First-generation students cope with challenges deriving from a lack of knowledge regarding higher education. This lack of knowledge is particularly relevant for minorities groups. In this context, parental involvement can be regarded as a meaningful pathway for enrolment and advancement in higher education. The study examined the perceptions of Druze students from the Golan Heights in Israel, who are considered to be a minority group and are first-generation students, regarding their parents' involvement in their higher education studies. 15 Druze were interviewed. Using thematic analysis, it was found that parents' support is reflected in a high appreciation of education, due to the absence of opportunities during their own childhood, alongside moral and indirect academic support. The study contributes to understanding the intersection of being part of the Druze minority with being first-generation students, highlighting these students' ways of overcoming barriers in the context of national and ethnic challenges.

The present study focuses on the perspectives of adult Druze from the Golan Heights regarding their motives for studying for a bachelor's degree in Syria and then going on for an advanced degree or internship in Israel. The study is phenomenological, based on interviews with 15 Druze students living in the Golan Heights, graduates of two academic institutions located in the two countries. The interviews were analyzed by identifying themes based on grounded theory principles. The findings indicate that the choice of higher education among the Druze is based on pragmatic considerations that emphasize higher education as an essential means of social and economic mobility alongside personal development and self-fulfillment. The choice of a specific country – Syria or Israel – is usually based on instrumental considerations that are logistical, academic, and economic. However, the choice of Syria as a specific destination is also based on a national cultural component. The study offers a look at minority education from the perspective of a unique group within Druze society and provides an understanding of minority students’ experiences as the basis for policies that support the academic choices of this population.

Since the 1970s, many kibbutz educational systems have moved from schools solely for one kibbutz to regional schools. Regional schools put the kibbutzim goal of maintaining their own uniqueness in tension with their need and desire to integrate with and contribute to Israeli society. Consolidation required attention to the differing educational abilities and capacities of diverse students and redefining community in heterogeneous, regional terms. These have benefited participating kibbutzim and, based on traditional strengths of kibbutz education, these regional schools have contributed principles of non-selective (inclusive) education, community and classroom values education, and acceptance of difference in others. Integration in regional schools requires schools to adapt to the diversity of the region but also to the uniqueness of participating communities. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: Website: © 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

One day, you will discover a new adventure and knowledge by spending more money. But when? Do you think that you need to obtain those all requirements when having much money? Why don't you try to get something simple at first? That's something that will lead you to know more about the world, adventure, some places, history, entertainment, and more? It is your own time to continue reading habit. One of the books you can enjoy now is innovative approaches in working with children and youth new lessons from the kibbutz here.

The Zweig Center for Special Education, based on the heritage and history of kibbutz special education, is a model for the school-university partnership and of the professional development school. This model integrates kibbutz education with special education in a unique way. Kibbutz education is traditionally non-selective, emphasizing an educating society/environment; the integration of educational factors; the integration of society, studies, and work; active learning; informal methods; autonomy in the children's society; and autonomy of educational staff. These make possible schools as laboratories of community partnerships, 136training opportunities, and action research that show the varieties of school-university partnership and professional development schools. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: Website: © 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Culture and Judaism in the kibbutz are intertwined – in local, regional, and national circles. Kibbutz Judaism existed from the very beginning of the kibbutz, but was only defined in detail at the start of the twenty-first century, and is still grounded on kibbutz traditions from the past. In secular kibbutzim it is ‘mediated’ by variables of education, culture, and community; this is particularly the case for new residents, including kibbutz-born, in search of community life and good education for their children. The target populations of cultural activities are diverse and the prevailing spirit is secular/pluralistic Judaism and ‘Jewish renewal’. This Judaism is diffused in major centres of activity of the secular Kibbutz Movement as well as of the Religious Kibbutz Movement. The main impact of kibbutz Judaism since the 1970s is directed outwards, through frameworks founded by kibbutz members.

