Critical Analysis of Hebrew Literature Curriculum for Arab Sector in Israel - Article Example

Critical Analysis of Hebrew Literature Curriculum for Arab Sector in Israel Abstract This paper analyses the paper “The portrayal of the Jewish Figure in Literary Texts Included in the Present Matriculation Curriculum in Hebrew for Students of the Arab Sector in Israel” written by Sara Zamir and Sara Hauphtman (2001). It was published in the Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS, volume 7. no. 1, pages 217 to 241), a Marxist radical left publication. Sara Zamir (affiliated with Ben-Gurion University, Eilat and Achva Academic College of Education) and Sara Hauphtman (Achva Academic College of Education) applied the capitalist’s neoliberalism framework in the discourse instead of critical pedagogy of the Marxist framework on education that takes into consideration class structure, class conflict, the working class and capitalism. The discussions on the Hebrew curriculum for Arab schools in Israel by Zamir and Hauphtman are analysed and presented in the light of the radical Marxist approach on education. Zionist Educational Policy and Curriculum The first curriculum for Arab schools was implemented in 1948 while the Israeli-Palestinian war was ongoing and military rule reigned over the territories occupied by the Arab minority (Zamir & Hauphtman 2001). The March 1975 curriculum approved by the Minister of Education has the objectives of imparting upon the students the cultural heritage of the Jews, literature aesthetics and awareness to social and cultural sensitivities. Although Arabic is considered one of the official languages in Israel, it is excluded in the curriculum as a subject in schools, and rather imposed Hebrew language upon Arab students. This non-use of Arabic language is justified on the ground of its diglossic nature. Hebrew Language is a compulsory requirement in all elementary and secondary Arab schools and in colleges where students aspire to become teachers. Linguistic concern is intertwined with the political and religious aspect of the Jewish existence, thus, there is a strong opposition on teaching Arabs Hebrew following the revivalism of the Hebrew language and nation (Zamir & Hauphtman 2001). Those in favor of teaching Hebrew to Arabs believe that it would allow the latter to learn Jewish culture, an important tool for written and oral communication and an important element in acquiring Israeli citizenship (Zamir & Hauphtman 2001). The school curriculum for studying Hebrew in secondary schools in the 1960s was “Hebrew Language and Literature Curriculum for Arab Secondary Schools: Grades 9 – 12” with three objectives (Zamir & Hauphtman 2001, p. 219). But it was only in 1972 that a secondary school curriculum was used approved by the Ministry of Education on March 24, 1975 and revised a year later and published in the special circular A of the director general (Sept. 1976). In the revised curriculum the language and culture of Jews will be taught for three years (Zamir & Hauphtman 2001). An Arab was appointed to supervise the implementation of this new curriculum, a part-time job until 1995 when the position became a full-time job. The supervisor has to train and induct new teachers, school visitation and curricula preparation. All curricula were aimed at civic and cultural objectives except for one which is purely literature-related. The curriculum included “folk tales, short stories, poetry and essays” from Hebrew literature in Spain (classical Hebrew) up to the present (Zamir & Hauphtman 2001, p. 221) while the 2006 curriculum contains literature theme with Arab-Israeli identity conflict. The latest curriculum outlined new objectives, which are: relative equal budgeting between Arab and Jewish education, lessen the academic gap between the two systems and removal of General Security Service restriction and intervention in Arab schools. However, Arab leaders view the program as dispossessing Arab students of their heritage and culture. Abu-Saad (2006, 2008, cited in Zamir & Hauphtman 2001) said that the curriculum approved by the state marginalise and exclude the development of the culture, identity and perspective of the Arab community which is criticised by Palestinian mentors. The “national education” curriculum is animated by the government’s political principles that have economic and social agenda as its ultimate goal, extending “beyond the controlled reproduction and re-validation of particular cultural forms and elites” (Zamir & Hauphtman, p. 224). Samucha (2001, cited in Zamir & Hauphtman 2001) mentioned the five factors outlined by Amara (2007) that foster the difference in Arab and Israel educational system, such as: a) the Israeli society is the dominant culture that structures the system according to its needs while the Arab is the minority defeated segment, b) the Israeli Arabs