Kohelet Policy Forum researcher of education policy Dr. Naama Avidan has written a policy paper on the history and mechanism of evaluation and assessment in Israel, exploring current failings and recommending ways to rehabilitate the evaluation system as a powerful tool for improving Israeli education.

Main Points:

• Evaluation as Tools for Navigation

The ability to navigate the education system toward education goals is dependent on the ability to measure student performance over time. There are three forms of evaluation:

A. Longitudinal Data
Longitudinal data is gathered by continuously monitoring individual students and student groups over the span of years. Such assessment enables the formation of precise personal evaluations, the identification of development trends and the grounding of correlations to track the efficiency of curricular programs.

B. Cross-Sectional Research
Such studies grant a full picture of the system at a single point in time. This allows for comparisons between groups and focusing resources, but does not measure development over time.

C. Accountability
Accountability means the system is obligated to report on its achievements – a  mechanism that is vital to promoting excellence and constant improvement. Accountability should be both vertical (to an administrative body), and horizontal (to the parents).

• The Decline in Israel’s Student Achievements

Three OECD evaluations in past years show the drastic decline of scholastic capability in the Israeli education system:

1. PIRLS (2021)
   Fourth grade reading comprehension nosedived. Israel was ranked 30th out of 43 states, with one of the sharpest declines among OECD countries.
2. PISA (2022)
   The PISA results showed a severe low in comparison to the OECD average. Israel plummeted to the 38^th place in math (below third world countries), while disparities widened dramatically, and Hebrew speaking students deteriorated.
3. TIMSS (2023)
   The sharpest decline of all OECD countries in math and science. Eighth grade achievements fell to their lowest point since 2007, with the number of students with difficulties sharply rising (1 out of 5).  
   

•   International Review:

Global standards for evaluation and assessment:

Component/Country	USA (ESSA)	UK	The Netherlands	Australia (NAPLAN)	Denmark
Evaluation frequency	Annual (grades 3-8)	Annual (at key stages)	1-2 times a year	Annual (grades 3,5,7,9)	Annual
Survey or every student?	Every student	Every student	Every student	Every student	Every student
Form of evaluation	Digital	Combined Digital/ Manual	Digital	Digital	Digital
Time till results	Several months	Around two months	Several days to 2 weeks	Beginning of the following semester	1 day (for teachers)
Public accountability?	Transparent to the public	Public comparisons	“Windows to Accountability”	MySchool website	Included in new tier graduation tests

• Historical Analysis:

2002-2006 – Minister Limor Livnat: The Inception of Accountability

This period predated RAMA, the National Authority for Measurement and Evaluation in the Education Department. The significant events in this period were launching the Meitzav tests to assess student achievements, and directing the flow of information regarding test results to the Ministry of Education, which served as vertical accountability: underperforming schools were called in, projects and guidance were initiated and tight supervision was employed to ensure progress.
In addition, The Dovrat Commission for recommending improvements to the education system published its findings in 2005 – and while the vision it provided was sound, it remained largely unrealized. The Commission’s primary recommendation was to establish a national authority, hold continuous evaluation and maintain transparency of results within effective, brief time periods.

“We can and must and aim for orienting the education process towards attaining defined objectives. Reliable assessment tools and professional evaluation are the most significant means available to teachers and principals to administer results-oriented educational processes.”

– from the Dovrat Report

2006-2009 – Minister Yuli Tamir: Reducing Evaluation

This period was marked by a 50% reduction in the scope of evaluation: Schools were divided into four clusters, with each school evaluated on only 2 out of 4 subjects once every two years, meaning that schools were evaluated on each subject only once in four years. This resulted in a complete loss of the ability to conduct continuous, long-term assessment of students.
RAMA, the national authority for evaluating the education system, evinced an attitude that was opposed to what it termed “high risk” evaluations; in other words, tests that led to negative results such as test anxiety, unfavorable comparisons and the distortion of teaching for tests rather than for education.

“Evaluations may cause a redirection of resources, dedicating time to teaching for tests, repeating subject matter rather than covering new ground, harming evaluation integrity and creating test anxiety among children“. 

– Former RAMA Director-General Professor Michal Beller, on the risk of accountability.