Zionist and Israeli (Jewish) education served as a crossroad to progressive European and American integrated and eclectic influences because most teachers and counselors of the Zionist youth movement, many of whom became teachers, immigrated to Israel from Europe, some of them through the USA, where they were influenced by two educational sources that developed parallel and integrated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, mainly in Europe: progressive education and youth movements. The connection between the leading teachers and Europe continued throughout World War I and the days of the British Mandate in Israel, and even after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, European influences persisted, and American influences increased. The first section of the chapter will be devoted to a general view of Progressivism in Europe (as well as the youth movements that have integrated to it) and the USA. The second section presents case studies of progressive schools and kindergartens, leading teachers and progressive eclectic pedagogic in the Zionist education and the post state education, linking them to the leading figures from the European and American progressive education movement. These will be detailed in four waves of Zionist and Israeli progressivism, examining them in terms of theory, policy, practice – and the training of education field personnel that combined theory and practice. In the third section, we will present comparative global analyses of various case studies around the world, critical conclusions about the tidal waves of progressivism in Israel and abroad. And in the fourth, new methodological and historiographical directions of thought will be proposed for the future study of this field.

The study's target is to analyze how field-level coalition leaders, namely, the founding principals of Israeli specialized schools, perceive a "high-ambiguity and high-conflict" symbolic educational policy that apparently opposes the basic values that underlie the foundation of specialized schools. Based on an analysis of qualitative interviews, we found that the principals perceive high conflict as supporting the establishment of new specialized schools and high ambiguity as a clear invitation for their establishment. We discuss possible explanations for this surprising policy perception.

In April 2004, prior to Google’s flotation in the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) Stock Market, the company filed its S-1 Registration Statement. In addition to financial details, Google’s founders published a personal letter to the company’s potential investors in which they discussed procedural issues as well as philosophical ones. Since then, the founders of three other Internet companies – Groupon, Zynga and Facebook – have published similar manifestos in their S-1 statements. This first attempt to explore these manifestos uncovers how they function as a political and persuasive discourse. Using rhetorical analysis, this study identifies shared rhetorical strategies aimed at constructing a new business discourse. The founders’ efforts are important not only because they are counterintuitive to traditional business practices, but also because they signal the realization of an alternate business discourse that is informed by and based upon a new managerial style and Web 2.0 cultural values.

How the challenge of teaching the Bible was met by educators who were members of the Kibbutz and Labor movements during the years before the establishment of the Israeli State is the subject of the following essay. Years ago, Jacobus Schoneveld, (1976), recently followed by Asher Shkedi (2004) proposed dividing educators of the Labor and Kibbutz movements into three types: those who wished to stress “national reconstruction,” those directed toward teaching a “universal humanism” and those seeking to awaken “moral dialogue” and achieve “personal growth.” In fact, such clear-cut lines of demarcation did not exist. The goals were these, but approaches themselves were always mixed. One distinguishes educational goals better by a more simple division into the questions of what is to be taught (religious versus Secular materials) and through which ancillary disciplines. Doing so has the virtue of highlighting how these educators were animated by their quest after how best to teach Biblical morality with the aim of “shaping” the student or achieving “emulation,” especially by generating a “dialogue” between the pupil and the biblical text, leading to “personal growth.” These emphases tell us much about the pre-State educational mentality and pedagogical ideals.

The aims of this study are (a) to survey the existing theories of non-formal education (NFE) and their deficiencies, (b) to present a concise historical survey of Zionist-Israeli NFE, and (c) to summarize the research in brief, including additional dimensions derived from the Zionist-Israeli case. The seven dilemmas that are drawn and their continua of recommended solutions encompass the following: (1) a combined model of complementary, supplementary, and alternative NFE; (2) different but mixed age groups; (3) an emphasis on NFE community-centered activities combined with youth programs; (4) responsibility sharing among local institutions and various corporations and associations; (5) personnel ranging from professional to young volunteer leaders; (6) school and out-of-school activities; and (7) non-formal activities within formal, non-formal, and mixed frameworks. The overall contribution of this article is in detailing the central role of NFE in shaping nationality via national education.