trace its roots to Palestinians and seen as loyal to them, c) Islamic influences extend beyond the lifestyle to politics, d) it remains a security issue the existing link of Arabs in Israel with Palestinians, and e) the Zionist ideology espoused that Israel is for Jews with the language and institutions structured according to Jewish needs. Seeing the Arabs as a “hostile minority” necessitated restriction of their education, movement and assembly (Baumel, 2002, cited it Zamir & Hauphtman 2001, p. 218). Violence and despotism are initiated by the oppressors and tyrants but when the oppressed and exploited react to the injustice received, the latter are easily branded as “violent,” “barbaric,” “wicked,” or “ferocious” (Freire Chapter 1 1970 para. 37). Arabs were presented with negative connotation in Hebrew school textbooks. The analytical framework used by Zamir & Hauphtman (2001) narrowed down to the content analysis of the Hebrew literature using quantitative and qualitative approaches with the following components: a) the image of the Jew, b) religious Jewish narrative, c) national Jewish narrative, and d) Jewish-Arab relationships. Basing on the content analysis, the authors laid out their premises, discussion and conclusion. They, however, admitted that the imposition of the Hebrew culture and literature deprived the Arab children of their own cultural roots and heritage. The imposition of the Jewish culture and history upon Arab students subscribes to the “banking” concept of education wherein “students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat” whatever the teacher presents to them and real communication is absent (Freire Chapter 2 1970, para. 5). Students are deprived the opportunity to develop creativity, transformation and knowledge (Freire Chapter 2 1970). The banking concept of education views students as manageable individuals and creates in them passivity, minimising creativity and at the same time stimulating credulity that would serve the interests of the dominating oppressors (Freire Chapter 2 1970). Thus, students “simply … adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them” (Freire Chapter 2 1970, para. 9). When education is employed to dominate and indoctrinate students to comply with the "world of oppression,” credulity is enhanced among the students (Freire Chapter 2 1970, para. 26). The authors recognise the need to uncover the themes behind the imposition of a particular curriculum coupled by critical questioning on who wins or loses and employment of educational activism to thwart inequality in the educational system as suggested by Hill (2009, cited in Zamir & Hauphtman). However, the authors failed to utilise a radical approach in the analysis of the Hebrew curriculum for Arab schools. The authors mentioned that using content analysis revealed that the textbooks in the 1950s and 1960s were intended to promote “national collective identity by embeddings narratives concerning the values of Zionism and collectivism,” and in recent decades manifested a focus on individuals and humanistic values (Zamir 2006, cited in Zamir & Hauphtman 2001, p. 225). They also utilised the theory of literary criticism wherein values are instilled by literature to the reader and shapes one’s identity and which has three approaches: a) historical-documentary approach (provides information on people, culture, historical periods), b) moral-ideological approach (instills ideals and values), and c) the socio-national approach (instills love and loyalty for people, country and fatherland) (Feingold 1977, cited in Zamir & Hauphtman). Neoliberalism in Education The authors lightly mentioned the cogitation analysis of Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977, cited in Zamir & Hauphtman 2001) that puts emphasis on the role of education in perpetuating the existing social division. However, more is required in exploring the utilisation of education in serving the interest of the ruling capitalist. The curriculum is used to inculcate upon Arab students their targeted role in the future of providing labour and service for the huge business conglomerates. One strategy to attain this is the imposition of the Hebrew culture and literature to the secondary students. This detached the students from their cultural roots. Further control by the government is manifested by controlling the teachers themselves to follow strictly the government-imposed curriculum. Through this control, critical pedagogy is virtually absent in Arab campuses. The teachers are not allowed to criticise and improve upon the curriculum that they think would better create critical minds among the students. With neoliberalism, teacher’s training is geared on skills development rather than the development of a critical mind and analysing the rationale of the “curriculum, pedagogy, educational purposes and structures and the effects