“Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System: A contextual analysis of a policy-making process Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 10/10/2018 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 2/19/2019 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 5/10/2019 Special Issue Globalization, Privatization, Marginalization: Assessing Connections in/through Education education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 27 Number 124 October 14, 2019 ISSN 1068-2341 “Glocalisation” Doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System: A Contextual Analysis of a Policy-making Process Yuval Dvir & Claire Maxwell University College London United Kingdom & Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University Israel Citation: Dvir, Y., Maxwell, C., & Yemini, M. (2019). “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System: A contextual analysis of a policy-making process. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(124). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4274 This article is part of a special issue, Globalization, Privatization, Marginalization: Assessing Connections in/through Education, Part 1, guest edited by D. Brent Edwards and Alex Means. Abstract: In 2016, the Israeli Ministry of Education (MoE) issued a policy document recommending six new doctrines for pedagogical development at schools. Amid those is ‘Glocalism’, aimed at addressing the global/local mix within the schooling system. Given the lack of a declared internationalization policy in Israel and its highly nationalistic curricula, this direction may constitute a first attempt by the MoE to internationalize school curricula. Public participation, including third-sector organizations actors, constituted a fundamental element in the development of this policy. Examining why this is, and what impact it had on how internationalization was conceived of is critical in this era of pluri-scalar policy-making. Our findings highlight the crucial role played by various non-governmental actors in this process. We http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4274 Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 2 also reveal that certain voices were in effect silenced – whether from marginalized constituencies or those suggesting directions contradicting the MoE’s intentions. The policy offers a vague definition for ‘Glocalism’, which appears to eliminate possibilities for marginalizing those communities who feel most challenged by this policy move. Yet, this open-endness in the conceptualization of internationalization is likely to further increase current inequalities within the education system. We argue that such public participation processes can therefore easily become pseudo-participatory, marginalizing and excluding particular constituents. Keywords: education policy; glocalisation; public participation; global citizenship Doctrina de la “glocalización” en el sistema de educación pública israelí: Un análisis contextual de un proceso de formulación de políticas Resumen: En 2016, el Ministerio de Educación de Israel (MoE) emitió un documento de política recomendando seis nuevas doctrinas para el desarrollo pedagógico en las escuelas. En medio de ellos se encuentra el “Glocalismo”, destinado a abordar la mezcla global / local dentro del sistema escolar. Dada la falta de una política de internacionalización declarada en Israel y sus planes de estudio altamente nacionalistas, esta dirección puede constituir un primer intento por parte del Ministerio de Educación de internacionalizar los planes de estudio escolares. La participación pública, incluidos los actores de organizaciones del tercer sector, constituyó un elemento fundamental en el desarrollo de esta política. Examinar por qué es esto y qué impacto tuvo en cómo se concibió la internacionalización es fundamental en esta era de formulación de políticas pluriescalares. Nuestros hallazgos resaltan el papel crucial desempeñado por varios actores no gubernamentales en este proceso. También revelamos que ciertas voces fueron silenciadas, ya sea de grupos marginados o de aquellos que sugieren direcciones que contradicen las intenciones del Ministerio de Educación. La política ofrece una definición vaga de “Glocalismo”, que parece eliminar las posibilidades de marginar a las comunidades que se sienten más desafiadas por este movimiento político. Sin embargo, es probable que esta apertura en la conceptualización de la internacionalización aumente aún más las desigualdades actuales dentro del sistema educativo. Argumentamos que tales procesos de participación pública pueden, por lo tanto, fácilmente convertirse en pseudo-participativos, marginando y excluyendo constituyentes particulares. Palabras clave: política educativa; glocalización; participación pública; ciudadania global Doutrina da “glocalização” no sistema de ensino público israelense: Uma análise contextual de um processo de formulação de políticas Resumo: Em 2016, o Ministério da Educação de Israel emitiu um documento de política recomendando seis novas doutrinas para o desenvolvimento pedagógico nas escolas. Em meio a isso está o “glocalismo”, destinado a abordar a mistura global / local dentro do sistema escolar. Dada a falta de uma política de internacionalização declarada em Israel e seus currículos altamente nacionalistas, essa direção pode constituir uma primeira tentativa do Ministério da Educação de internacionalizar os currículos escolares. A participação do público, incluindo atores de organizações do terceiro setor, constituiu um elemento fundamental no desenvolvimento dessa política. Examinar por que isso é e qual o impacto que teve sobre como a internacionalização foi concebida é fundamental nesta era da formulação de políticas plur- escalares. Nossas conclusões destacam o papel crucial desempenhado por vários atores não- governamentais nesse processo. Também revelamos que certas vozes foram silenciadas - seja de círculos eleitorais marginalizados ou daqueles que sugerem direções que contradizem as intenções do MoE. A política oferece uma definição vaga de “Glocalismo”, que parece eliminar possibilidades de marginalização das comunidades que se sentem mais desafiadas por essa mudança de política. No entanto, essa abertura na conceituação da internacionalização provavelmente aumentará ainda mais as desigualdades atuais no sistema educacional. “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 3 Argumentamos que esses processos de participação pública podem, portanto, facilmente se tornar pseudo-participativos, marginalizando e excluindo constituintes específicos. Palavras-chave: política educacional; glocalização; participação pública; cidadania global Introduction Policy-making processes in many countries have become multifaceted and complex, with increased involvement of for-profit consulting agencies and other external actors in forming and shaping these processes and their outcomes (Ball, 2012, 2016). Many times, the power to govern and decide has been effectively moved away from civil servants, as other actors take the reins in steering the process. Alongside these developments are the increasing concerns about the changing role of the state in the provision of basic services, in a context of increasing privatization, specifically in the education sector (Lubienski, 2016). In that context, governments in an attempt to deal with these critiques embark on novel and experimental modes of policy- making, aimed at involving the public but also the third sector, local communities, global agencies and other stakeholders in their policy-making processes (Kolleck, 2017). Such participatory governance is highly valued by the public, the press and global agenda setting agencies such as the OECD (Grey & Morris, 2018). It is in this context that we focus on the process of internationalization in the Israeli education system. In recent decades, schools have sought to adopt and partially adapt the definition, institutional strategies and rationale for internationalization already found in higher education (Dvir & Yemini, 2016). For the sake of this study, we follow Knights’ (2004) definition of internationalization - “integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery…education” (p. 11). Broadly speaking, it is important to understand how pressures and desires to ‘internationalize’ are being articulated and implemented in national education systems. The rapid growth and spread of internationalization in public schooling over the past two decades has generated new assemblages of knowledge, skills and values, infiltrating curricula and teaching practices (Bunnell, 2008; Fielding & Vidovich, 2017). Thus, the nation-state is confronted with various external influences, and an examination of how it responds is needed (Resnik, 2011), given the unequal outcomes for different groups in society that have been noted in the literature. Fundamental issues in public schooling such as the shaping of national identity, loyalty and majority-minority relations must also be closely studied and made sense of within contexts of both slow and rapid internationalization, given that—traditionally— promoting a sense of national identity and citizenship was the fundamental role of education (Dvir et al., 2017; Yemini & Dvir, 2016). The impacts of internationalization can be examined via a multi-dimensional approach, including from ‘above’ and from ‘below’ (at policy-making levels nationally and locally, and examining how practices within schools and neighborhoods shape how policy imperatives are interpreted and implemented; Ball et al., 2011). Notably, implementation of internationalization within a national education system may also lead to de-nationalization and erosion of national curricula (Resnik, 2012). In this paper—part of a larger study of internationalization within Israeli compulsory schooling—we focus specifically on a new policy paper produced by the ‘Future Oriented Pedagogy’ (FOP) Unit of the Israeli Ministry of Education1. We do this because we argue that this new policy paper signifies a fundamental change in government policy around internationalization, and thus shapes our broader investigation. Furthermore, a sole focus on the development process of this policy and the specific conceptualizations it draws on, are critical when we understand them within a context of significant resistance to diluting ‘the national’ as raised by certain sectors of Israeli society. 