equal.
BENAVOT AND RESH
status, although different rationales apparently underlie this consensus (see

the discussion section). Among other core subjects, schools differ to a
greater degree in the amount of instructional time allocated, reflecting the
more equivocal nature of these subjects' institutional status. Third, among
peripheral subjects, much of the between-school variation hinges on
whether the subject is actually offered as a separate subject in the school
curriculum. (Keep in mind that in instances where a subject may have been
taught under a different curricular category but was not identified as such in
the school timetable, it was coded as not being taught.) As expected, if time
allocations are compared only among schools offering the subject (unre-
ported), between-school variation is reduced somewhat.
For analytical purposes, school differences in the implemented curricu-
lum can be divided into two separate components: first, variation in the
grand total of absolute instructional hours that schools have at their disposal
to distribute among curricular subjects; and second, variation in the propor-
tion of total instructional time actually allocated to each subject area (i.e.,
the relative emphasis of a subject in the school curriculum).
The fact that schools have different quantities of overall instructional
resources means, hypothetically, that they could distribute these resources
across each school subject in similar proportions, thereby complying with
official standards, not in terms of absolute hours but in terms of propor-
tional time. In reality, this was not the case. Analyses of between-school varia-
tion using the proportion of total weekly time devoted to subjects (which
controls for school differences in total instructional hours) produced pat-
terns very similar to those found in table 3.46
In sum, while most middle schools received standard allocations of in-
structional resources and distributed them based on official guidelines and
other considerations, other schools received additional resources and chose
different curricular areas-sometimes unconventional ones-to distribute
them. Overall, middle schools made substantive decisions to emphasize cer-
tain subjects and de-emphasize others for reasons that were not directly
linked to the total amount of instructional time at their disposal.
D. Curricular Trade-Offs in the Implementation of School Curricula
The previous section highlighted the fact that Israeli middle schools dif-
fer considerably in the instructional time allocated to many subject catego-
ries, both in absolute and proportional terms. In practice, and within the
confines of a limited quantity of instructional resources, decisions to allocate
more instructional time to a particular subject often entail an alteration to
the relative emphases given to other subjects in the curriculum. In other
words, the construction of a local school curriculum often involves curricu-
lar trade-offs.
46The results of these
analyses are available on request.
526 November 2001

Table 4 examines the issue of curricular trade-offs by reporting zero-

order correlations among the 20 curricular categories delineated in this
study. In table 4, correlations are calculated in terms of the percentage of
total instructional hours allocated to each subject area, which represents
trade-offs in the relative emphasis of different subjects in the schools' weekly
schedule. Several interesting patterns emerge.
1. Schools emphasizing mathematics also tend to place greater empha-

sis on English. While these two core subjects are relatively uniformly
taught in the sampled schools, some schools apparently organize a
streamlined, basic curriculum in which these subjects are strongly em-
phasized. Additional time for English is apparently secured by reduc-
ing the emphasis on arts and crafts, Arabic, and, to a lesser extent, the
land of Israel (a subject involving field trips to historical and archeo-
logical sites in the country).
2. Schools emphasizing the natural sciences are frequently the same
schools that emphasize Arabic, these being two subjects valued by
high achievers and those aspiring to university degrees. The curricu-
lar trade-off for Arabic is usually French since these are alternative
second foreign language options in middle schools. Schools that em-
phasize science education often do so by allocating less time, propor-
tionally, to Hebrew and English as well as geography.
3. Schools often reduce their emphasis on aesthetic education (arts and
crafts) as a way of strengthening core subjects such as mathematics,
literature, history, and Bible (in addition to English, which is noted
above).
4. Certain subjects that are closely interconnected in terms of academic
disciplines and core knowledge claims-for example, mathematics
and sciences, Hebrew language and literature, history and citizen-
ship, and Bible and oral law-Jewish studies-are not emphasized
concurrently in middle school curricula. In fact, as table 4 shows,
these three sets of subjects are weakly or negatively correlated.47
Overall, the correlations underlying these four patterns, while statisti-

cally significant, are not especially strong: many are in the .20-.30 range;
only nine correlations are above this level. It would appear, therefore, that
47 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.