these have on reproducing capitalist economy, society and politics” (Hill & Boxley Detheorized Teacher 2007, para. 1). Under this educational structure, the teachers cannot utilise media (e.g. film, multimedia) which has a great role in the promotion of multicultural pedagogy that would enhance active interaction with the different racial and national concerns, with the teacher understanding the uniqueness of each student (Carson & Friedman 1995). This ideological approach is an affront to teachers whose autonomy in decision-making is attacked (McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004, p. 133). According to Fromm (1966, cited in Freire Chapter 1 1970), total domination of an individual transforms a person from animate into an inanimate being, depriving one of freedom which is an important essence of quality life. The neoliberalist approach to education subscribes to the wider agenda of transforming education as a tool of capitalism. Thus, the school becomes a ground to maintain the control of the ruling capitalist elite over the working class and the proletariat. Education plays a role in the bigger agenda of neoliberalism to expand the tentacles of capitalism globally (Cole 1998; Smyth & Shatlock 1998; Ainley 1999, 2000; McMurtry 1999; McLaren 2000; Rikowski 2000, 2001a, b, 2002a, b; Hatcher & Hirtt 1999; Hatcher 2001, cited in Hill & Boxley 2007). Neoliberalism considers education as part of the market with the aim of profit-making, enhanced by the “parental choice” of parents from among the available schools and “Business Agenda in Education” (Hatcher 2001; Molnar 1999, 2001; Hill 2001b; Rikowski 2001a, b, c, 2002a, cited in Hill & Boxley Critical Teacher Education 2007, para. 3). Included in the globalisation effort of education is the privatisation of schools and reduction of subsidy by the state (Hill 2003). The United Kingdom and the US capitalist class promotes a) Business Plan for Education (aimed at producing labour-power or capacity to labour for capitalist organisations), b) Business Plan in Education (setting business ‘free’ in education to amass profit) and c) Business Plan for Educational Businesses (plan of Edubusinesses in the US and UK to gain from global privatisation (Hill 2003). Hill (2003) mentioned of the governments of UK, US, New Zealand and Australia marketising the school systems in their jurisdictions, thus, contributing further inequalities among the social classes. Values and interests that uphold business concerns replaced democratic accountability and collective voice within the educational systems. This is reflected in UKs national and transnational private companies that own and operate state schools as well as educational services in the local government (Hatcher & Hirtt 1999; Hatcher 2001, 2002, cited in Hill 2003). Corollary to such focused control on education are the imposition of instructional programs and militarisation of high school campuses (McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004). Hill (2002, cited in McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004) noted that the increase in “globalization, businessification, and militari(s)ation of social life” was consented in developed capitalist countries (p. 133). This has led to a restructured teaching approach that detheorised “teacher education research” (Hill 2002, cited in McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004, p. 137). The new conservative approach applied for aspiring teachers puts more importance on “technical and managerial skills” instead of the development of critical and inquisitive minds over the curriculum content, “pedagogy, educational purposes and structures and the effects these have on reproducing capitalist economy, society and politics” (McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004, pp. 136-37). According to McMurtry (1991, cited in Hill 2003), profit is accumulated in a system of appropriation that forbids others from possessing it, and the greater the accumulation by one corporation, the greater number of people are excluded from sharing of the wealth. On the contrary, education should be shared without exclusion and interference by private profit, and the more it is shared, the greater that others will have access to it (Hill 2003). Learning that is not transferred is considered as lost and wasted (Hill 2003). Marxist Educational Perspective Marxist theory maintains that the social structure is maintained by the ruling elite for profit and control of the means of production. Social transformation is achievable through class struggle and education is an agent for this change. Change must be grounded on social and economic forces and outside of religious or sectarian influences. The educational curriculum in Arab occupied territories follows Israel’s objective of fostering its identity as a religious nation that rose up from