Report Highlights Systemic Failures in Israeli Education, Calls for Reform

A recent review by Professor Ami Moyal, prompted by a dispute between the Ministry of Education and the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation (RAAMa), has revealed significant structural flaws within Israel's education system. While the report found no factual basis to question the reliability of student test results, it identified systemic issues concerning the division of responsibilities, authorities, and decision-making processes. The review suggests improvements are needed in coordination, reducing the time it takes to publish results, and adapting information for the system's needs. Crucially, the report emphasizes that the education system cannot continue to be managed through disputes over data rather than policy based on that data.

One key recommendation is to legislate RAAMa's professional independence, a move first decided upon in 2007 but not yet completed. This would ensure the body responsible for measuring educational achievements can publish its findings, even when inconvenient for the ministry. The report stresses that publishing professional findings should not be contingent on the Ministry of Education's approval, framing it as a matter of public accountability and transparency.

The report also calls for a re-examination of how performance levels in tests are defined. While acknowledging the need for professional discussion on required knowledge and skills, it warns against redefining levels solely to present a more favorable picture without genuine learning improvements. Any redefinition must be professional, transparent, and based on essential skills, considering international benchmarks. The report clarifies that a basic proficiency threshold should identify students needing support, not a target for the system to settle for, aiming instead to advance all students to higher achievements.

Beyond RAAMa's independence, the report recommends establishing a National Council for Measurement and Evaluation Policy to ensure continuity and strategy. However, the author, Dr. Michal Tvivian-Mizrachi, argues for a broader approach: a National Council for Education to formulate long-term policy, ensure professional continuity, and align educational goals with resources and responsibilities. She cautions that a council solely for measurement could lead to measurement driving the system, rather than pedagogical vision and goals.

Tvivian-Mizrachi concludes that the education system requires clear national direction, multi-year planning, and the capacity for deep changes that extend beyond single political terms. True educational leadership, she states, is measured not by presenting a convenient picture, but by confronting difficult realities, setting ambitious goals, and mobilizing the entire system to achieve them, ultimately aiming to change reality rather than just its reflection.