Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

Bilingual Education in Israel Interim Report- October 1st. 2000

Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk Ph.D. School of Education Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

Bilingual Education in Israel: Interim Report - October 1st. 2000 The report comprises four sections. The first an introductory section gives a historical perspective of the project and its socio-political background and a description of the methodologies used in the study. The second section includes the results from the analysis performed on the quantitative data. The third section presents the qualitative analysis and the forth and last section offers preliminary conclusion.

A) Introduction The following report summarizes the first year of activity of our formative evaluation research study at the two bilingual schools initiated by the Center for Bi-Lingual Education in Israel (CBE). The Center for Bi-Lingual Education in Israel (CBE) was established in 1997 with the aim of developing and furthering egalitarian Arab-Jewish cooperation in education, mainly through the development of bi-lingual, bi-national and multicultural cooperative educational institutions. Since 1977 the Center has been involved in the establishment of two schools guided by this principles, one in Jerusalem (the Nisui School) and one in Misgav (the Galil School). It is to be assumed that the initiators of the bi-lingual project would agree with Skutnabb-Kangas’ (Skutnabb-Kangas & Garcia, 1995) definition of what is it to be achieved from a good bi-lingual educational project: 1) a high level of multilingualism; 2) a fair chance of achieving academically at school; and 3) a strong, positive multilingual and multicultural identity and positive attitudes toward self and others. This coming year, and after the closure of the, bi-lingual section of the Nisui School in Jerusalem a new independent school will be opened in the Jerusalem area, serving at first kindergarten and first and second grades. After it became apparent that the Nisui School

1

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

educational initiative in Jerusalem would stop being active towards the end of the academic year and following deliberations with CBE, we decided that the report will relate primarily to the educational and social processes involved in the functioning and development of the Galil School in Misgav. The data on the Nisui School in Jerusalem will be used mainly for the purposes of analyzing issues arising in the Galil School in a comparative way. In addition our Nisui School data will inform us about processes and structural features, which can endanger the development of future similar initiatives.

In our evaluation we have adopted a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. This combined approach allowed us to gather a large amount of data and provided us with valuable insights into the complexities of the educational, social, and cultural processes involved in the functioning and development of the bilingual programs. The qualitative approach traditionally turns on the use of a set of procedures that are simultaneously open ended and rigorous in their attempt to do justice to the complexities of the social world (Flick, 1998), approaching the field of study with the aim of understanding the meanings that participants’ in social settings attach to events in their own terms. In education, qualitative research practices have become common and have gained appreciation for the opportunity they offer to follow in detail developmental, social, organizational, and educational processes in ways unavailable in traditional quantitative research (LeCompte, Millroy, & Preissle, 1992; Wolcott, 1988). Throughout the research process, and through the implementation of a variety of methodologies researchers develop analytical interpretative approaches to their findings to focus further data collection, which they use in turn to inform and redefine their developing theoretical analysis (Charmaz, 2000; Janesick, 1998). All in all this holistic approach has been beneficial in allowing researchers and shareholders to look first at whole pictures while paying meticulous attention to relationships within social and cultural systems with the central aim of understanding these processes but not necessarily making predictions about them.

2

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

The quantitative approach needs no introduction or justification since it has been for long the most widely accepted methodology in the social sciences in general and in education in particular. As for the conmesurability between both qualitative and quantitative approaches there seems to be little doubt that their combination is only problematic when the paradigms that guide both approaches settle on different epistemological perspectives (i.e. positivist vs. constructivist) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Clinical and educational research are increasingly using combined designs referred to as mixed methods (Spindler & Spindler, 1992; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). As for our case when keeping in mind that both methodologies and their analytical perspectives are guided by similar theoretical approaches, there is little doubt that they have the potential of producing rich and incisive findings. The combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies in this study has proven advantageous in helping us obtain a rich and comprehensive picture of the various facets of the activities in the two bi-lingual schools under study. Project Objectives In general our research aimed at gaining insight into the process of implementation of a bilingual Arabic-Hebrew educational program. Our primary research focus was of course the subject of bilingual education. However, we also set out to answer questions regarding identity and culture as they evolve within the wider bi-lingual bi-cultural educational setting at all levels, students, teachers, and parents.