biblical Israel. Therefore, governmental policies whether in the sphere of politics or education are tainted with religious advocacy and objectives. Education molds the minds of the people. In order for the people to evolve and imbibe critical thinking, education should attain freedom of thought within the school campus. Government intrusion upon the curriculum of schools stifles critical thought that would correlate to freedom of individuals. Education is a tool of transforming society and addressing the greater societal contradictions (McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004) Hill (2000, cited in McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004) emphasises the invaluable role of teachers as agents of social change who would work and advocate for a democratic, anti-authoritarian society and anti-capitalist transformation of society. Hill and Boxley (2007) mentioned that potential radical teachers are politically neutralised from the onset of their induction into the education system, thus, hampering the development of “teacher-intellectuals” who will undertake counter-hegemonic activities in the future (para. 6). The national curricula imposed by the government, and wherein teachers are selected and trained to impart information based merely on pre-determined curricula makes the teachers as tools of the state for the perpetuation of the political agenda and existing social structure. Zamir and Hauphtman’s (2001) admitted that while textbooks impart norms and values, they also convey myths and stereotypes which textbooks Apple (1979, cited in Zamir & Hauphtman 2001) said are “perceived to be true and objective even though they tend to reflect the mere interests of the hegemonic ideology” (p. 225). The contents of textbooks are selected by a board that decides which information or value should be included or excluded, thus, constructing the social reality that the students should absorb according to the agenda of the government (Zamir & Hauphtman 2001). Paula (2000, cited in Zamir & Hauphtman 2001) said that a radical egalitarian teacher education can secure economic and social justice by kindling education in fuelling the “flames of resistance to global capitalism as well as the passion for socialist transformation” not only locally but globally (Hill & Boxley Critical Teacher Education 2007, para. 1). The concept of Marx on class is an important factor to counter the neoliberal and neoconservative moves that relegates education as an accessory to capitalist interest of acquiring more profits (Kelsh & Hill, 2006). The neoliberal educational framework pushes for a system and structure working under the much broader international dictates of capital-based privatisation of education at the expense of the working proletariat (Hill 2003). Looking at education under the lens of neoliberalism, teachers as part of labour “are the most dangerous of workers because they have a special role in shaping, developing and forcing the single commodity on which the whole capitalist system rests: labour-power” (Rikowski 2001, cited in Hill Education 2003, para. 1). Labour-power creates surplus-value at a certain point which is the basis for the existence of capital (Hill 2003). Neoliberalism and its manifestation, “Global Capital,” resulted to inequalities in social classes, inhumanity and degradation of the environment (Hill The Growth 2003, para. 1). Only those possessing the cultural and economic capital have the positional leverage in quasi-market of education (Hill 2003). Globalisation widens the inequality between the rich and Third World countries (e.g. per capita wealth gap is 470-500:1 in 2002, from 5:1 in 1900 and 7:1 in 1970) (Myoshi, 2002, cited in Hill 2003). It is sad to note that 300 million people survive on a measly one dollar a day (Hill 2003). The availability of markets for education worsens the current inequality as exemplified by the governments of UK, US, Australia and New Zealand that have “marketized their school systems” (Hill The Growth 2003, para. 2). There is a hierarchy of universities for the elite (charging top-up fees) and the poor while state subsidy for schools was wiped out upon the dictation of World Bank and IMF (Hill 2003). Hill (2003) accurately pointed out that education is not a commodity in the market that can be subjected to purchase. John McMurtry (1991, cited in Hill 2003) said that education and the capitalist market exist on different planes with contradicting goals, motivations, methods and standards of excellence. Indeed, education has been increasingly commodified and subordinated to capitalist demands as manifested in several studies. Marxist philosophy views "education industry" as a mode from which the state perpetuates drawing out of "surplus value" and inequality and is associated with inequality in the educational system (Greaves, Hill, & Maisuria 2007, para. 