1 http://edu.gov.il/minhalpedagogy/mop/pedagogy-disign/Pages/future-pedagogy.aspx Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 4 The FOP unit, who led the development of this policy, is a research unit within the MoE exploring methodologies and prospective applications of future-oriented trends in education (MoE, 2018). The unit operates under the auspices of the ministry’s research and development department. In November 2016, the unit published the ‘Future Oriented Pedagogy Outline’ policy paper detailing six key pedagogic doctrines for future-oriented education which should guide the further development of the education system. These are ‘Personalisation’, ‘Collaboration’, ‘Informalisation’, ‘Glocalization, ‘Adaptivity’ and ‘Self Integration’ (MoE, 2016). The ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine advocates for the development of a “harmonious mix of global and local values and attributes” that imbue the education of pupils (MoE, 2016, p. 94). The concept of ‘Glocalisation’ in scholarly research was initially coined by Robertson (1994). Robertson argued that any global construction is set upon a local one, and that understanding of ‘the global’ requires understanding of ‘the local’. Accordingly, ‘Glocalisation’ unifies between the global and the local into one interconnected dimension, while simultaneously neutralizing the attempt to separate and distinguish between the two (Robertson, 1994). Given this document was launched in a context where internationalization is not officially acknowledged by the Ministry of Education, and Israel has a highly locally-oriented curricula (Dvir et al., 2017; Yemini et al., 2014), this new doctrine may constitute a first attempt internally to start the process of introducing internationalization in schools, through a Glocalisation framework. Drawing on a Thematic Analysis we examine the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine to consider in greater depth the policy-making process, involving an array of external agencies and actors, which led to its establishment as a core principle for future policy. Thus, we look not only into the ‘what’ [outcomes of the policy-making process as is usually the focus of research (Mundy et al., 2016)], but also at the ‘how’ of the process. The process is intentionally highlighted by the MoE through the way the report is presented – which is also fairly unusual in and of itself. Specifically, our research questions are: 1. How did the nature of the policy-making process enable and influence the emergence of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine? 2. How did the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine materialize throughout the policy-making process? In addressing these questions we aim to explore whether power relations structuring the contributions of various actors in this participatory policy-making process relate specifically to their perspectives on internationalization. Examining the nature of this innovative, participatory policy-making process also aims to shed light on the blurred boundaries between the private and public, the national and global, the call for participatory governance and the marginalization of certain actors and ideas through its implementation. We proceed with positioning this analysis within the relevant literature, after which we present the method used and our findings. Literature Review Our study is positioned at the intersection between research on the governance of education, public participation in policy-making processes, and research on how internationalization is being developed at the school system level. We begin this section by discussing the significant changes in education policy-making that has occurred in the past thirty years, highlighting the increasing role and influence of non-state actors in these processes. We then proceed to address the rise of internationalization related policies in national schooling, depicting how international organizations have been drivers of change, which has led to the ‘rescaling’ of education policy-making. We conclude the literature review by contextualizing the study and describing contemporary developments within the Israeli education system. “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 5 Educational Governance and the Role of Non-state Actors in Policy-Making In the last few decades, education systems around the world have been affected by the rise of neoliberal ideology and the consequent transition from government to governance (Connell, 2013). Educational governance addresses educational policy-making activities that are increasingly carried out not only by governments, but also by non-governmental actors and are implemented in the spirit of a market-led economy (Dale, 2005; Edwards & Klees, 2012; Kooiman, 2003). Lingard and Rawolle (2011) claim that ‘government’ refers to hierarchical, public decision-making bound within nations and by state structures, while ‘governance’ describes a decision-making process which binds private providers, beyond-state organizations and the state, into policy-making networks. These networks constitute new assemblages of people, practices, events and organizational forms that disseminate the labor of policy-making among their members, thereby enabling a new hierarchy and set of markets to be constructed (Ball, 2016; Edwards, Brehm, & Storen, 2018). Within these assemblages, where the state is only one of various other participants, actors who were formerly considered outsiders operate as insiders, thus transforming the process of public deliberations and representation in policy- making (Ball, 2016). The state acts here as a ‘commodifying agent’, enabling globalized capitalism by turning education into a commodity and reducing it to contractable forms (Ball, 2009). Active, private participation in policy-making and provision of education is normalized to the point that privatization and the state should be understood together as a unified phenomenon. Participation of non-governmental actors in policy-making is increasingly detected in various stages of the process including initiation, development, funding and implementation (Rothman, 2011). Weiler (1983) has argued that nation states must ensure that policies shore up their legitimacy. Anxieties over not achieving this can lead to practices of ‘compensatory legitimation’ via public participation, seen as an additional state mechanism that bolsters legitimacy among citizens (Weiler, 1983). Yet, public participation in neoliberal contexts may solidify market logics and simply reproduce inequalities (Edwards & Klees, 2012). While this new form of policy-making arguably allows a more democratic public participatory process with various actors being given the voice that was previously silenced in government-led legislation, it is not risk-free in terms of promoting processes of equity, with more marginalized actors in danger of being over-ridden by more powerful and well-resourced actors (Robertson & Dale, 2013). Nevertheless, it seems that participation of various external actors in policy-making processes is an expanding exercise, adopted by more and more localities and nation states (Sagie et al., 2016; Yemini et al., 2018). Lubienski (2016) argues that this phenomenon represents a deeper ideology than a mere struggle over the identity of education decision makers and providers, one which is focused on the introduction of neoliberal, market-based logics into educational thought (Lubienski, 2016). We understand neoliberalism here as an ideology, a political force and a practice of managerialism, and particularly as a form of governance (as per Rowlands & Rawolle, 2013). Connell (2013) argues that neoliberalism is an embedded dimension of globalization, while Berkovich (2018) emphasizes that this ‘project’ is non-sensitive and aggressive in terms of impact. Given the general move towards a different, ‘newer’ policy-making process in education, understanding how national and non-state actors engage with this and attempt to influence outcomes is needed. This need is intensified when examining internationalization, which acts as a locus for matters associated with, and possibly challenging to, the nation-state, namely issues of social cohesion and national identity. Furthermore, it is also often an arena in which non-state actors (such as the OECD and the World Bank) are particularly active in education policy discussions. Internationalization and Education In their seminal work, Robertson and Dale (2015) offer an account of the relationship between globalization and education. They claim that globalization acts as a mechanism of Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 6 change at the global level, not according to a prescribed plan, but as “a witting attempt by a range of national and transnational organizations to bring about a set of interventions around the globe aimed at extending the role of the market and reducing the role of national states” (Robertson & Dale, 2015, p. 159). They position the reduction of the role of nation states in the context of the global spread of the neoliberal project, which constructs commercial logics in education policy. These globalized dimensions and especially the nations’ reaction to them are sometimes broadly grouped under the term of internationalization. Such processes are spreading globally and carry with them a distinct ideological flavor coupled with particular practices. Accordingly, nation-states can no longer insulate themselves from this agenda in their policy-making processes. Moreover, the role of global beyond-state actors in the changing education policy-making environment is firmly documented (Yemini & Gordon, 2017). Scholarly research denotes their role and influence on national educational policy-making in both developed and developing countries, emphasizing the transnational and indiscriminate nature of their out-reach (Feniger et al., 2012; Mundy & Menashy, 2014; Mundy & Verger, 2015; Steiner-Khamsi, 2016; Tikly, 2016). A prominent example of such an international education actor is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD is acknowledged as an important node in a network of pluri-scalar power relations (Lingard & Sellar, 2014). It draws its global authoritative stature in education from its capacity to precede governments and other actors in technological developments, in the use of educational data, and consequently in the ability to produce perceived relevant and informed policy advice (Lewis et al., 2016). The organization’s Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA), in particular, is considered the most significant international large-scale comparative assessment of education systems’ performance in the world (Feniger et al., 2012). Arguably, the transnational nature of the organization provides PISA with an image of trustworthiness and objectivity (Gorur, 2016). The OECD asserts its power on national educational policy-making processes both by direct interaction with governments and by indirect dictation of the neoliberal agenda through the promotion of international comparative tests and measurement (Tikly, 2016). Despite the fact that the organization cannot compel governments to comply with its policies, it chooses specific topics and generates global educational discourses that shape the environment in which governments make decisions (Sellar et al., 2017). Such is the case with the incorporation of the Global Competencies measurement in the 2018 PISA tests cycle (Schleicher, 2017). The inclusion of global competencies represents a new infrastructural apparatus which may gradually turn into a new global benchmark in education. Accordingly, educational policy-making worldwide is expected to conform with this apparatus and to develop their domestic policies in line with these globally led and informed imperatives. As an OECD member state, the Israeli education system is required to comply with the organization’s PISA test. A recent study (Yemini & Gordon, 2017) found that the Israeli media grants greater attention to the results of international standardized tests than to national ones, making the former the locus of comparison and reference in the eyes of the general Israeli public. This partly contradicts the findings from other studies (Alexander et al., 2012; Yemini et al., 2014; Yemini & Fulop, 2015) that point to the nationalistic and locally oriented inclination of the Israeli education system. It is therefore within both these global and national