2009-2013 – Minister Gideon Sa’ar: The Legal Struggle for Freedom of Information

This period was marked by the legal battle between the establishment (the Ministry of Education and RAMA) and Israel’s High Court of Justice (Bagatz). In a historical ruling in 2012, Justice Eliezer Rivlin maintained: “The idea…that public censure is projected only to demoralize those involved in the task should never have been broached. Designated criticism is desirable and appropriate. It must not be suppressed. Encourage it…Information is public property”.
RAMA, on the other side of the issue, strongly opposed transparency, and claimed that publishing the Meitzav scores would make the tests “high risk”: create unfair competition and harm weaker populations. According to their stance, publication “may cause real obstruction of the education system’s function”.

2013-2022 – Reforms, Strikes and Freezes: Loss of Systemic Stability

In the years 2013-2015 (under Minister Piron), external assessment was cancelled, then returned in a restricted form (an annual assessment of only one third of students).
Between 2018-2019 (under Minister Bennett), evaluation was mired in a labor dispute. The Teachers’ Union banned all cooperation with the Meitzav, and RAMA invalidated and suspended the publication of test results, on grounds of harm to evaluation integrity.

The Covid-19 years (2020-2021) saw a complete suspension of the evaluation process due to the pandemic. A partial “emergency” evaluation was conducted in 2022, with the results not made public.

The consequence of this period of continual disruption was the education system being prevented from forming a database, maintaining pedagogic continuity and upholding basic accountability for a decade.

 2023- Present day – Minister Yoav Kisch: “Current Status” Model – a Step Backwards

The current period is marked first and foremost by the elimination of test scores: Numeric precision (1-100) was cancelled in favor of a vague, verbal, five-part assessment (ranging from “well below average” to “well above average”).

Reference groups were lost as well – comparisons are no longer made to the national average but to anonymous “similar schools”, preventing any understanding of schools’ actual placement at the national level.

Cancelling the publication of precise data at the school level technically circumvented the HCJ ruling – with no absolute results, there is nothing the Ministry is obligated to publish.

Most importantly, RAMA does not transfer raw data to the Ministry of Education. Ministerial decision makers lack basic information on schools’ status while administering the system.

•   Failures and Structural Risks: A System that has Lost its Way
  

As of today, our education system is marked by numerous failings:

1. Inconsistency and Multiplicity of Reforms:
   The education system went through four different evaluation formats in 17 years. Such disruption prevents the ability to gather data and reach pedagogical conclusions.
2. Lack of Legislative Anchoring for RAMA:
   Without a law anchoring evaluation obligations, teachers’ unions can easily threaten to strike and ministers can cancel evaluations on a political whim.
3. Abnormal Delay of Results:
   Israel has unreasonable waiting times (over 18 months!) for the reception of test results, making every effort to think in terms of formative assessments irrelevant.
4. Information Flow Dereliction:
   RAMA holds raw data that it refuses to transfer to the Ministry of Education, which then acts blindly, with no way to fund or address failing schools.
5. Motivation Deficit (eliminating risk):
   Since evaluations are completely anonymous, students have no reason or personal incentive to make an effort, leading to an underestimation of true ability.
6. RAMA Monopoly:
   The system for evaluation consists of one centralized body philosophically opposed to accountability, one which controls all information and sets the rules of transparency for the entire system.
   

• Policy Recommendations: Building a New Compass for Israel’s Education:

1. Legal regulation and breaking up the monopoly:
   Anchor RAMA’s duties in legislation (including the obligation to transfer data to the Ministry of Education), and open the evaluation system to additional providers to promote innovation and flexibility.
2. Transfer to formative, continuous assessment:
   Conduct regular evaluations from grades 1-9 in a variety of subjects. Data (grades 1-5, 6-9) will serve internally for monitoring and personally tracking each student (longitudinal data).
3. Implement the obligation for transparency in graduating tier evaluations (grades 6 and 9):
   At the graduation levels (elementary and middle school), test scores will be made public, together with how they compare to the national index and to similar institutions, ensuring parental autonomy.
4. Implementing vertical accountability:
   The Ministry of Education must receive all data in real time; mark underperforming schools; and implement obligatory restoration programs; as well as incentivize excellent schools.
5. Digitize the evaluation apparatus:
   Transfer in full to digital tests (including the use of AI) so that feedback can reach teachers within a few weeks’ time.
6. Increase incentives for students and reportage to parents:
   Cancel the extreme anonymity. Incorporate the evaluation test scores into report cards, and publish personal achievements to parents in digital school systems.