TABLE 4
INTERCORRELATION MATRIX AMONG RELATIVE SUBJECT EmPHIASES: PROPORTIONAL OF ToTAL INSTRUCTION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Mathematics
2. Sciences - .21*
3. Hebrew language .12 -.31*
4. Literature -.05 -.05 -.25*
5. History .03 -.04 -.05 .12
6. Bible .04 -.04 -.20* .17 .18
7. English .56* -.26* .18 .13 .11 .15
8. Social education .21* -.19 -.03 .01 - .17 -.14 -.06
9. Physical education .21* -.07 -.12 .07 -.11 .21* .11 -.01
lO.Geography -.02 -.21* .14 -.11 .04 .20* .08 -.06 .05
I11.Arts and crafts -.41* .04 -.17 -.23* -.28* -.22* -.48* -.00 -.09 -.15
12. Arabic -.13 .38* -.08 -.20* -.07 -.12 -.34* -.02 .03 .04 .05
13. Computers -.18 -.05 .18 -.14 -.23* -.30'* -.05 .00 -.32* -.17 .13 -.13
14. Technology -.20* -.10 .12 .08 .12 -.10 -.01 - .25* .06 -.06 -.18 -.03
15. LandoflIsrael -.07 .11 -.18 -.05 -.03 -.04 -.26* -.00 -.04 -.02 -.07 .05
16. Oral law and
Jewish studies -.26* -.06 -.11 -.06 -.18 - .20* -.10 -.01 -.13 -.09 .04 -.08
17. Citizenship .06 -.19 .06 -.12 -.28* -.21* -.08 -.08 -.05 -.14 .06 -.09
18. French and foreign
languages .04 -.09 -34* .24* .04 .10 .07 .03 .03 -.19 -.02 -54*
19. Social sciences -.14 .14 .03 - .09 -.06 -.08 -.12 -.15 -.20* -.16 -.00 -.00
20. Vocational
education .11 -.11 -.10 -.13 -.03 .06 -.03 -.02 -.06 -.12 -.05 -.09
NOTE.-Number of cases = 98.

* Zero-order correlations are significant at P < .05 level.
many curricular trade-offs are not systemic in nature but represent particular
solutions fashioned by individual schools as a means of addressing sector-
wide calls for curricular reform or dealing with organizational problems
stemming from teacher (un) availabilityand turnover.
VIII. Discussion
In this article, we argue that, in many national educational systems, local

schools have been given greater leeway in selecting, organizing, and imple-
menting the educational knowledge they impart to their pupils. This results
from several broad-based trends, including the decentralization of educa-
tional authority, the privatization of educational services, the proliferation
of policies strengthening school autonomy, calls for greater parental involve-
ment in school affairs, and increased institutional competition for financial
resources among schools. Exclusive state control over the curriculum and
uniform curricular guidelines are on the wane; greater diversification in
the development, structure, and content of local school curricula are on
the rise.48
Furthermore, we argue that comparative research of the implemented
curriculum has given insufficient attention to the social construction of edu-
cational knowledge at the school level, in part because of the emphasis on
curricular coverage (i.e., which items or contents of a mandated subject ac-
tually get taught in classrooms) and effective instruction (e.g., time on task).
Curricular decisions made by school officials are meaningful because they
adjudicate between system-wide directives, local conditions, and organiza-
tional constraints, on the one hand, and effectively enable or constrain class-
room instruction and practices, on the other.
Assuming, as we do, that institutionally similar schools may implement
the official, intended curriculum in different ways, it becomes analytically
germane to examine the extent of uniformity or diversity in local school
curricula and to investigate the types of factors (e.g., structural, political,
organizational, and institutional) that may account for school-level differ-
ences. To this end, we developed a general conceptual framework that
outlines key macro- and meso-level factors affecting curricular implementa-
tion. We realize that a valid test of certain hypotheses derived from this
framework-for example, structural features of educational systems-ne-
cessitates a more extensive, comparative database than is presently available.
Nevertheless, we believe that many findings reported in the previous section
directly address important aspects of the overall model.
48See 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-
cationalEvaluationand PolicyAnalysis21 (Spring 1999): 85-91.