contexts (i.e. the glocal) that the study featured in this paper is situated. In this study we explore a policy-making process in Israel as a lens through which to examine the interaction between various stakeholders within the Israeli education system and how the demands to, or resistance to, internationalize is negotiated. Before detailing our research approach, we briefly introduce the Israeli education system. “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 7 The Israeli Education System and Internationalization During the last three decades, the Israeli education system has experienced the infiltration and growing influence of neoliberal thought, both in policies and in practices (Berkovich, 2014). The gradual transition from the former welfare state model into a new neoliberal one, including its various educational manifestations, occurred across numerous Western countries (Wiborg, 2013). Manifestations of this influence were materialized through the decentralization of the system, the rise of the market-based approach in education, and the increased use of assessment and evaluation of educational outcomes in policy-making (Berkovich, 2014; Feniger et al., 2012). Similar to other countries, prominent educational trends such as parental school choice, competition and privatization in education delivery have become increasingly common as well (Avigur-Eshel & Berkovich, 2017; Resnik, 2011). Israel participated in almost every international test from the mid-1960s to date, including TIMSS, PIERLS and PISA (Feniger et al., 2012). Contrary to the voluntary nature of participation in the previous tests mentioned, it is Israel’s status of an OECD member state that requires the mandatory conduct of the PISA test. Indeed, the conduct of PISA in Israel has gained public attention and entered the educational discourse and public perceptions towards the desired outcomes of education (Yemini & Gordon, 2015). For the purpose of this study we identify the mandatory conduct of PISA as an essential element of the global education governance, but also as an obligatory external internationalization principle (Dvir et al., 2017). Accordingly, the Israeli government is not only compelled to use assessment and measurement of educational outcomes in its policies and practices, it is also compelled to consider its ranking in the international comparative education scale. This is particularly interesting as Israel has so far avoided creating an official internationalization policy (Dvir et al., 2017; Yemini & Dvir, 2016). Israel is a country facing ethnic, religious, cultural, and ideological cleavages (Neuberger, 2007). Demographically, the country’s population is made up of a 75% Jewish majority, a 21% Arab minority (including Druze and Bedouin) and other relatively small religious minorities accounting for another 4% of the national population (as of July 2018, Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS]).Yet, the enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict has shaped national policies over decades and has contributed to the prominence of the Zionist narrative, which is supported by the Jewish majority, within the official state curriculum (Pinson, 2008; Yemini et al., 2014; Yemini & Dvir, 2016). The Jewish majority in the country perceive the Israeli Palestinian-Arab population as hostile, while the latter claim under-representation in public discourse and in the state curriculum (Bekerman, 2009; Gavison, 2012). Tensions between majority and minority populations in the country converge around issues of national identity, loyalty and a sense of belonging to the Israeli society. These tensions between the majority and the minority are intensified by the state’s pressure to localize the curricula and to increase the locally oriented and nationalistic dimensions within education. The Israeli education system is essentially public and segregated into different sectors based on religious and ethnic affiliation, namely the Jewish secular, Jewish religious (modern orthodox), Jewish ultra-orthodox and Palestinian-Arab. While core subjects are seemingly shared between sectors, in-effect there exist widening gaps between these various segments of the education system around curricular contents, funding, and how educational policies affect them (Arar, 2018). Gaps are particularly evident between the Jewish secular and the Palestinian-Arab sectors as the latter is significantly deprived in relation to funding received and their ability to shape the curriculum in light of their own language, histories and political values (Bekerman, 2009). The marginalization of the Arab-Palestinian minority within Israeli society is therefore mirrored in public education both through the unequal financial investment per capita as well as the dominating Jewish Zionist narrative within the national curriculum (Dvir et al., 2017; Yemini & Dvir, 2016). It is with reference to the perceived need in maintaining this particular narrative that the Israeli government has been hesitant to embrace an internationalization policy, regardless to the Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 8 identity of the ruling political party (Yemini et al., 2014; Yemini & Dvir, 2016). Despite this reluctance, there are now signs that the MoE understands it may need to engage with this agenda more overtly in some way. One indication of such a shift is the MoE’s recent decision to certify two new public high schools offering an international curriculum (i.e. the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme) for the first time in the country’s history (Dvir et al., 2017; Yemini & Dvir, 2016). A second instance is arguably the articulation of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine as embedded in the new FOP policy paper, which could become a far bolder and more comprehensive effort to embed internationalization within the Israeli public education system. In this paper we aim to explore how the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine emerged from an ostensibly open consultation process, how it is ultimately defined in the FOP policy paper, and which policy actors might have played a role in promoting and shaping the definition of this doctrine. Methodology The focus of this study is the policy document entitled ‘Future Oriented Pedagogy Outline’ published by the Israeli Ministry of Education’s research and development department. The document contains a theoretical orientation section, a detailed account of the methodology utilized to develop the model, and finally, the FOP model itself is presented. Publication of the document was on the MoE website and is easily accessible. In addition to the six new doctrines presented in the policy document, it details the process of developing this policy, which is quite unusual for the formation of Israeli education policies. Though unusual, this detailed step-by-step recounting of the process and development of doctrines enables us to analyze the construction of the policy-making process (as it is depicted in the document) and to identify the actors who were involved (and those who were not). However, we maintain a cautionary approach with regards to the accuracy of the information presented in the document (Edwards, 2017). Findings from textual analysis often require further investigation based on other methodologies (Yin, 2003). Although it focuses on textual analysis of one document, this study is positioned within a larger body of work exploring internationalization in schools in Israel. In this paper we specifically follow the development of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine, one of the six new doctrines presented in the document. The ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine is critical not only due to our interest in internationalization, but also significant because it signals a move towards internationalization that has so far been obfuscated and certainly not directly articulated in previous MoE policies. This study is a part of a larger study of internationalization in the Israel education system in which we offer a detailed analysis of the contents and of the structure of the FOP new policy- making process by employing discourse theory as our analytical framework. Discourse theory explores policy-making by investigating the linkages between various levels of policy-makers with the purpose of identifying power relations in their struggle over meaning (Taylor, 1997). Discourse theory also investigates specific policy-making processes in broader cultural and historical contexts. Underlying this approach is the understanding that discourse produces the world they refer to through various means of emphasis, framing, and formulation (Volles, 2016). We selected this method to reveal different aspects of the policies than usually focused on in research, namely the evolution of a specific doctrine within a larger body of policy, and its relation to the type of policy-making process enacted in the examined case. Through these prisms we examine: the wording, framing, justification, the context presented, the alternatives, and additional issues. These elements are all significant when considering the implementation of the policy. In this case we constructed codes and themes for analysis of the FOP document by utilizing thematic analysis (TA). The aim of TA is to identify and interpret key features of data, guided by the research questions (Clarke & Braun, 2017). During data collection we referred to sections in the document that explicitly and directly relate to the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine. “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 9 Additionally, we actively searched for references to the following terms: ‘international’, ‘global’, ‘glocal’. The limitation of this study is its relatively narrow scope. As our work relied only on textual analysis and was not triangulated with other research tools such as interviews with FOP personnel, it is possible that our findings indicate a different narrative to that intended by the FOP unit. Or the depicted policy development process may not mirror how it was understood or experienced by the various participants. Further studies of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine should involve such research foci and open further questions emerging from this policy development process more broadly. However, given the details provided in the report on the development steps, we suggest that our analysis provides a valuable inquiry into the why and how the policy- making process is set out, and offers one way to examine the active, passive or silence role of different non-state actors. Findings The findings are presented in two sub-sections. The first section answers the first research question, investigating how the process of policy-making that resulted in the FOP report was facilitated. The second section focuses on the evolution of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine during the FOP model formation process. Participation and Compliance with Global Trends Participation of non-MoE stakeholders in the formation of the FOP policy is highlighted in the document. The document provides a detailed overview of the professional affiliation, role and, in some cases, name of stakeholders who participated in the process. The participatory approach is described by the authors of the document (MoE, 2016) as “innovative” (p. 9); utilizing “collective wisdom” (p. 8) and being “future