1). McLaren and Baltodano (2000, cited in Hill and Boxley 2007) said that education realigns its system in accordance with global capitalism to consolidate control and as a result, certification of teachers will become a regular process. The schools play a role in this process through the “corporate managerialisation of teacher education” (Hill and Boxley 2007, para. 7). Capitalisation of education can be gleaned from the franchising of operations of universities in UK with schools situated in other geographical locations and exporting public services by the government through consultancies (e.g. restructuring educational system) through the University of Schools of Education (in UK) to countries such as Chile, Poland and Romania (Hill 2003). According to Hill and Boxley (2007), capitalism’s influence on education policy is manifest in detheorising teacher education that eliminates critical and independent thinking among the teachers. This is illustrated in UK government’s Standards Agenda that prefer teachers not attached to the backwardness of the 1970s and 1980s ideological perspectives (Hill and Boxley 2007). The class concept offered by Marxist philosophy is an essential tool in warding off the neoliberal and neoconservative grips upon education that reduces it as a commodity in the capitalist market (Kelsh & Hill 2006). Some theorists, serving the capitalist interests, transformed the “Marxist concept of class to a descriptive term by culturalizing it - pluralizing it and cutting its connection to the social relations of exploitation that are central to capitalism” (Kelsh & Hill 2006, para. 1). Freedom in education denotes “freedom to question, and to seek answers, whether it offends people’s self-gratification or not” (Hill Standards of Freedom 2003, para. 1). Marxist ideology viewed class as intertwined with social interaction and relationships of the capitalist system involving labour and capital in production in conjunction with the concept of property (Kelsh & Hill 2006 Marx, para. 2). In congruence with the Marxist principles, Hill and Boxley (2007) mentioned the generally accepted principles for education among the various Radical Left groups, namely: a) great increase in equality of outcome, b) comprehensive grant (no selective grant), c) education is managed by the community, and d) the government plays a role to attain a “socially just (defined as egalitarian), anti-discriminatory society” (para. 3). Critical Pedagogy and Student Engagement The teacher utilises rationale transformation of students whereby the latter learn empirically and critically that paves the way for the transformation of society (McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004). This educational framework aimed at the development of critical reasoning defies the “capitalization of subjectivity” referred by Paula Allman (Marxist educator) as “revolutionary critical pedagogy” (McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004, p. 139). Education as seen under critical pedagogy is one that is sympathetic to the abused poor people in society (McLaren, Martin, Farahmandpur & Jaramillo 2004). The critical approach as that of engaging in analytical assessment without partiality (Collins Dictionary 1997) is relevant in educational theory. Critical pedagogy demands collective social action that would uphold justice and equality (Burbules & Berk 1999). Curriculum under critical pedagogy can never be neutral and has political undertones (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery & Taubman 1996). However, critical pedagogy is not a single uniform set of ideas confined in a single school of learning (Giroux & McLaren 1995). It is a reaction of the education sector to the unequal power relations and oppression existent in the educational system. Freire pushes for a pedagogy that opposes authoritarianism (McLaren 2000) wherein socio-political criticism is the focal point of the curriculum. Education is not merely concerned with transmission of knowledge but more importantly, the production of knowledge that reflects the reality for the student through collective and collaborative effort (Freire 1973). Pedagogy may be generally described as an approach aimed at affecting the transmission and creation of knowledge in a specific social group (Giroux & Simon 1989). Since learning presupposes an exchange, pedagogy then involves production of knowledge done in accordance with identified goals for classroom learning. Pedagogical framework, Simon (1987) argued, is always intertwined with politics and should propose a political vision grounded on morality wherein students should persistently struggle against the unfair power relations. A relevant pedagogy is not a mere abstract theory that has no social application (Gore 1992). The teacher then has to devise appropriate approaches for specific context of students for them