BENAVOT AND RESH
Specifically, the analyses indicated that, even in the relatively centralized

Israeli educational system, variation in the organization of middle school
curricula was quite widespread. For example, alongside standard, discipline-
based subjects, middle schools listed a surprisinglylarge number of nonstan-
dard course titles in their curricular timetables (more than 130 titles were
identified). The proliferation of nonstandard labels to denote curricular
contents and pedagogical intentions-perhaps an indication of school in-
novativeness-clearly reflects greater school autonomy in the organization
of educational knowledge, although, in some cases, it simply indicates the
"repackaging" of conventional contents in more attractive or marketable
forms.49In another sense, the differential use of unconventional versus con-
ventional curricular labels may constitute a mechanism reinforcing existing
social inequalities. Preliminary analyses suggested that the use of unconven-
tional labels in curricular timetables is more prevalent in schools serving
high-SES pupils, while more conventional names are used in schools with
low-SES pupils. One could interpret this finding in different ways: more
"innovative" schools employ less-conventional curricular labels to attract
stronger students or, alternately, school officials are using such labels to re-
spond to the "demands" of higher-status pupils and parents. In either case,
an important sociological issue demands further attention: to what degree
does the "conventionality" of curricular content (in contrast to the quantity
of instruction or curricular exposure) engender different educational expe-
riences and unequal outcomes for students?
In addition, the research established that, while some subjects are taught
in all middle schools at each grade level (constituting a "core" curricu-
lum), the relative prevalence or centrality of other subjects varied consider-
ably. In some schools, certain officially mandated subjects were simply not
taught; in others, they were allocated minimal instructional time. Of special
significance were analyses of actual time allocations per subject, as they re-
flect the social value attributed to, and the institutional status attained by,
different curricular subjects. Mathematics, the natural sciences, and English
were found to be highly valued subjects based on the large time allocations
that they received. By contrast, many humanistic and social science-related
49
Explanations of this phenomenon, which have considerable face validity in light of recent devel-
opments 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 com-
petition 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 man-
dated in previous curricular guidelines (e.g., classes in vocational education) while concurrently imple-
menting new curricular directives. Many of these explanations are undoubtedly valid in other educational
contexts as well.
530 November 2001

subjects received less instructional time, reflecting their more equivocal

status.
Moreover, the analyses revealed a considerable degree of between-
school variation in instructional time allocated to subjects (both in absolute
and proportional terms), although this varied by subject area. For example,
differences across schools were smaller for mathematics, English, and physi-
cal education, suggesting the high level of system-wide consensus regarding
the uniform implementation of these subjects. The first two-mathematics
and English-are viewed as essential educational knowledge because of
their perceived importance in determining a student's future educational
career. Physical education, while not valued as an academic subject, meets
other "crucial" pupil needs (e.g., physical exercise and activity); as a result,
it has gained status as an essential-albeit more limited-component of the
secular school curriculum. Between-school variation in other subject areas,
especially in the humanities, was much greater. For example, despite calls
for the development of "well-rounded" or aesthetically conscious pupils,
schools differed significantly in their emphasis on arts and related activities.
Variation was especially pronounced among "peripheral" subjects-for ex-
ample, computers, technology, civics, and vocational education-many of
which are not being offered in middle schools.
In short, the underlying phenomenon is as clear as it is surprising: even
in a relatively centralized educational system like Israel's, there is significant
diversity in the actual implementation of official curricular guidelines in lo-
cal schools. How and why did this phenomenon emerge? What sociological
explanations best account for this state of affairs?Keeping in mind the ex-
ploratory nature of the reported analyses, we offer three general approaches
to address these questions.
The first approach can be characterized as organizational in nature
and views the lack of uniformity in implemented school curricula as a reflec-
tion of organizational failures. Organizational glitches of various kinds-for
example, unclear goals or conflicting policies, weak hierarchical ties be-
tween positions of authority and line personnel, insufficient school inspec-
tors or overly ritualized inspections, inadequate allocation of instructional
resources, and lack of available teachers in certain subjects-have combined
to produce an educational environment that claims to be centralized but
that does not have the organizational wherewithal to sustain this claim. Un-
der such conditions, and after ensuring that certain basic subjects are ade-
quately taught, school principals are left to their own devices to construct
the "best curriculum" possible. The result is that substantial differences
exist between schools with regard to the curriculum actually put into prac-
tice, both in terms of the subjects offered and in time allocations per subject.
While the organizational infrastructure of public educational services is
neither as elaborate nor as well-rooted as that found in industrialized West-