oriented”. Diagram 1 presents the various stages of policy formation (MoE, 2016, p. 11). Diagram 1: Formation of the FOP model (MOE, 2016, p. 11) The online collective discussion is at the core of the policy formation process. The MoE invited people from the following stakeholder groups to participate in the discussion - local municipality officials; parents; students; education administrators; educators; scholars; Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 10 representatives from the high-tech, finance, and industry; and environmentalists. In all, 130 representatives from these groups took an active part in the discussion (MoE, 2015, p. 36). The policy document does not provide any further information concerning the selection of stakeholder groups and the actual representatives. Consequently, questions regarding whether and how marginalized groups may or may not be represented, the specific relevance of involved stakeholders to schooling, or why particular invitees were chosen over others remain unanswered in this document. The online collective discussion was administered by the FOP unit and launched with the introduction of 54 preliminary guiding questions. In the construction of the latter, the FOP unit was assisted by a designated group of 15 professionals composed of scholars, high-tech professionals, educators and future foresight experts (who themselves are also experts from academia and the business sector; MoE, 2016, p. 121). Personal information of each of the 15 participants is provided in the document, though how they were selected is not. As explained in the document, preliminary questions were structured according to the methodology that categorizes information across Social, Technological, Economical, Environmental, and Political (STEEP) domains (as per Kyler, 2002). STEEP is a common methodology used by business organizations for the purposes of evaluating their competitive environment in various decision- making processes including mergers and acquisitions (Kyler, 2002). Significant about the use of STEEP by the FOP unit is that it is formally spelt out as the approach used by businesses, a practice that has been widely criticized by scholars elsewhere (Ball, 2012). Participants of the online discussion were asked to respond to the prescribed questions as well as given the opportunity to raise their own ideas about future education trends. Overall, 584 statements were collected during the discussion, with an additional 710 general comments (MoE, 2016, p. 35). This data served simultaneously as output of the online collective discussion and as input for further stages of the model formation process. Collected data was analyzed by FOP unit staff as per the OECD’s Model for Innovative Pedagogy (OECD, 2016). This model identifies eight components for pedagogy, namely content and curriculum, assessment, learning and teaching practices, organization, leadership and values, interconnectedness, and physical and technological infrastructures (OECD, 2016). The use of an OECD model in analysis of the collected data indicates the FOP unit’s strong affiliation to global organizations’ thinking in national policy-making (Lingard & Sellar, 2014). Whether this choice reflects the borrowing of what was perceived by the MoE unit as a best practice, or a different selection mechanism was at work here is unclear from the document. Regardless, the OECD’s model introduced terminology and concepts that are relevant to the development of a particular educational discourse within the MoE. Noteworthy in this context is the infiltration of educational discourses dominating the current global education field to an Israeli MoE policy-making process (as per Lewis et al., 2016). No evidence of compulsory compliance with OECD practices is traced in the document, however compliance may be voluntary in nature and still enable leverage and influence. The initial data generated by the online collective discussion was then summarized into 81 final statements. How comprehensive this reviewing and summarizing of the overall collected data was is not described in the policy document. A third phase of policy formation engaged another group composed of 21 participants from the MoE, NGO’S, and future-foresight experts. Their role was to categorize all 81 final statements according to several criteria (the full details of which are not provided in the policy paper) and to rate each statement’s prospective weight to the future development of education in Israel (MoE, 2016). The final outcome of this stage was the formation of the FOP model. As far as the structure and participatory elements of the FOP model formation process our analysis points to several findings. Firstly, public participation is presented throughout the document as an important component in the policy-making process. Indeed, we found that the authors of the document included detailed information of the number of non-MoE participants, emphasized the range of professions represented, and their affiliation to both the public and “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 11 private sectors (see for example MoE, 2016, p. 34, 36). The mix of participants from different domains is indicative of the use made by the MoE of “mass wisdom”. This arguably allowed the FOP unit to reach “a definition of a desirable and agreed upon future trends.” (MoE, 2016, p. 34). We suggest that the FOP unit sought to present the production of a wide consensus as justification for the doctrines selected, and for their implementation. Moreover, the claimed consensus allowed the FOP unit to touch upon the delicate issue of identity and national belonging in the Israeli society, as reflected in the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine. This policy-making strategy enabled enhanced legitimation to the MoE in an ‘unexplored territory’ (Weiler, 1983). Nevertheless, in close examination of the outline, we came by no evidence or reference describing how participants were selected by the FOP unit, and whether or not the composition of the participants’ body was representative of the Israeli society. For example, we argue that by turning to academia and representatives of the high-tech sector already at the formation of preliminary questions for the collective discussion, the FOP unit chose to focus on particular voices and thus overlook others that may have contributed further insights to the outline. An example of the silencing of specific voices is traced in the exclusion of Israeli parents as a designated group from the initial stages of the FOP model formation process. In the last decade, Israeli parents have gained a new and central role in the education system that is articulated in their solidified and integral role in decision-making within schools (Avigur-Eshel & Berkovich, 2017). Moreover, teachers as a designated group were also excluded from the preliminary stages of the model formation process. In recent years Israel has successfully implemented a series of reforms in teacher’s employment structures and in teacher training designed to improve their status within the Israeli society (Taub, 2015). By excluding those two main internal stakeholder groups, the FOP unit proactively shaped the participatory process in a way that will enable minimal intervention of internal groups within the process. As both groups—parents and teachers—are expected to participate in the new policy and at the same time are excluded from the initiation of the policy formation process, we question whether this choice by the MoE reflects a hidden agenda of shaping future pedagogy based on adoption of global trends and academic research instead of relying on authentic voices from the education field in Israel. The narrowing down of 584 statements collected in the online collective discussion by the FOP unit to a final 81 statements also suggests a less than fully participatory process. It appears that only a group of 21 participants, mainly MoE and FOP employees but also future foresight experts and heads of educational institutions were consulted and involved in this part of the process. Their aim was to rate the statements according to the following four criteria. (1) significance to the future of education; (2) personal choice; (3) probability of application; and (4) current implementation (MoE, 2016, p. 36). By applying a multi-dimensional classification method to the criteria and the actual rating (p. 38), the FOP unit was able to construct a master scheme for all collected statements. Table 1 presents the final statements scheme. Markedly, only four (4) statements directly related to ‘Glocalisation’ were incorporated in the scheme, a relatively low rating when compared to the number of statements referring to ‘Collaboration’ or ‘Informal learning’, among others. Yet, despite this less concentrated interest and focus on aspects of internationalization, ‘Glocalisation’ was still chosen by the FOP unit as one of six doctrines and incorporated into the model. This suggests that the FOP unit felt strongly that such a focus was necessary. It used this part of the analysis process, with a selected group of participants, to push this doctrine through. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 12 Table 1 The final statement scheme Category Number of statements Collaboration (at all educational levels and populations) 16 Implementation of advanced learning practices 14 Autonomy (at all levels in the education system) 14 Openness and connecting educational institutions to the real world 11 Use of advanced technologies in pedagogy 11 Acquiring skills and competencies towards the 21st century 9 Informal learning 7 Transformation (dealing with the changing reality) 7 Changes in the teacher's role and teaching methods 7 Adjustment of teacher training and development 7 Reducing gaps and equality 5 The ability to instill pedagogical and technological innovation 5 Glocalisation 4 New assessment and qualification methods 4 Personalization and individual learning 3 Vision and strategy in the education system 3 Infrastructures and advanced learning spaces 1 Moreover, the report suggests that as the FOP model begun to emerge, fewer and fewer non-FOP participants were involved. Annex 6 of the document (MoE, 2016, pp. 222-223) presents the list of participants who took part in rating prospective pedagogic developments of the FOP model. The list is composed almost solely of FOP unit employees. Analysis of Annex 6 suggests a lack of representation of different sectors of the Israeli society during the latter stages of policy formation. Arguably, representation of all sectors of society is imperative if a ‘true’ consensus is to be achieved. We suggest that a consensual state may have been achieved among participants of the process, but that wider representation of sectors across Israeli society might have led to a rather different set of statements. In the context of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine, for example, which carries implications concerning national identity, the inclusion of minority populations in the discussion would have been particularly significant. Yet, no reference to the issue of minorities is engaged with within the document. Secondly, we highlight the presence of representatives from various business sectors (finance, industry, high tech) as well as the use of the STEEP methodology as markers of the continuous rise of concepts and ways of working shaped by market-based logics within the Israeli