Search

Israeli students ranked in the bottom third of the countries surveyed by PISA 2012 in mathematical literacy, while the gap between the highest and lowest scores was the second largest in the OECD. This paper explores which variables led to disparities in mathematical literacy between different socioeconomic levels and between Israeli Arabs and Jews as well as in comparison with Australian students. Different instructional approaches that are known in the literature to have a positive impact on students' achievement are not observed in the relationship between teachers and students in Israel. In Israel, schools contribute to the perpetuation of socioeconomically driven educational inequality by using tracks that are characterised by different teaching pedagogies and different "content," with little or no upward mobility between tracks, leading to structural exclusion. By comparison, in Australia, ability tracking is less rigid and mathematical literacy far higher than in Israel. The policy implication is that either teachers must work differently in a track-based system to overcome the process of exclusion dictated by the structure itself or the system must reduce the use of tracking.

The aim of this study was to investigate attitudes of teachers towards a pedagogy of inclusion in their classroom, focusing on differences between teachers in schools with lower socioeconomic status (SES) populations and those in schools with more affluent students, and between homeroom as opposed to subject teachers. Our study population consisted of 214 teachers from Jewish secondary schools (7th through 12th grade) in Israel's state school system. The schools surveyed were classified by socioeconomic level (high, intermediate, or low). The study demonstrates that teachers in low-SES schools report more inclusive attitudes and behaviour than do teachers in high-SES schools. Another key finding was that homeroom teachers self-report greater inclusiveness than do subject teachers. This finding is very important for the Israeli high school system, since subject teachers constitute roughly 70% of its teaching personnel, whereas students engage with homeroom teachers, on average, no more than 10% of their time in school. In the context of exclusive practices, we found a lack of differentiation between various types of behavioural problems: teachers responded to aggressive or disruptive behaviour in the same manner as they would handle disengagement, truancy, or learning avoidance. Finally, with regard to the form of punishment imposed by schools, a common response encountered in this study was the withholding of remedial instruction in response to problematic behaviour.

The authors of this article describe an essential feature of inclusive educational practice: "non-abandonment". When students' needs and difficult behavior are overwhelming, teachers may abandon them emotionally as a defensive reaction to their own experience of emotional distress and helplessness. Non-abandonment represents a constructive strategy for dealing with these students based on the psychodynamic concepts of containing and holding. The authors provide a theoretical grounding for the processes of abandonment and non-abandonment, and then illustrate how these two processes play themselves out in school practice, drawing on action research conducted with educators in Israeli schools. They then describe eight elements in an active strategy of non-abandonment. These are: (1) make a conscious choice to assume professional responsibility for these students; (2) "stand by" students whose behaviour leads others to abandon them; (3) reframe self-defeating ways of thinking to open new avenues for action; (4) attempt to understand students' real needs, including emotional ones; (5) adapt teaching practice to meet these needs, even going beyond traditional pedagogy; (6) create school frameworks in which teachers can systematically reflect on and improve practice; (7) address teachers' emotional needs by making their own negative feelings openly discussable; and (8) promote teamwork and supportive relations among school faculty based on honest feedback and mutual non-abandonment.

Teachers face a dilemma in setting limits and establishing boundaries with excluded students, who often exhibit extremely disruptive behavior that cannot be ignored or condoned. Since limit-setting through threats, sanctions, punishment, or expulsion simply reinforces the cycle of exclusion, the alternative approach presented here is to treat the breaching of boundaries as a developmental rather than a moral issue. Benevolent authority and empathic limit-setting, which lie at the core of this method, involve understanding and tending to the needs of the young person while at the same time clearly defining the necessary boundaries and positively reinforcing students for maintaining them. The transition from power struggle to empathic limit-setting entails both a turning point in which problematic incidents are essentially reframed, and emotional awareness on the part of teachers of their own inner turmoil in response to such situations. To the extent that teachers can exercise their authority without punishing or humiliating their students, they provide a holding environment in which excluded students feel stable and secure enough to develop their own internal authority. This paper is based on action research carried out with teachers in an MEd program in inclusive education at the Oranim Academic College of Education in Israel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]