BENAVOT AND RESH
ern nations, Israeli patterns of educational governance and finance are

far from chaotic. A relatively organized and independently administered
network of schools existed prior to the state's independence, and a well-
developed educational bureaucracy acquired significant organizational ex-
perience over the ensuing years. These points would partially invalidate the
organizational failure approach.
A second approach would turn the underlying argument around: the
diversity of implemented school curricula is not so surprising if one alters
the basic characterization of a relatively centralized Israeli educational sys-
tem. In reality, past educational reforms and policy changes have had a cu-
mulative impact, resulting in a much more decentralized educational system
than is suggested by academic commentators or senior policy makers.50Out-
dated stereotypes held by sociologists of education, in particular, fail to cap-
ture the fundamental transformations that have occurred. If this is the case,
then one should expect substantial diversity in the curricula schools design
and execute. The autonomy and discretion of local schools have been inten-
tionally (or de facto) broadened, and the system encourages divergent cur-
ricula so long as minimal requirements are met.
This account has considerable face validity. To assess its claims accu-
rately, however, would necessarily involve the analysis of trend data over time
or a comparison of different educational sectors.51 Employing a longitudinal
or comparative research design would help to identify the specific period or
context in which local school curricula diverge from one another. In addi-
tion, it would be possible to determine whether this resulted from inten-
tional policy changes or, rather, the unintentional consequences of budget-
ary cutbacks, regime turnovers, or other major sociohistorical events. Given
the present data limitations, it is quite difficult to assess the validity of this
argument.
A third sociological approach emphasizes the impact of social forces and
school-based factors on the construction of school curricula. These include
factors that directly affect school-level decision-making processes (e.g., dis-
cretionary instructional resources, principal orientations, pupil composi-
tion, teacher availability,school charter, viable curricular trade-offs, etc.), as
well as broad social forces that influence the institutional status of different
school subjects and the social esteem with which those subjects are pub-
licly held.52
50 Harrison
(n. 34 above).
51 As
previously noted, we have partially embarked on such a task; see Benavot and Resh (n. 38
above).
52
Explanations combining different approaches are quite plausible. For example, weak organiza-
tional 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.
532 November 2001

Although the findings are partial and, by and large, suggestive, they tend
to support the claims advanced by this approach. School differences in sub-
ject time allocations are clearly conditioned by the institutional status of the
subject in question. Moreover, when schools design their curriculum and
adjust time allotments, decisions often involve curricular trade-offs: certain
subjects are emphasized in tandem (in the Israeli case, mathematics and En-
glish), and institutionally weak subjects like art education are sacrificed to
open up curricular time for core subjects. Curricular trade-offs differ de-
pending on the centrality of the subjects involved as well as the academic
proficiencies of the pupils being served by the school. This suggests that the
implementation of core subjects is conditional: actual time allocations de-
pend on whether a minimum level of instruction has been reached. When
school officials perceive that the necessary resources for key academic sub-
jects have been secured (relative to the needs of their students), then addi-
tional resources can be allocated in more diverse ways. Thus, the findings
suggest that contextual factors like school structure, the socioeconomic
background of students, and the successful mobilization of instructional re-
sources affect the construction of local school curricula.
In sum, conflicting social forces, local conditions, and educational agents
intersect when decisions are made concerning the organization of educa-
tional knowledge in local schools. The construction of school curricula does
not represent a series of discrete decisions but occurs within the confines of
a social and cultural environment that affects subject offerings and empha-
ses, which have considerable implications for students' educational out-
comes. This, in our opinion, opens up a new and promising line of investi-
gation for sociological analyses of achievement inequalities.
Furthermore, widespread assumptions concerning the uniform imple-
mentation of national curricular directives in centralized educational sys-
tems have been shown to be problematic. Local school curricula, even those
implemented in relatively centralized systems, are affected by a powerful
range of social and organizational forces. These forces create fertile condi-
tions for much more diversity in the educational knowledge transmitted by
local schools than sociological accounts have heretofore acknowledged.53
53 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 differ-
ences 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.