education system (as per Berkovich, 2014, 2018). The STEEP methodology is used to evaluate the competitive environment of business firms, it does not deal with philosophical questions concerning the nature and aims of education. It does not map future trends in culture, which are an important part of the education ensemble (Robertson & Dale, 2013). The choice made by the MoE to utilize STEEP may imply to dominating perceptions. Thirdly, the online collective discussion resulted in 584 statements. The FOP unit then “organized and structured all the statements into 81 final statements” (MoE, 2016, p. 35). While the outline presents the list of 81 statements chosen by the unit as the final output of the discussion (MoE, 2016, pp. 158-204), it remains unclear what methodology was utilized by the FOP unit in the statements’ selection process, what data was excluded from the final statements “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 13 list, and whether any changes to statements were made and so forth. However, considering the state’s pursuit of public legitimacy, this act may signal that the MoE removed provoking statements that target marginalized communities in Israel (Weiler, 1983). We argue that this acts as another silencing mechanism. The report presents the consultation process (or at least elements of it) in great detail, but skips parts of the analysis which so clearly shape the final pedagogical doctrines. This act of representing the process as transparent, but omitting the detail in a number of steps, may be successful in also silencing any criticism that might otherwise have arisen. Fourthly, the use of the OECD’s model for innovative pedagogy is worthy of particular attention. It seems that the FOP unit recognizes this OECD apparatus as a pre-cursor of future trends in education. The unit therefore made use of the model and thus demonstrated voluntary compliance with the OECD’s vision of innovative pedagogy, basically incorporating into the policy-making process the views of certain local stakeholders only, but also embedding the global machinery of intragovernmental organizations’ wider agenda in this process. Although the OECD in not a private entity per-se, it is a driver in the promotion of a market-based approach to education (Lingard & Sellar, 2014). Given this position, the passive intervention of the OECD as a stakeholder in the FOP policy formation can be regarded as promoting privatization. We argue that the FOP model offers a very specific, guided future imaginary of what education should look like in Israel, furthermore suggesting this was arrived at via a strongly consensual process, facilitated through participatory governance procedures. This imaginary is justified and directed by choosing specific types of participants, by excluding others, by using a for-profit sector-oriented methodology, and by categorizing the collective results according to the OECD’s model for innovative pedagogy. In other words, we claim that this represents a pseudo- participatory process under the guise of an authentic participatory one. Evolution of the ‘Glocalisation’ Doctrine In order to track the materialization of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine as published in the policy document we examined the various stages in which related contents appear: (a) preliminary questions for the online collective discussion (see Table 2); (b) statements collected from the online collective discussion (see Table 3); and (c) the final phrasing of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine. Preliminary questions were scrutinized for references to the ‘global’, ‘local’, ‘21st century’ or ‘international’. Questions identified as relevant to our search (see table 2) convey a broad array of assumptions that otherwise may be considered controversial. For example, questions concerning the economic domain (questions number 5971, 5966 in the list) refer to themes such as the “knowledge-based economy” and “global consumerism”. Further descriptions provided in the outline expand on these issues: “The currency of the knowledge-based economy and the global economy are the skills of the 21st century” (MoE, 2016, p. 146). Moreover, the policy paper particularly foregrounds communication skills: “The need for global communication encourages the study of different languages and cultures and opens the door to language and cultural mediators in work and in studies” (MoE, 2016, p. 149). These quotes depict a certain type of future imaginary, one which is closely related to neoliberal economic discursive constructions (Harvey, 2005). Accordingly, the rationale for internationalization in this context is to prepare students for the global economy and employment market in which they will compete in their future lives. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 14 Table 2 List of preliminary questions for the collective discussion referring to internationalization On a different note, question number 5998 is of particular significance for it portrays beyond-national citizenship as a desired outcome of education. By raising the topic of ‘world- citizenship’ (MoE, 2016, p. 152), the MoE directly touches upon the topics of national identity and belonging, which are in continuous debate within the public discourse in Israel. This question also represents a slight diversion from the neoliberal discourse concerning internationalization, adding issues of identity and consciousness, that many times are depicted as opposite to economic driver of internationalization (Dvir et al., 2018). Additional information concerning question number 5998 provides the following description: “The identity of young people today is undergoing accelerated globalization and they develop a global consciousness/identity based on the insight that our quality of life, if not life itself, is dependent on worldwide cooperation” (MoE, 2016, p. 152). We argue that the MoE’s decision to introduce this topic as a preliminary question is not trivial, and rather significant in light of the otherwise Zionist-oriented curricula (Agbaria & Pinson, 2018). In the absence of state policy in this matter (Dvir et al., 2017; Yemini & Dvir, 2016), it seems that this was a bold decision aimed at generating a discourse concerned with non-national citizenship, which in turn legitimizes its entry into public discourse via the ‘participatory’ policy-making process. Table 3 List of statements resulting from the collective discussion on internationalization, as per the OECD’s innovative pedagogy model Category Number Statement Content and curriculum 6669 Students should acquire the understanding and experience of the elements of globalization and multiculturalism that are vital to the conduct of the knowledge-based economy 6609 Students should develop a multi-faceted and synergetic literacy network to help them function independently and intelligently in a complex and global reality Leadership and values 6680 We must implement ways of action that balance the development of a multicultural and global consciousness and the fostering of a Jewish and Israeli national identity Physical and technological infrastructure 6652 Social networks should be used to establish a wide range of learning knowledge communities as per role, organization or subject from school level to global level Statements presented as the outcome of the process of consultation were identified and examined for by using TA. As far as statements concerning the economic domain, our analysis shows a direct content-related response. Statements number 6669 and 6609, for instance, reaffirm the centrality of the global knowledge-based economy and relate also to the topics of Economic 5971 How can the education system develop students' readiness for the global knowledge economy of the 21st century? 5966 How should the education system prepare students to a world of consumerism, global online commerce, cooperative economy and consumers who are also producers? Environmental 5994 How should the education system develop and assimilate awareness, behaviors, and skills for coping with global warming and biodiversity vulnerability? Political 5998 How should the education system develop among students a global awareness and skills as of citizens of the world, while preserving their national and local identity? “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 15 multiculturalism and the need for international literacy. As mentioned in the previous section, the outline does not expand on the excluded statements. However, statement number 6680 introduces a new dimension into the discourse which was not included at all in the preliminary questions. The term ‘world citizenship’ (which was presented initially in the guiding questions) is removed and replaced by the term ‘global consciousness’. Notably, the chosen statement avoids any reference to beyond-state citizenship, contrary to the preliminary question assumption. Moreover, while the matter of collective national identity is controversial in Israel, this statement addresses only a Jewish identity and refrains from explicit reference to minority populations: “We must implement ways of action that balance the development of a multicultural and global consciousness and the fostering of a Jewish and Israeli national identity” (MoE, 2016, p. 194). Meanwhile, the further description of this statement presents a somewhat different view: We must educate towards multiculturalism, tolerance and prevention of exclusion among streams in Israeli society, and encourage activities of encounters and removal of barriers between students from different streams such as religious, secular, ultra-orthodox, Jewish and Arab…the education system is faced with the challenge to educate for multiculturalism and acceptance of the other while maintaining critical thinking about cultures that is not biased by the need to maintain political correctness at all costs. (MoE, 2016, p. 195) The description essentially contradicts part of statement number 6680 and balances its embedded nationalistic notion with a more open multicultural one. However, no further reference is made to ‘global consciousness’ or to other global attributes. In that sense, we find that statement number 6680 and its associated description focus on issues of local identity much more than its respective preliminary question did, which used the term ‘world citizenship’ and was inclined towards global aspects of education. It seems that the online collective discussion therefore did raise other conceptions relevant to the meaning of citizenship than those suggested initially by the MoE. This is one example of where the influence of non-MoE participants on the policy formation process is traceable and could be argued to be substantial. The final phrasing of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine as it appears in the FOP policy paper is: “The learner develops a systemic understanding of the environment, from the local level to the global one, and generates complex identity and consciousness that consists of a harmonious mix of global and local components and values” (p. 19). Terminology used for the doctrine lacks a specific ethnic or religious affiliation and therefore maintains neutrality in terms of national identity. However, this terminology also avoids any reference to beyond-state citizenship. Simultaneously, the final phrasing avoids the concepts raised by participants of the online collective discussion concerning Jewish identity and national citizenship. Thus, we argue that the outcomes of the participatory process were modified by the MoE in the making of the final phrasing. The ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine stipulates a complex local-global identity structure that shapes relations between the individual, the nation-state and the broader world. This is the MoE’s rationalization for the need to internationalize the Israeli education system. Arguably, such value-neutral phrasing could in principle be accepted by all groups across the Israeli education system and at the same time introduce global dimensions to Israeli education. Additional vagueness and openness to interpretation of the doctrine is tracked in the unspecified meaning of ‘components’ (skills, perceptions or knowledge) as well as the particular nature of local or global ‘values.’ This may serve the MoE well if it intends to instill ‘Glocalisation’ across all educational sectors. As described in an explanation to the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine: Glocalization creates for the nation and the individual conflicts of identities, values and interests, which can cause tensions and rifts in society and among individuals. The phenomenon of glocalization exists in many countries of the Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 16 world, with each country having different and unique characteristics…a glocal identity thus includes a harmonious and balanced mix of global and local components and values. The desired focal point of balance is culture-dependent and educational, and therefore may be different in each of the existing educational sectors in Israel.” (MOE, 2016, p. 94) This bold confession illuminates the existence of contradictions and difficulties concerning the issue of national identity as seen by the MoE. It provides a lucid example of the complexities that the MoE is having to confront in its attempt to deliver a new policy for pedagogical development. In reference to the evolution of the political aspect of ‘Glocalisation’ as detailed above in question number 5598 (see table 2) and statement number 6680 (see table 3) it seems that the MoE sought to find a definition that will not directly collide with the perceived national interest concerning Jewish identity, and at the same time refer to the importance of global dimensions in education. By refraining from a more specific phrasing, the MoE practically allows differentiated interpretation and implementation of ‘Glocalisation’ among different educational sectors. The latter are expected to develop related pedagogical practices which are customized to their own characteristics and cultures, thereby fulfilling their own particular needs. Discussion and Conclusions In this study we explored a policy document issued by the Israeli MoE. The FOP policy paper offers six doctrines for pedagogical reform and future development at school system level in Israel. We analyzed the genesis and the materialization of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine both by tracking the policy-making process as described in the policy paper, and by tracking the rationale for ‘Glocalisation’ as depicted and developed through various stages of the process. Internationalization of the Israeli schooling system is potentially significant. The document expands on that by outlining environmental, economic and political rationales as well as by arguing that graduates of the schooling system will live and work in both local and global environments (MoE, 2016, p. 76). Jointly, these create a multifaceted rationale for the adoption of ‘Glocalisation’ within schools in Israel. This had been the first direct acknowledgement of the need to internationalize the education system in Israel, despite the locally-oriented and nationalistic directions that the Israeli education system has adopted in past decades (Bekerman, 2009; Dvir et al., 2017; Gavison, 2012; Yemini & Dvir, 2016; Yemini & Fulop, 2015). The new doctrine tackles this issue at a systematic level, as ‘Glocalisation’ is one of six doctrines that will arguably direct the system’s future reforms and developments. The MoE treatment of the tensions shaping Israeli society is also noteworthy, that has implications for the way we analyze developments in other national contexts. On the one hand, the FOP policy paper lucidly addresses the issue of national identity as a complex social discourse. On the other, the policy paper promotes and in fact justifies the use of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine as a state interest. It seems that the mechanism which can manage such contradictory views will be the differentiated modes of implementation among the various educational sectors which the vagueness of the doctrine itself points to. We argue that this method of implementation intentionally lacks explicitness, so as not to have to confront the possible opposition from religious Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities. Nevertheless, we argue that in the absence of a clear implementation ‘manual’, a differentiated adoption of ‘Glocalisation’ may lead to further development of social gaps between and within educational sectors. In this footpath, sectors and communities that receive higher funding or those which are associated with other forms of internationalization, such as university graduates, academics and employees of international corporations may benefit from this doctrine considerably more than others. Marginalized groups within Israeli society, and the Arab-Palestinian society in particular, are therefore less likely to adopt ‘Glocalism’. “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 17 Moreover, according to the FOP policy document, the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine may now be legitimately diffused across actual curricular contents. Early adopters of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine may then gain an advantageous position in the understanding of the global economy and employment markets, developing ‘global consciousness’ (MoE, 2016, p. 76) skills and capabilities amongst their students. Sectors and populations that denounce the doctrine may find themselves less successful in prospective future economic scenarios – both the graduates they produce but also in terms of funding sources they can potentially access. The final phrasing of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine also suggests that the MoE actively decided to silence certain voices that emerged during the model formation process. This is evidenced through the unexplained transformation of this doctrine through the various stages of the policy formation process, from the preliminary questions stage, online discussion, analysis and final phrasing. Furthermore, the absence of certain populations (especially Palestinian Arabs) participating in the consultation cycles more overtly demonstrating a lack of commitment to including the more marginalized groups. The FOP policy highlights a neoliberal economic narrative that was apparently maintained throughout the FOP model formation process. We argue that this narrative should be examined in light of a wider context, namely the gradual transition of the Israeli education system from a centralized socio-democratic operational mode into a decentralized, market-oriented one. Contemporary market-based practices in the Israeli education system include, among others standardized tests (local and international), new principals’ training and assessment schemes, and corporate-like managements of schools (Berkovich, 2014, 2018; Feniger et al., 2012; Resnik, 2011). Interestingly, the policy document details several recommended practices for each of the six doctrines. For the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine, two recommendations are provided in the policy paper: (a) broad sustainability—developing a concept of sustainable and proper human and environmental existence, which also deals with concepts such as public happiness, meaningful life, community, democratization and fair distribution of resources; (b) A Tikkun Olam (Hebrew for ‘amending the world’) school—an educational institution that defines and implements a social responsibility concept and assigns Tikkun Olam at the school and student level (MoE, 2016, p. 115). Both recommendations concern issues of social responsibility and fairness, which do not align with the type of economic imaginary that is detailed in the core rational of this doctrine. Nevertheless, these recommendations may facilitate the adoption of the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine among the Jewish religious sector, which has continually and fiercely opposed the inclusion of global dimensions in education (Goren et al., 2018). We suggest that the ‘Glocalisation’ doctrine may constitute a first policy attempt to integrate internationalization in a structured way into the Israeli schooling system. Notably, internationalization in the report is presented as an instrument to prepare students for their adult lives in a globalizing economy and world. We further contend that because the MoE has prioritized national instrumental objectives (i.e. preparing students to life in a globalized society) over sectorial ones in relation to the concept of internationalization, we suggest that the Israeli education system is shifting its focus from an education concerned with the creation of national cohesion into provision that intends to develop sector-neutral competencies for all Israeli youth. This is in line with current developments found in other countries that are guided by similar principles, suggesting that the Israeli MOE have opted for borrowing from ‘best practices’ (Auld & Morris, 2014) found elsewhere. The case explored in this study suggests that new government-led participatory education policy-making may in effect further embed the marginalization of groups rather than elucidating their voices and needs, arguably the purpose of such an approach. We show that public participation was harnessed to present a seemingly transparent and open decision-making processes, while essential decisions were taken within and exclusively by the MoE. In the local Israeli context, it is entirely possible that this mechanism enabled the official introduction of Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 18 internationalization as a desired outcome for the Israeli schooling system, which, as described above, is considered delicate and controversial. Of interest is how the construction of the concept of ‘Glocalisation’ signals an economically-driven purpose for internationalisation, while through its removal of particular words in the description, also minimises the extent to which sectoral interests can challenge the legitimacy of the FOP’s policy direction. References Agbaria, A. K., & Pinson, H. (2018). Navigating Israeli citizenship: How do Arab-Palestinian teachers civicize their pupils? Race Ethnicity and Education, 22(3), 391-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1511527 Alexander, H. A., Pinson, H., & Yonah, Y. (Eds.). (2012). Citizenship, education and social conflict: Israeli political education in global perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. Arar, K. (2018). Arab women’s educational leadership and the implementation of social justice in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(1), 18-32. Auld, E., & Morris, P. (2014). Comparative education, the ‘New Paradigm’ and policy borrowing: Constructing knowledge for educational reform. Comparative Education, 50(2), 129-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2013.826497 Avigur-Eshel, A., & Berkovich, I. (2017). Who ‘likes’ public education: Social media activism, middle-class parents, and education policy in Israel. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(6), 844-859. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2017.1418294 Ball, S. J. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the ‘competition state’. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802419474 Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education inc: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. London, UK: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2016). Following policy: Networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549-566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1122232 Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625-639. Bekerman, Z. (2009). Identity versus peace: Identity wins. Harvard Educational Review, 79(1), 74– 83. Berkovich, I. (2014). Neoliberal Governance and the “New Professionalism” of Israeli Principals. Comparative Education Review, 58(3), 428-456.