Tools for data gathering 1) Interviews Parents: We conducted semi-structured interviews with parents of children recently enrolled in the school as well as with parents whose children are entering the second year of their participation in the project. Focus groups as well as individual interviews took place shortly before the start of the school year. The major issues addressed in the

3

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

interviews were: reasons for joining the program, aspects of decision-making about joining the school both at a family and community level, expectations and fears, visions of the future, and impressions of the program (2nd year parents). Approximately a third of the total parent’s population were interviewed. Interviews lasted forty to eighty minutes each and all interviews were recorded and carefully transcribed. Interviews and focus groups were also conducted as well with parents later in the year. Students: A few short interviews were conducted with students, both “new” students in the project and “old-timers”. These interviews were aimed at identifying crucial issues that, from the perspective of the children are worth addressing within the broad framework of this study. Some of the interviews with Arab children were conducted in Arabic by the research coordinator. These interviews were also recorded and transcribed for analysis. Throughout the year we had many more opportunities to hold short interviews with the students during the many days of observations we conducted in the schools. School staff: All teachers and principals involved in the project were interviewed. These interviews were broader in scope than those conducted with parents and children, and focused on a variety of personal and educational topics, including: reasons for joining the program, goals and objectives, pedagogical approaches, multicultural ideology and identity, etc. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. 2) Observations School activities: Observations were conducted during approximately thirty days of school activities, two thirds in the Galil School and one third at the Nisui. The project staff participated in class activities and recesses, observing (and partially videotaping) educational and recreational activity. We also followed a specific class period, and a particular student and teacher throughout the progress of the school year. All observations were carefully documented in writing.

4

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

Meetings of parents’ committees and steering committees: The research staff requested permission to participate in meetings of both the parents’ committees and the steering committees of the schools. Most meetings were audio-recorded, and the rest were carefully documented. Special events: The research staff participated in a special events such as on the Ramadan/ Hanukkah/ Christmas party and the Independence Day celebration. All these events were carefully documented. 3) Language assessment: For the purpose of measuring the current language skills of students in both the Hebrew and Arab languages we developed an assessment tool specifically suited to the populations under examination. The instrument is based primarily on the ‘Frog Story’ (a pictorial trigger for conversation with young children used worldwide for language assessment), to which we added a few culturally relevant pictures (such as a mosque and an Israeli flag). The assessment took place in short individual sessions with children in a comfortable and warm setting. These sessions were fully audiotaped and were carefully and fully transcribed for analysis. All first and second grade students participating in the program were assessed during the first half of the second semester of classes. We also conducted assessments with identical tools with children from two comparison groups: Students from parallel monolingual classes from a Jewish school and an Arab school with similar student population. These interviews were carried out only in the first language (Hebrew or Arabic), and were similar in all aspects to those conducted with the children in the bilingual classes. These sessions were also audiotaped and transcribed in full for analysis. Finally we included in our evaluation specially designed language comprehension tests geared toward the assessment of second language proficiency. 4) Questionnaires: Questionnaires were sent to all parents (two per family: one for each parent). Hebrew questionnaires were developed for Jewish parents, and two versions of the Arab questionnaire (in Hebrew and in Arabic) were made available to the Arab parents. The

5

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

various sections as well as the individual items were mostly based on preliminary insights gained from the interviews with parents, teachers, and school principals. The questionnaires were developed in close association and cooperation with the consultant on Arab language and culture, who also gave final approval to the Arabic translation. The following sections were included in the questionnaire: •

Background information

•

Reasons for joining

•

Expectations

•

Fears and Concerns

•

Attitudes related to group identity and culture

•

Group perceptions (in-group and out-group).

We were aware of the difficulties involved in data collection using mail questionnaires, and we took steps to ensure a satisfactory level of response. More than 50% of the parents returned completed questionnaires. It is worth mentioning that throughout our project we were fortunate to receive full cooperation from the school staff and from the CBE. This is not to say that our activities have always gone smoothly but we have to acknowledge that in general, a study of one of the best kept secret professions of the world – education - is highly difficult, and overall we were very fortunate. The large amount of data gathered provide us with valuable insights into the complexities of the educational, social, and cultural processes involved in the functioning and development of the bilingual programs. We are convinced that this and future information will render rich and varied knowledge which will contribute to the improvement and growth of the programs in the future. Short socio-political and demographic considerations

6

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

Considering the socio-political context in Israel, it is needless to say, that regardless of the organizations involved the idea of creating Arab/Jewish co–education is in and of itself, a daring enterprise. Israel, a land ridden with conflict and social cleavages, must attempt to meet the oftencompeting requirements of a multi-ethnic-national-religious society. The Jewish-Arab conflict remains perhaps the most potentially explosive of conflicts of Israel, placing the Jewish majority (80%) and the Arab (primarily Moslem) minority (20%) at perpetual odds. The above and other conflicts are reflected in the Israeli educational system which is consequently divided into separate educational sectors: Arab, Jewish, Non-religious, Religious National and Orthodox all under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education. The bilingual initiative we are reporting on is not the first attempt at bilingual, desegregated, education in Israel. In the last decade the Neveh Shalom School, located in a small Arab-Jewish settlement in the vicinity of Jerusalem, has also been dedicated to similar ideological aims. The YMCA kindergarten program in Jerusalem has been functioning for many years as well with somewhat similar educational aims. The central difference between these initiatives and the one we are looking at in this report lies in the environments within which they have evolved. The Neveh Shalom School is situated in a small settlement, ideologically identified with the vision of full equality for Arab and Jewish community members, while the two bilingual programs initiated by the CBE in 1998 were implemented in the National Secular Misgav School in the Upper Galilee and in the National Secular Nisui (Experimental) School in Jerusalem. Until 1970 the Galil school locale – namely the upper Galilee area had a predominantly Arab majority with almost no Jews living there. In the 1970’s, government policy encouraged Jewish settlements to develop in the area. These settlements were successfully established throughout the seventies and eighties and populated by a relatively highly educated population working for the most part in urban centers in the surrounding areas. In a sense the settlements created became the suburbs of Haifa and other urban northern centers.

7

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

The Arab population in this northern area, scattered throughout villages and cities of varying sizes (e.g. the City of Sachnin) boasts a long history and is known for its proud national identity. In 1976, six Arabs from Sachnin lost their lives protesting the confiscation of Arab land by the Israeli Government. These events are commemorated yearly on a Memorial Day called the Land Day (Yom HaAdama). Since the Oslo agreements, the area has gradually become characterized by peaceful coexistence where the mixed Arab (majority) and Jewish (minority) populations has allowed for the development of cooperation mostly on the economic sector but also, to some extent, in the social area. Until the 1967 War, Israeli Jerusalem had a Jewish majority. Since that time, with the occupation of eastern Jerusalem and surrounding areas, the demography has changed, reflecting an increase in the Arab population. Still there has been little, if any dialog between Arab and Jewish populations. The Arab pupils attending the Nisui school program live primarily in the village of Beit Zafafa, an Arab village divided in the war of Independence in 1948 with part of the population remaining under Jordanian rule and part under Israeli rule. Is worth keeping in mind that the Palestinian Arab population conquered during the 1967 war attends schools operating under the Jordanian educational system. Most of the Nisui School’s Arab parents are now living in Beit Zafafa but were originally from Northern Israel (the Sachnin Area, where the Galil school is located). These parents prefer that their children attend National Israeli schools, primarily for two reasons. Firstly, in general, Arab schools have a very low status in Jerusalem, secondly, the parents prefer Israeli schools that operate according to the Israeli Ministry of Education’s curriculum (and not the Jordanian), in the hope that the Israeli system will prepare them for matriculation and ultimately access to higher education in Israel. While the Northern Jewish population cannot but acknowledge the presence of the Arab majority and must seriously consider the type of relations it wishes to develop with their Arab neighbors, the Jerusalem Jewish population may remain blind to the Arab minority and evade the question. Even those that may lean toward left wing political perspectives appear to prefer to avoid this sticky matter. Overall, the socio-political atmosphere in

8

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

Jerusalem lends to a more explosive environment in which to establish a bilingual program. There is good reason to believe that these demographic-contextual factors have, amongst others, contributed to the success of the northern bilingual program as compared to the Jerusalem based program.

Short notes on the school development and the physical setting 1) The Nisui School The bilingual school program in the Nisui School was established essentially without ‘due process’. According to the reports of parents, teachers and board members, the program was all but imposed on them as a result of the independent (one sided) decision of a school principal who left the school the year of the program got off the ground. One may consider the fact that the program’s fate may have been partially determined early on, as initiatives and their implementation need to evolve from deliberative activity that engages the support of all ‘shareholders’ in the process, be they parents, teachers, and school administrative staff. The experimental bilingual program was actually founded in the Nisui School, itself defined as an experimental school. The program was thus ‘an experiment’ within an experiment. The Nisui School however had a long and proud tradition, as the first experimental school in the country, very committed to the rhetoric of free choice and individual development and not necessarily contingent upon school achievement. Much of what parents, teachers and administration noted in the long interviews we conducted, and at the meetings we attended, related to the difficulties tensions and contradictions emerging from a situation in which an experimental school had added a new and partially uncoordinated experiment to its existing structure. For example it is sufficient to mention that in the conversations with different shareholders, all mentioned the incongruence between the experimental school’s ideology – namely the commitment to allow students to learn the subjects of their choice, at their own pace - and the educational ideology of

9

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

the bilingual program which was strongly committed to a curriculum in which all pupils learn both Arabic and Hebrew at the same time. The Nisui bilingual program was set up on the bottom floor of the Nisui school, itself situated in the central area of Jerusalem, as part of one of the two combined kindergarten, first and second grades divisions which were located in the area of the school. Each division was divided into three groups and each allotted a separate room, while all three groups shared a large common area. Both divisions also had access to a large playground where children from both divisions played during breaks. The bilingual project was implemented in one of the above sections. Access to the ‘bilingual division’ required that one walk through the other division, which continued to follow the ‘regular’ school curriculum. In our interviews, parents often compared what was going on in the different primary divisions. From a ‘geographic’ perspective, the bilingual program was thus very much a part of the wider school premises and goings on and it was difficult to envision the program as independent from all other school activities. One should consider the possibility that this was an additional factor creating frictions, which ultimately brought about the termination of the program at the Nisui School towards the end of the academic year. As will be discussed in the case of the Galil School below, although it may be financially expedient to establish bilingual ‘schools’ or programs within existing traditional schools, it is worth considering the fact that these programs may benefit from relative isolation or partial separation from central school premises, so that they may be allowed to evolve independently. From the administrative and pedagogic perspectives, mainstream teachers who had taught in the school prior to the implementation of the program (three in total plus an assistant teacher) directed the program at the Nisui School. It is important to note that the Jewish teachers did not speak Arabic at all. Two Arab teachers joined the staff, their salaries paid for by the CBE. This is an important point considering the fact that out of a total of 6 teachers, four were Jews and two Arabs. This stands in direct opposition to the CBE’s

10

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

expressed policy that there should be equal representation of both national groups in the educational personnel. The school director also acted as director of the bilingual program. It should be noted that there was no Arab principal or assistant principal and thus no Arabs were represented in the leadership of the school administration in direct opposition to the CBE guiding principals. The directors of the CBE and the school principal with the addition of Arab and Jewish parents served as the Steering Committee of the project. It is worth mentioning that out of the 53 students who participated in the program, 41 were regular students who had attended the Nisui school while 12 students came from a YMCA Jerusalem based kindergarten that had operated an Arab-Jewish bi-national program for the last few years. The program’s national breakdown of the student body was not symmetrical, as there was a majority of Jewish students. As stated above, if we consider the fact that the Nisui school parents felt that the bilingual program had been imposed on them without their approval and in addition, that the program was in a sense created as a partial solution for children attending the Arab-Jewish YMCA kindergarten, it becomes apparent that participation in the project as a whole entailed ongoing tensions. It should be added that the present school principal, who functioned as assistant principal during the first stages of the program planning the year before, felt that she was burdened with a misguided, unplanned and problematic program. She expressed the fact that although she may have shared in the program’s vision, she did not necessarily feel it was operational and workable in the context of the school at present. Once again it becomes clear that complex educational initiatives should ideally be implemented within contexts where all shareholders share common aims and expectations. Participation in the Nisui school in Jerusalem was as follows: a total of 22 Arab children out of which 13 were male and 9 female, 11 from Arab neighborhoods and 11 from Jewish neighborhoods; Jewish participation was as follows: a total of 31 Jewish children, 18 male and 13 female, 26 from Jerusalem neighborhoods, 4 from Mevaseret Zion, and 1 from Har Giloh.

11

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

2) The Galil School The Misgav School, the host of the Galil bilingual program is the regional National Jewish School in the Misgav area of the Galilee. The Misgav School offers classes from kindergarten through 12th grade. A few Arab students attend the school as well. As far as Arabic language and culture are concerned, the Misgav School offers one spoken Arab elective course. Jews are thus not required to study Arabic. The Galil bilingual school based within the above-mentioned Misgav Jewish school, stands in direct opposition to the Jerusalem based program described above. The initiative to create a bilingual school had been thought of well in advance of its implementation. Program implementation was carried out with great care and in affiliation with multiple future shareholders within the Arab and Jewish communities. All parents who registered their children for the first year of school did so with the specific purpose of participating in the experiment and all teachers were hired with the specific program in mind. The bilingual Galil program was situated within the Misgav School. However the bilingual Galil School was located in a partially separate and independent locale. A prefabricated set of classrooms, four in total (creating a rectangular shape) were set up with doors opening on to a closed and covered common yard which served as a playground for break time. The Galil children share another open playground with 1st-3rd graders from the Misgav School. The Galil program was also allocated a separate prefabricated house, which became the offices of the secretary and principals. On the side of the playground, there was one building allocated for blacksmith classes, which served the regular school activities, and that room was the only area directly connected to the regular Misgav School. Misgav high school students sometimes utilized one of the Galil School classrooms for Art class.

12

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

As far as staffing was concerned, although during the first year of the program the Misgav principal also functioned as the principal of the Galil bilingual school, it was clear from the start that an Arab assistant principal would be appointed in order to guarantee equal representation within the program administration. The assistant principal was finally hired towards the beginning of the second year of school activities. There were two teachers per classroom, one Arab and one Jewish. During the first year of activity there were three first grade teachers as it was the only bilingual class in the school at that time – two Arabs and one Jewish. The Galil bilingual school also had a Steering Committee but its composition was radically different from the one in Jerusalem. Participants included not only 2 parents from the P.T.A., CBE Directors and the school principal but, in addition, representatives from the Departments of Education of key Jewish and Arab villages in the area. Again as stated above, the Galil School offers a good example of the careful planning required when implementing a delicate initiative, alongside the benefits inherent in implementation within a nurturing context characterized by participants who view the program as both ideologically desirable and administratively under their control. Bi-national participation in the Galil School was as follows. There were a total of 28 Arab children,18 male, and 10 female. There were 9 males in each 1st and 2nd grades and 4 females in the 1st grade and 6 in 2nd grade. Demographically, the Arab children are divided as follows: 8 from Shaab, 18 from Sachnin and 2 from Kawkav. Jewish participation was as follows: 26 children in total, 12 males and 14 females. 5 males studied in the 1st grade and 7 studied in 2ndt grade. The Jewish children were demographically divided as follows: 2 from Shorashim, 5 from Rakefet, 5 from Yaad, 11 from Tuval, 1 from Avtalion, 1 from Camun and 1 from Pelech.

13

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

B) Analysis of quantitative data In the following sections of this interim report, we will briefly present results from the analyses performed on the quantitative data obtained from questionnaires and language tests. 1. Attitudes of parents At the beginning of the school year, parents of Arab and Jewish children at the two bilingual institutions (the Galil School in Misgav and the Nisui School in Jerusalem) were asked to complete a structured questionnaire dealing with their views about, and attitudes toward, their children’s participation in the program. The last section of the questionnaire dealt with the attitudes of the parents toward culture and cultural identity. Questionnaires were developed with the assistance of our consultant on Arab education and culture. The version administered to the Jewish parents was written in Hebrew; Arab parents could choose from a version in Hebrew or one in Arabic. The initial response rate was quite low. Parents complained that their involvement with educational planning and activities at the bilingual school is already very high. After a second round of contact, we reached a satisfactory rate of response: Approximately 50 parents from the Galil School and 50 from the Nisui School in Jerusalem completed the questionnaire; Arab and Jewish parents were almost equally represented. Although this number of parents represents a significant proportion of the total of parents at the two schools, the number of responses is relatively low for the purposes of statistical inference. It should also be noted that at this phase of the development of the bilingual schools in Israel, we are in fact examining

14

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

the whole population of parents (and children) involved in the programs and not a sample of a larger population. Therefore, we will present primarily descriptive data (means and frequencies), with relatively little reference to results from significance tests. Reasons In the first section of the questionnaire, parents were presented with a list of 10 possible reasons for sending their children to the bilingual school. The respondent was asked to indicate “the extent to which each of the reasons affected [your] decision to the send [your] child to this program”, on 5-point scale ranging from 1 (“no influence at all”) to 5 (“great influence”). The parents were then requested to choose, out of the 10 reasons, those who most affected their decision, and to rank them from 1 (“the most important”) to 4 (the least important). Tables 1 and 2 summarize the responses of parents to this section of the questionnaire.

15

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

Table 1: Reasons for sending child to bilingual school NATIONALITY Jew SITE Jerusalem Misgav Mean Mean Level of studies

Arab Group Total Mean

SITE Jerusalem Misgav Mean Mean

Group Total Mean

2.40

2.39

2.40

2.73

4.04

3.43

3.71 3.47

4.00 2.91

3.86 3.17

3.82 4.45

4.25 3.96

4.04 4.19

3.84

3.65

3.74

3.64

3.96

3.82

Commitment Coexistence

4.60

4.52

4.56

4.50

4.24

4.36

Friends in program

3.00

2.70

2.83

3.25

2.17

2.67

Unique and innovative

3.38

3.04

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.51

Strengthen Jewish/Arab identity

2.32

2.43

2.38

3.48

3.13

3.29

Know other's culture

4.20

4.43

4.33

3.64

3.92

3.79

Sensibility to "other"

4.62

4.57

4.59

4.18

3.72

3.94

Small classes Critical thinking Learn Hebrew/Arabic

16

Bilingual Education in Israel I.R. – 1/10/ 00 – Zvi Bekerman, Ph.D. & Gabriel Horenczyk, Ph.D.

Table 2: 1st and 2nd reasons for sending child to bilingual school SITE Jerusalem NATIONALITY Jew 1st reason % Level of studies Small classes Critical thinking Learn Hebrew/Arabic

Misgav NATIONALITY Arab

2nd reason %

1st reason %

4.8%

Jew 2nd reason %

1st reason %

Arab 2nd reason %

5.0% 21.7%

2nd reason %

32.0%

26.9%

4.0% 28.0%

11.5%

5.0%

14.3% 4.8%

35.0%

20.0%

5.0%

4.8%

10.0%

10.0%

8.7%

4.3%

8.0%

11.5%

Commitment coexistence

25.0%

33.3%

30.0%

25.0%

47.8%

8.7%

28.0%

15.4%

Friends in program

10.0%

10.0%

10.0%

8.7%

4.3%

Unique and innovative

15.0%

5.0%

4.3%

1st reason %

13.0%

Jewish/Arab identity

11.5% 7.7%

Know other's culture

15.0%

9.5%

sensibility to "other"

25.0%

28.6%

15.0% 15.0%

10.0%

13.0%

34.8%

7.7%

30.4%

7.7%

Based on the patterns of responses emerging from tables 1 and 2, and supported by results from a Principal Component Analysis (with Varimax rotation) performed on these data, we can identify two major categories of reasons (which do not exhaust all those listed in this section of the questionnaire): “ideological” reasons, and “educational” reasons. The first category included “commitment to coexistence”, “to know the others’ culture”, and “to increase sensitivity to the other”. The educational items are the first three: “high level of studies”, “small classes”, and “development of critical thinking”. Results show that Arab parents who send their children to the Galil School assigned much higher importance to the level of studies than the other three groups (significant interaction site X nationality, p