BENAVOT AND RESH
Appendix A
TABLE
Al
FORMER CURRICULAR GUIDELINES FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM IN THE SECULAR SUBSECTOR
BYSCHOOL
SUBJECTANDGRADELEVEL(Circulated by Ministryof Education in November 1971)
Total Hours Percent

Percent
School Subject Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grades 7-9 of Total
Bible 3 3 3 9 8.1
Oral law 2 2 2 6 5.5
Hebrew language and literature 4 4 4 12 10.9
History (and citizenship) 4 3 3 10 9.1
Geography and land of Israel 2 2 2 6 5.5
Arts and crafts 2 2 *** 4 3.6
Vocational subjects* 3 3 3 9 8.1
Foreign languages (mainly
English and Arabic) 4 4 4 12 10.9
Mathematics 4 4 4 12 10.9
Natural science 4 4 6 14 12.7
Sports-physical education 2 2 2 6 5.5
Social education-homeroom 1 1 1 3 2.7
Elective subjectst 2 2 3 7 6.4
Totals 37 36 37 110 100.0
*Vocational subjects included workshop, home economics, and seafaring.

tSchools offered electives from a list that included (chapters in) Jewish
philosophy, the history of the
settlement of Eretz Yisrael, oral law, archeology, plastic arts, music, technical drawing, natural sciences,
historical geography, peoples of the Middle East.
TABLE A2
NEW CURRICULAR GUIDELINES FOR THE SECULAR MIDDLE SCHOOL CURRICULUM
BYBROADSUBJECTCLUSTERS
(Circulated by Ministryof Education in June 1996)
Total Weekly Hours Percent of Total

School Subject Clusters Allocated in Grades 7-9 Instructional Time
A: Bible and Jewish studies* 14 12.6

B: Hebrew language and literature 12 10.8
C: history, geography, humanities,
and social sciencest 16 14.4
D: arts and crafts 4 3.6
E: foreign languages 20 18.0
F: mathematics 14 12.6
G: natural sciences and technology 18 16.2
H: sports-physical education 6 5.4
I: Social education and citizenship+ 7 6.3
Totals 111 100.0
* The
Ministry of Education recommended that until the new curricular guidelines are fully imple-
mented, cluster A should be subdivided as follows: Bible (at least 6 weekly hours), oral law (at least
3 hours), and Jewish studies (5 hours), which includes interdisciplinary projects focusing on Jewish
themes and special programs preparing adolescents for the Bar/Bat Mitzvah rituals.
t Middle schools are expected to devote at least 8 hours to
history and 6 hours to geography.
Middle schools are expected to devote at least 3 weekly hours to citizenship education, though the
subject can be integrated within cluster I or cluster C.
534 November 2001

Appendix B
Classification of Detailed Names Given to CurricularSubjects and Educational Activities
Listed in Middle School Timetables
General category.-Specific names of school subjects listed in timetables (percent of

schools using each curricular label in school timetables in parentheses).
Mathematics.-Mathematics (100).
Natural and physicalsciences.-Biology (77), biology laboratory (4), natural sciences
(15), anatomy (1), ecology and environmental sciences (2), physics (81), chem-
istry (11), science (s) (34), scientific investigation (1), astrophysics (1), multime-
dia-biology (1), macrobiology (1), physiology (2).
Hebrewlanguage.-Hebrew language (89), pronunciation (60), language and pro-
nunciation (4), reading comprehension (18), literacy (2), creative writing (3),
reading encouragement (1), essay writing (1).
Literature.-Literature (100), multimedia-literature (1).
History.-History (98), culture (1), multimedia-history (1).
Bible.-Bible (100), multimedia-Bible (1).
English.-English (100).
Social education-homeroom.-Education hour or homeroom (96), social education
lesson (5), current events (10), democracy (3), road safety (8), transportation
(1), life skills (8), law (4), personal commitment (3), morning discussion (2),
community (2), moral community (2), quality of life (1), values (1), social gath-
ering (1), family life (2), debate (1), values for youth (2), health (1), counseling
(7), dining room (1), children teach children (3).
Sports-physicaleducation.-Sports or gym or physical education (98).
Geography.- Geography (97), farm and industry (2), multimedia-geography (1).
Arts and crafts.-Art (69), art history (2), theater (3), cinema (5), painting (12),
shop (14), crafts (2), music (24), dance (10), folk dancing (1), drama (9), stage
(1), sculpting (14), plastic art (1), plastics (2), photography (1), creativity (1),
Tzabar (1), drawing (14), graphics (5), choose (17).
Arabic.-Arabic (94).
Computers-multimedia.-Computers(69), computer technology (2), Matach (1), in-
ternet (3), surfers (1), multimedia (6), logic (1).
Technology.-Technology (54), technological exposure (2), science and technology
(1), food in the technological age (1), robotics (1), Tikshuv (2).
Land of Israel-Zionism.-Zionism and the State of Israel (5), people and land (1),
annual topic: 100 years of Zionism (1), Jerusalem (1), Shelach (39), premilitary
service (1), knowledge of the land (7), sources and sites (1).
Orallaw-Jewishstudies.- Oral law-Toshba (32), Jewish philosophy (5), Talmud (1),
Judaism (9), people and the world (4), prayer (1), Jewish themes (1), fellowship
(1), Mivchar (1), Ye'ud (1), good morning (1), Bar/Bat Mitzvah (11), Pikudey
2000 (1), roots (5).
Citizenship.-Citizenship (50).
Frenchand otherforeign languages.-French (39), Russian (4), Italian (1), German
(1),Amharic (1).
Social sciences.-Communications (18), print media (1), archaeology (1), Middle
East (1).