 Berkovich, I. (2018). Policy makers’ regulatory mind-set, the regulatory governance body of the system, and the regulated soul of educators. Comparative Education Review, 62(2), 178-198. Bunnell, T. (2008). The exporting and franchising of elite English private schools: The emerging “second wave”. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(4), 383-393. Central Bureau of Statistics (2018). Population, by population groups. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton69/st02_01.pdf Clarke, V., & Braun, B. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: an essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.776990 Dale, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education. Comparative Education, 41(2), 117-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060500150906 Dvir, Y., Bronshtein, Y., Yemini, M., & Natur, N. (2017). Elite segregated education as a novel enterprise in public education system: The establishment process of an international school in Israel. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(6), 935-953. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1511527 https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2013.826497 https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2017.1418294 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930802419474 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1122232 http://www.cbs.gov.il/shnaton69/st02_01.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.776990 https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060500150906 “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 19 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1369865 Dvir, Y., Shields, R., & Yemini, M. (2018). Three faces of global citizenship education: IB Schools’ self-representations in four local contexts. British Journal of Educational Studies, 66(4), 455-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2018.1533102 Dvir, Y., & Yemini, M. (2016). Mobility as a continuum: European Commission mobility
policies for schools and higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 32(2), 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1243259 Edwards Jr, D. B. (2017). Policy formation in the context of global governance: Rational, organizational, and political perspectives on policymaking in El Salvador. International Journal of Educational Development, 52(1), 81–96. Edwards Jr., D. B., & Klees, S. (2012). Participation in development and education governance. In A. Verger, M. Novelli, & H. Kosar-Altinyelken (Eds.), Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues and programmes (pp. 55-76). New York, NY: Continuum. Edwards Jr, D. B., Brehm, W. C., & Storen, I. (2018). The national politics of educational advocacy in the context of global governance: International funding and support for civil society engagement in Cambodia. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(2), 171-188. Feniger, Y., Livneh, I., & Yogev, A. (2012). Globalisation and the politics of international tests: The case of Israel. Comparative Education, 48(3), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.622539 Fielding, M., & Vidovich, L. (2017). Internationalisation in practice in Australian independent secondary schools: a global-local nexus? Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(2), 148-162. Gavison, R. (2012). A democratic Jewish state: Challenges and risks. In M. Mautner, A. Sagie, and R. Shamir (Eds.), Multi culturalism in a democratic Jewish state (pp. 217–223). Tel Aviv, IL: Ramot. [Hebrew]. Goren, H., Maxwell, C., & Yemini, M. (2018). Israeli teachers make sense of global citizenship education in a divided society-religion, marginalisation and economic globalisation. Comparative Education, 55(2), 243-263. Gorur, R. (2016). Seeing like PISA: A cautionary tale about the performativity of international assessments. European Educational Research Journal, 15(5), 598-616. Grey, S., & Morris, P. (2018). PISA: Multiple ‘truths’ and mediatised global governance. Comparative Education, 54(2), 109-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1425243 Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
 Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches, and rationales. Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832 Kolleck, N. (2017). How (German) foundations shape the concept of education: Towards an understanding of their use of discourses. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(2), 249-261. Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London, UK: Sage. Kyler, J. (2002). Assessing your external environment: STEEP analysis. In: http://www.mbadepot.com/assessing-your-external-environment-steep-analysis / Lewis, S., Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2016). PISA for schools: Topological rationality and new spaces of the OECD’s global educational governance. Comparative Education Review, 60(1), 27-57. Lingard, B., & Rawolle, S. (2011) New scalar politics: Implications for education policy. Comparative Education, 47(4), 489-502. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.555941 Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2014). Representing for country: Scotland, PISA and new spatialities of educational governance. Scottish Educational Review, 46(1), 1-5. Lubienski, C. (2016). Sector distinctions and the privatization of public education policymaking. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1369865 https://www.researchgate.net/project/publication/327680080_Local_interpretation_of_international_education_IB_schools%27_self-representations_in_four_national_contexts?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=Vlyl2oB9mSdyZziLmywNWb6P&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=projectUpdatesLog&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A327680080&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle https://www.researchgate.net/project/publication/327680080_Local_interpretation_of_international_education_IB_schools%27_self-representations_in_four_national_contexts?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=Vlyl2oB9mSdyZziLmywNWb6P&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=projectUpdatesLog&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A327680080&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2018.1533102 https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1243259 https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.622539 https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1425243 https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1425243 https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832 http://www.mbadepot.com/assessing-your-external-environment-steep-analysis https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.555941 Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 20 Theory and Research in Education, 4(2), 193–212. Ministry of Education (2016). Future oriented pedagogy outline. Jerusalem, IL: MoE. [Hebrew] Ministry of Education (2018, April 27). Retrieved from http://edu.gov.il/minhalpedagogy/mop/pedagogy-disign/Pages/future-pedagogy.aspx [Hebrew] Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, B., & Verger, A. (2016). The handbook of global education policy. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Mundy, K., & Menashy, F. (2014). The World Bank and private provision of schooling: A look through the lens of sociological theories of organizational hypocrisy. Comparative Education Review, 58(3), 401-427. Mundy, K., & Verger, A. (2015). The World Bank and the global governance of education in a changing world order. International Journal of Educational Development, 40(1), 9-18. Neuberger, B. (2007). Education for democracy in Israel: Structural impediments and basic dilemmas. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(3), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.10.013 
 OECD. (2016). Trends Shaping Education 2016. Paris, FR: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2016-en Pinson, H. (2008). The excluded citizenship identity: Palestinian/Arab Israeli young people negotiating their political identities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(2), 201-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701837554 Resnik, J. (2011). The construction of a managerial education discourse and the involvement of philanthropic entrepreneurs: The case of Israel. Critical Studies in Education, 52(3), 251– 266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2011.604075 Resnik, J. (2012). The Denationalization of Education and the Expansion of the International Baccalaureate. Comparative Education Review, 56 (2), 248–269. doi:10.1086/661770. Robertson, R. (1994). Globalisation or glocalisation? Journal of International Communication, 1(1), 33- 52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.1994.9751780 Robertson, S. L., & Dale, R. (2013). The social justice implications of privatisation in education governance frameworks: a relational account. Oxford Review of Education, 39(4), 426-445. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.820465 Robertson, S. L., & Dale, R. (2015). Towards a ‘critical cultural political economy’ account of the globalising of education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(1), 149-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.967502 Rothman, R. (2011). Something in Common: The Common Core Standards and the Next Chapter in American Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education. Rowlands, J., & Rawolle, S. (2013). Neoliberalism is not a theory of everything: A Bourdieuian analysis of illusio in educational research. Critical Studies in Education, 54(3), 260-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.830631 Sagie, N., Yemini, M., & Bauer, U. (2016). School-NGO interaction: Case studies of Israel and Germany. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 36(7/8), 469-490. Schleicher, M. (2017). The future of PISA. Journal of International and Intercultural Comparative Education, 23(1), 113-124. [German] Sellar, S., Thompson, G., & Ruthkowski, D. (2017). The global education race: Taking the measure of PISA and international testing. Toronto, CA: Brush Education Inc. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). Standards are good (for) business: Standardised comparison and the private sector in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(2), 161-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2015.1014883 Taub, R. (2015, July). A new educational reform in Israeli high schools affecting teachers' motivation and perception of the teaching profession. Paper presented at International conference “Education, Reflection, Development”, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Taylor, T. (1997). Critical policy analysis: Exploring contexts, texts and consequences. Discourse: http://edu.gov.il/minhalpedagogy/mop/pedagogy-disign/Pages/future-pedagogy.aspx https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2016-en https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690701837554 https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2011.604075 https://doi.org/10.1080/13216597.1994.9751780 https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2013.820465 https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.967502 https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2013.830631 “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 21 Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630970180102 Tikly, L. (2016). The future of Education for All as a global regime of educational governance. Comparative Education Review, 61(1), 22-57. Volles, N. (2016). Lifelong learning in the EU: Changing conceptualisations, actors, and policies. Studies in Higher Education, 41(2), 343-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.927852 Wiborg, S. (2013). Neo- liberalism and universal state education: The cases of Denmark, Norway and Sweden 1980-2011. Comparative Education, 49(4), 407-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.700436 Weiler, H. N. (1983). Education, public confidence and the legitimacy of the modern state: Is there a crisis somewhere? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(2), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027830150203 Yemini, M., Bar-Nissan, H., & Shavit, Y. (2014). Cosmopolitanism versus nationalism in Israeli education. Comparative Education Review, 58(4), 708–728. https://doi.org/10.1086/677305 Yemini, M., Cegla, A., & Sagie, N. (2018). A comparative case-study of school-LEA-NGO interactions across different socio-economic strata in Israel. Journal of Education Policy, 33(2), 243-261. Yemini, M., & Dvir, Y. (2016). International Baccalaureate as a litmus test revealing conflicting values and power relations in the Israeli education system. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 310-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1023700 Yemini, M., & Fulop, A, (2015). The international, global and intercultural dimensions in schools: An analysis of four internationalised Israeli schools. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(4), 528–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.967185 Yemini, M., & Gordon, N. (2017). Media representations of national and international standardized testing in the Israeli education system. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(2), 262-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1105786 Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. About the Authors Yuval Dvir University College London, Institute of Education yuval.dvir.17@ucl.ac.uk Yuval Dvir is a doctoral student for International and Comparative Education whose work focuses on how the global education policy field is shaping national education policy-making, social stratification and pedagogy. Yuval have published in Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, Globalisation, Societies and Education, Journal of Education Policy and British Journal of Educational Studies. Claire Maxwell University College London, Institute of Education claire.maxwell@ucl.ac.uk Claire Maxwell is a sociologist of education whose work focuses on how processes of globalisation and stratification are shaping social class identities, education practices and desired futures of young people and families from highly -resourced social groups. She works on projects with various colleagues located across different parts of the world – USA, Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, Sweden and China. Prof. Maxwell have published in British Journal of Sociology of Education, The Sociological Review, Sociology, Gender & Education, L'Année sociologique, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, International https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630970180102 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.927852 https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.700436 https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027830150203 https://doi.org/10.1086/677305 https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1023700 https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2014.967185 https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1105786 mailto:yuval.dvir.17@ucl.ac.uk mailto:claire.maxwell@ucl.ac.uk Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 22 Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Pedagogy, Culture and Society. She has edited international collections such as Elite Education and Internationalisation. From the Early Years into Higher Education (2018), Elite Education. International Perspectives (2016), and Agency, Affect & Privilege (2013). Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University miriye@tauex.tau.ac.il http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5633-6473 Miri Yemini is a Comparative Education scholar at Tel Aviv University. Her research interests include globalisation of and in education; global citizenship education; internationalisation; intermediaries in education and the global middle class. She succeeded to secure substantial funding for her research from (among others) the EU, UNESCO, and MoE. This year she holds honorary visiting posit ions at UCL, Institute of Education; Freie Universität Berlin and The Friedrich-Alexander-Universität at Nuremberg. She published her research at Journal of Education Policy; Comparative Education Review; Teaching & Teachers Education; Globalisation, Societies and Education; Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education; Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education; Educational Management Administration and Leadership and others. About the Guest Editors D. Brent Edwards Jr. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa brent.edwards@hawaii.edu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3955-9525 D. Brent Edwards Jr. is an associate professor of theory and methodology in the study of education at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. He has more than 10years of experience as an educator, researcher, and scholar of education policy. In his scholarship, he applies political economy perspectives to (a) the examination of the global governance of education and (b) the origins, spread and effects of global education policies. In particular, Brent focuses on the ways that a range of international organizations affect the politics and processes of policymaking and policy implementation. Geographically, these areas of focus have led to research projects on education in many countries across Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa. His recent books include The Trajectory of Global Education Policy: Community-based Management in El Salvador and the Global Reform Agenda and Global Education Policy, Impact Evaluations, and Alternatives: The Political Economy of Knowledge Production (both with Palgrave MacMillan). He also has a forthcoming co- edited special issue of Educational Policy entitled “School choice policy and politics around the globe: Sociological contributions.” Alexander Means University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa meansaj@hawaii.edu Alexander Means is an assistant professor of educational policy with global perspectives in the Department of Educational Foundations, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. He is the author most recently of Learning to Save the Future: Rethinking Education and Work in the Era of Digital Capitalism (Routledge, 2018); Educational Commons in Theory and Practice: Global Pedagogy and Politics (Palgrave, 2017); and The Wiley Handbook of Global Education Reform (Wiley-Blackwell, 2018). His research examines educational policy and organization in relation to political, economic, cultural, technological, and social change. mailto:miriye@tauex.tau.ac.il http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5633-6473 mailto:brent.edwards@hawaii.edu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3955-9525 mailto:meansaj@hawaii.edu “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 23 Special Issue Globalization, Privatization, Marginalization: Assessing Connections in/through Education education policy analysis archives Volume 27 Number 124 October 14, 2019 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- sa/2.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 24 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Melanie Bertrand, David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro- Ljungberg, Daniel Liou, Scott Marley, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Gary Anderson New York University Gene V Glass Arizona State University R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz A. G. Rud Washington State University Jeff Bale University of Toronto, Canada Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany Eric M. Haas WestEd Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley David C. Berliner Arizona State University Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Jack Schneider University of Massachusetts Lowell Henry Braun Boston College Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Noah Sobe Loyola University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Aimee Howley Ohio University Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Steve Klees University of Maryland Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago A. Chris Torres Michigan State University David E. DeMatthews University of Texas at Austin Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University ofColorado, Boulder Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Susan L. Robertson Bristol University Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University, Israel “Glocalisation” doctrine in the Israeli Public Education System 25 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Argentina), Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Ignacio Barrenechea, Jason Beech (Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Veronica Gottau (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella), Antonio Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Paula Razquin, Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés), Maria Alejandra Tejada-Gómez (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/816') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804') Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 27 No. 124 SPECIAL ISSUE 26 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Associadas: Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGV, Brazil), Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina), Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil