A review of the policies proposed by various political parties ahead of the upcoming elections shows that many are extremely interested in the poor quality of our education system. The good news is that nearly all have come to understand that the central issue is not a lack of resources but the system’s excessive concentration, unwieldy nature, and its suppression of freedom and initiative. Solutions are not as yet fleshed out, but they signal a move away from the existing paradigm, and an understanding of what is necessary, even at the cost of prolonged strikes and sustained struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, some proposals remind us that conceptual changes take time, and paradigms have a way of tailing us and slipping in through the back door. Such is the “Together” party’s proposal to establish a “national education council, representing all communities, to design a stable, five-year plan and disconnect the system from politics”. Should such a council have an advisory role only, its harm will amount to wasting the time of good people on arguments. Should the council be granted authority to set policy and allocate budgets, we will get the same concentration in a new outfit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such is also the glamorous proposal to introduce AI tools as a substitute for teachers and frontal lessons. This may be a good proposal the benefits of which outweigh the harm \u2013 it is far too early to assess. But that is precisely why there is no need for an authority to decree teaching methods from top-down. The trial and error of teachers on the ground will do the work: good platforms will spread, others will die out, some schools will take a more technological approach while others will prefer to exist as nature preserves, away from the harmful influence of screens. There is no singular educational solution that applies to all students, and every development has pros and cons that only time and the trial of various ideas and initiatives will balance out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finally, let’s take a look at another proposal that is gathering steam at Yisrael Beiteinu, Yashar!, Together, and others: integrating pre-military academies (mekhinot<\/em>) into high schools. The plan is attractive, and for good reason. Pre-military academies enjoy a reputation for prestige, and grant their graduates a sort of stamp of quality ahead of their military service and integration into society. Why not bring over some of their shine and success to the high school years?<\/p>\n\n\n\n To understand why the idea is futile in its current form, though, we need to understand what makes the academies successful. Incorporating a successful system into an outdated, cumbersome platform will not make said platform successful \u2013 it risks becoming just another link in the chain of failed reforms that were tried out over the years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The pre-military academies are successful thanks to social and educational entrepreneurs who have an open field on which to build ideological, independent education enterprises. They define their goals, choose who to accept, their participants choose whether to apply, and they use their resources as they see fit. As independent initiatives from both the right and left of the political spectrum, they were successful at reprioritizing building character and Zionist consciousness in the educational space, without state-funded professional councils or curricular supervisors. These characteristics are missing from our current public education system, and omitting them will make nationalizing the idea of pre-military academies a failed and pointless endeavor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n