BENAVOT AND RESH
Vocationaleducation.-Carpentry (1), electricity (3), welding (1), wood chipping (1),

seafaring (12), home economics (6), nutrition (5), sewing (1), mechanics (1),
agriculture (13).
536 November 2001

Benavot y Resh Social Cobstruction of Local School Curriculum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benavot y Resh Social Cobstruction of Local School Curriculum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative and International Education Society

The official curriculum, prescribed by central authorities and implemented

ComparativeEducationReview,vol. 45, no. 4.

required subjects may be taught; the allocation of instructional time to man-

Comparative Education Review 505

social construction of the implemented curriculum in local schools and

Sociological analyses of the curriculum have mainly revolved around

506 November 2001

affecting the construction of official national curricula and required school

9 Robert Dreeben, On WhatIs Learnedin School

Comparative Education Review 507

in order to examine the impact of curricular differentiation on subsequent

508 November 2001

2,200 eighth-grade mathematics classrooms in 15 distinct educational sys-

schools may decide to exclude, redefine, or de-emphasize a mandated sub-

III. Uniformity and Diversity in Local School Curricula

In this section, we outline major societal factors and institutional condi-

510 November 2001

A. Structural Features of Educational Systems

Comparative Education Review 511

512 November 2001

development of basic literacy and numeracy, as well as the inculcation of

25Robert Dottrens, ThePrimarySchoolCurriculum(Paris:UNESCO, 1962); Marlaine Lockheed and

Comparative Education Review 513

and the availability of teachers in specialized subjects. Teacher availability

29Steven Bossert, Steven

514 November 2001

of Israeli junior high school curricula. Nevertheless, the conceptual frame-

IV. The Research Context: The Israeli Educational System

30 Certain areas of the

Comparative Education Review 515

By most accounts (i.e., those articulated by educational practitioners as

V. The Official, Intended Curriculum of Israeli Middle Schools

Official policies delineating the curriculum of State Secular middle

Comparative Education Review 517

ments reveals three characterizations. First, the middle school curricu-

518 November 2001

VI. Research Design and Methodology

39The fact that

Comparative Education Review 519

A. SubjectLabels Employed in School TimetablesLack Uniformity

520 November 2001

junior high school level-since they refer to less institutionalized school

B. The Prevalence of School Subjects in Middle School Curricula

Comparative Education Review 521

Subjects taught in all schools and

(mathematics, sciences, Hebrew language, literature, history, Bible, English,

Mean Weekly Instructional Hours Total Weekly Hours,

Subjects taught in all schools and

Comparative Education Review 523

grand total of instructional hours that they distribute in the curriculum. On

524 November 2001

Schools Mean Coefficient

Mathematics 100 14.41 1.55 .11

status, although different rationales apparently underlie this consensus (see

526 November 2001

Table 4 examines the issue of curricular trade-offs by reporting zero-

1. Schools emphasizing mathematics also tend to place greater empha-

Overall, the correlations underlying these four patterns, while statisti-

Comparative Education Review 527

NOTE.-Number of cases = 98.

In this article, we argue that, in many national educational systems, local

48See William Schmidt and Richard