to experience constructive learning experiences (Gore 1992). According to Ellsworth (1992), theorists that support critical pedagogy have not successfully provided relevant analysis with a program that aims to modify the existing imbalance in power structures. With engagement of teachers and students, education allows for a “pedagogy of knowing” where the student undergoes the process of becoming (Freire 1984, p. 57). Thus, the evaluation and analysis should be liberating and does not dehumanise the student (Freire 1984). Inclusion of students in the formulation of criteria for assessing their learning enhances the critical transformation of students in their daily experiences (Simon 1992). Through dialogue, both teachers and students can reflect on what they know and do not know that pave the way for critical transformation of reality (Shor & Freire 1987). Students can very well contribute to the generation assessment criteria that concern their learning experiences. Knowing the evaluation requirements that affect their progress, students will have more autonomy, thus, equalising the power relations between teachers and students. Conclusion Education provides an individual the leverage in finding a place in society and everyone should have equal access to it without any discrimination. In the Marxist point of view, education should not be equated with commodity in the marketplace that can be purchased only by those who possess the required financial resources. Restriction on access to education restricts access and expansion of knowledge. Teachers should be free to expound on theories and researches in order to expand the knowledge base and inculcate and develop critical minds among the students. However, Marxism faces an adversary that threatens the democratic access to education – the ideology of neoliberalism. The influence of neoliberalism in various jurisdictions increases with the support of governments and private companies. It relegates education to the level of a commodity with a price. The topped-up fees required by schools for courses make them available only to those who can afford to pay. This hampered collegiate or higher studies of students. The Marxist philosophical approach is a potent tool in counteracting the expanding grasp of neoliberalism on education in every level. Education has become a simple commodity in the marketplace under neoliberalism. With the marketisation of education, wealth is amassed and consolidated among large private corporations. Commensurate with the increase in wealth is the increase in influence and control of these corporations within the state. Thus, it is the logical action of the government to issue laws and policy measures that favour private corporations running the educational system. The government then acts in cohort with the private corporations in pursuance of the objectives of globalisation and marketisation of education. This can be seen in the exportation of the educational system to underdeveloped countries. The state government plays a role in the neoliberalisation functions through the control of the system of education as well as the teachers’ mode of teaching. Teachers are placed according to specific hierarchy and categories that create sub-groups among the teachers. Teachers are made to comply with the technical requirement instead of research-driven mentorship. They become mere clerks with the increasing corporatisation of the schools and educational system as in the case of the US (Aronowitz & Giroux 1993). The control of curricula restricts the free, critical and open discussion and thinking within campuses and classrooms. Suppression of critical thinking is more advantageous to private organisations running these universities and colleges in furthering their agenda. It is apparent in universities wherever they are situated offering courses and degrees that supply manpower to capitalist corporations. Private corporations owning the schools and universities collaborate with the capitalist firms in order to tailor their curricula that would eventually supply the firms the needed manpower. State control over education is increasingly shown by the policy guidelines implemented by the government. In general, the National Education programme is the concrete manifestation of this policy wherein there is total control of the educational system, the curricula, the discussions within the classroom, the accreditation and licensing of the teachers, the training programmes for teachers, and who should teach in the Arab schools. This is facilitated by putting Arab schools under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education. Having control over the Arab schools relegated Arabic students in a specific class or category within the Hebrew society. Stripping them of their cultural heritage, the students are being prepared to be mere tools of production of the capitalist organisations in Israel, obedient to the dictates of those in power. By viewing all Palestinians in Israel as “hostile minority” makes them low-class citizens whose freedom to learn and develop critical minds are restricted. Everyone has the right to education according to one’s predisposition without external control from the state which only serves the global neoliberal philosophy. The fundamentals of trade and militarisation of social life support and benefit from each other in order to supplant the common welfare, social justice and democracy (Giroux 2006). The widening control of the capitalist upon education and its commodification has been concretely supported by scholarly documentation (Hill 2003). Participation of several governments in the privatisation and deregulation of public services (e.g. health care, education, social services) through mandated programmes transferred these services to private institutions (Kaplan 2002, cited in Hill 2003). These policy measures include assimilation of education into the agenda of the World Trade Organisation (38 members, with US, UK and New Zealand at the forefront, have already signified free entry of educational services from other countries) (Kaplan 2002, cited in Hill 2003). Neoliberalism is the most potent theoretical framework that undermines democracy, critical thinking and educational institutions as bastion of democratic principles (Giroux 2006). Neoliberalism then creates profit-driven and individualistic persons that seek only material gain (Giroux 2006). It views the market as the basis for socio-economic and political actions, and everything else should be utilised for profit (Giroux 2006). Investment in knowledge is viewed as capital, not as a mode to attain justice and freedom (Giroux 2006). The privatisation of politics results to selling of educational facilities to private organisations in order to cope up with crisis (Giroux 2006). The authoritarian approach of neoliberalism disrupts the basic values in society and critical engagement while fostering hatred and intolerance (Giroux 2006). Education becomes important only if it serves the elite controlling the political and economic machinery (Giroux 2006). Freire (Chapter 1 1970) commented that violence starts from individuals who failed to regard others as persons. The oppressed that react to oppression are viewed by the oppressor as “subversives,” “barbaric,” “ferocious,” etc. (Freire Chapter 1 1970, para. 37). Imposing a uniform curriculum by the Israeli government for all inhabitants of the territory fails to recognise the ethnic diversity of residents, with several of them either Muslims or Christian Palestinians. The public space does not take into consideration the cultural diversity and social concerns but instead limits its focus on the security of the state. The educational programme in Israel limits the knowledge acquisition and production of knowledge. Reduction of critical space, Rikowski argued, that allows criticism within schools reduces students to mere technicist who do not evaluate and question society (Hill 2003). Under this setup, the opportunity to critique society inside school campuses is narrowed down (Hill 2001a, 2003b; Boxley 2003; Ball 1999, cited in Hill 2003) and in Israel, non-existent. While state-funded schools should be at the forefront in instilling democratic principles (Gutmann 1999; Macedo 1995), a country in constant war seems hard pressed implementing this policy. Teachers then should have the strong commitment in fostering democracy amid such situation. However, in a state like Israel where the curriculum for teacher education is restricted, student teachers are not harnessed for such critical pedagogy role. Education should be geared towards tolerance to differing cultures through exposure to diverse values (Macedo 1995). With the political agenda of the Israeli government focused primarily on state survival and patriotism, its educational system cannot foster tolerance, democratic values and critical education. Teachers cannot play the role suggested by Giroux (2002) of creating spaces for resistance in public schools that would enhance social sensitivity and democratic principles. Civic equality would resist marginalisation of some groups and individuals. The ideal objective should be the radicalisation of education that would hinder attempts to impair public spaces by a belligerent government which is primarily concerned with security matters. Security matters should be handled by the military component of the government without impinging on the educational system. While Giroux (2002) strongly supports the struggle of public educational system to maintain democracy in times of war, in an educational system with complete government control, the teachers would be powerless to introduce reform that would uphold democracy. References Aronowitz S & Giroux HA, 1993. Education Still under Siege, 2nd edition. Giroux HA & Freire P (eds), Bergin & Garvey: Wesport, Connecticut, London. Questia Media America. Available from: . [Accessed 23 August 2009]. Burbules N & Berk R 1999. Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: Relations, Differences and Limits. In T. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (eds.), Critical Theories in Education: Changing Terrains of Knowledge and Politics, pp. 45-65. New York: Routledge. Carson, Diane, and Lester D. Friedman 1995. Shared Differences. Multicultural Media & Practical Pedagogy. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Collins New English Dictionary 1997. Great Britain: HarperCollins. Ellsworth E 1992. Why doesn’t this feel Empowering? Working through the Repressive Myths of Critical Pedagogy. In C. Luke & J. Gore (eds.), Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy, pp. 90-119. New York: Routledge. Freire P 1970. Chapters 1 and 2. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Transcribed by Dominic Tweedie. Continuum Publishing Company. Available from: . [Accessed 7 September 2009]. Freire P. 1973. Education: The Practice of Freedom. London: Writers and Readers. Giroux HA 2002. Democracy, Freedom, and Justice after September 11th: Rethinking the Role of Educators and the Politics of Schooling,” The Teachers College Record 104, no. 6, pp. 1138-62. Giroux HA, 2006 February 11. Cultural Studies in Dark Times: Public Pedagogy and the Challenge of Neoliberalism. firgoa. universidade publica - espazo comunitario. Available from: . [Accessed 31 August 2009]. Giroux H & McLaren P 1995. Radical Pedagogy as Cultural Politics: Beyond the Discourse of Critique and Anti-utopianism. In P. McLaren (ed.), Pedagogy, Culture and the Body. London: Routledge. Giroux H & Simon R 1989. Popular Culture and Critical Pedagogy: Everday Life as a Basis for Curriculum Knowledge. In H. Giroux & P. McLaren (eds.), Critical Pedagogy, the State, and Cultural Struggle. New York: SUNY. Gore J 1992. What we can do for you! What can “we” do for “you”?: Struggling over Empowerment in Critical and Feminist Pedagogy. In C. Luke & J. Gore (eds.), Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy, pp. 54-73. New York: Routledge. Greaves NM, Hill D, & Maisuria A 2007 May. Embourgeoisment, Immiseration, Commodification - Marxism Revisited: a Critique of Education in Capitalist Systems. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), vol. 5. no. 1. ISSN 1740-2743. Available from: . [Accessed 8 September 2009]. Gutmann A 1999. Democratic Education. Princeton University Press. Hill D 2003 March. Global Neo-Liberalism, the Deformation of Education and Resistance. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, Volume 1, Number 1. ISSN 1740-2743. Available from: . [Accessed 5 August 2009]. Hill D and Boxley S 2007 November. Critical Teacher Education for Economic, Environmental and Social Justice: an Ecosocialist Manifesto. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies. Volume 5, Number 2, ISSN 1740-2743. Available from: . [Accessed 31 July 2009]. Kelsh D & Hill D 2006 March. The Culturalization of Class and the Occluding of Class Consciousness: The Knowledge Industry in/of Education. Journal for Critical Education Policy. . Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies Volume 4, Number 1 (March 2006) ISSN 1740-2743 Macedo S 1995. Liberal Civic Education and Religious Fundamentalism: The Case of God v. John Rawls?” Ethics vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 468-96. McLaren P 2000. Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of Possibility. In S. Steiner, H. Krank, P. McLaren, & R. Bahruth (eds.), Freirean Pedagogy, Praxis and Possibilities: Projects for the New Millennium, pp. 1-22. New York & London: Falmer Press. McLaren P, Martin G, Farahmandpur R & Jaramillo N 2004 Winter. Teaching in and against the Empire: Critical Pedagogy as Revolutionary Praxis. Teacher Education Quarterly. pp. 131-153. Available from: . [Accessed 8 August 2009]. Pinar W, Reynolds W, Slattery P & Taubman M 1996. Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. New York: Peter Lang. Shor I & Freire P 1987. A Pedagogy for Liberation. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey. Simon R 1987. Empowerment as a Pedagogy of Possibility. Language Arts, vol. 64 no. 4, pp. 370-382. Simon R 1992. Teaching Against the Grain. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Studies. Volume 4, Number 1. ISSN 1740-2743. Available from: . [Accessed 3 August 2009]. Zamir S & Hauphtman S 2009 June. The portrayal of the Jewish figure in Literary Texts Included in the Present Matriculation Curriculum in Hebrew for Students of the Arab Sector in Israel. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), vol. 7. no. 1, pp. 217 to 241. Available from: . [Accessed 31 July 2009]. Read More