Book Review| December 01 2005 Our Hearts Invented a Place: Can Kibbutzim Survive Today's Israel? Our Hearts Invented a Place: Can Kibbutzim Survive Today's Israel?Mort, Jo-Ann; Brenner, Gary Yuval Dror Yuval Dror Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Utopian Studies (2005) 16 (3): 486–490. https://doi.org/10.2307/20718776 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Yuval Dror; Our Hearts Invented a Place: Can Kibbutzim Survive Today's Israel?. Utopian Studies 1 December 2005; 16 (3): 486–490. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/20718776 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressUtopian Studies Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2005 Society for Utopian Studies2005Society for Utopian Studies Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes Dror, Y. (2001) The History of Kibbutz Education: Practice into Theory (Bern, Peter Lang). Lofland, J. (1996) Social Movement Organizations: Guide to Research on Insurgent Realities (New York, Aldine De Gruyteri), 2–3. Meyer, D. S., Whittier, N. & Robnett B. (Eds) (2002) Social Movements: Identity, Culture and the State (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 290. Staggenborg, S. (1996) The ‘Meso’ in Social Movement Research, in: Meyer et al. (Eds), 124–139. Ibid. For example: Kerchner, C. T. & Mitchell, D. E. (1988) The Changing Idea of Teacher's Union (London, Falmer). Lieberman, M. (1999) Understanding the Teacher Union Contract: A Citizen's Handbook (New Brunswick, NJ, Tranaction Publishers). Reese, W. J. (2002) Power and the Promise of School Reform: Grassroots Movements During the Progressive Era (New York and London, Teachers College Press). Golan, S. (1961) The Communal Education (Merhavia, Sifriat Poalim), 319–332 (Hebrew). Lewin, G. (1997) Childhood in the Kibbutz (Lehavot Habashan), 20–22 (Hebrew). Kibbutz Artzi‐Hashomer Hatzair: Assumptions, Regulations, Resolusions (Warsaw, Hashomer Hatzair, 1939), 36 (Hebrew). Golan (1961), 18. Yediot Hakibbutz Haartzi, 13 (244) (1945), 67–69 (Hebrew). Platek, Y. (1989) The Mosad: The First Hashomer Hatzair School in Mishmar Haemek 1931–1940 (Efal & Givat Haviva, Yad Tabenkin & Yad Yaari) (Hebrew). Golan (1961), 341–348. Hahinuch Hameshutaf, 1 (1937), 2–6 (Hebrew). Kibbutz Artzi‐Hashomer Hatzair: Assumptions, Regulations, Resolutions (1939). Hovrot Leinyenei Hinuh (Tel Aviv, Seminar Hakibbutzim, 1942), 78–108 (Hebrew). Dror, Y. (1986) Curricula for Kibbutz‐born Youth in ‘Kibbutz Studies’ 1932–1986 (Efal, Yad Tabenkin), 16–19 (Hebrew). Hahinuch Hameshutaf, 10 (1940), 1–17 (Hebrew). Ofakim, 6 (1949), 64–68 (Hebrew). Platek (1989), 71–98. Bulletin Kibbutz Artzi, 195 (1940), 1–8 [q. 3] (Hebrew). Hahinuch Hameshutaf, 14 (1941), 1–8 (Hebrew). Yediot Hakibbutz Haartzi, 9 (240) (1945), 25–26 (Hebrew). Beayot Hahinuch Hameshutaf, 42 (1948), 6–7; 6 (1949), 18–21 (Hebrew). Kibbutz Artzi Ways and Means of Communal Education (Tel Aviv, Kibbutz Artzi, 1965), 91–93 (Hebrew). See notes 23–24. Alterman‐Lahav, L. (1969) From the Workshop of the Communal Education (Tel Aviv, Sifriat Poalim), 91–100 (Hebrew). Golan, S. et al. (1948) (Eds) Generation to generation: the book of the educational institution in Mishmar Haemek, (Merhavia, Sifriat Poalim), 64–83 (Hebrew). Golan (1961), 177–184 Golan, S. & Lavi, Z. (1952) A Proposal for the Curricula of the Children's Societies and Educational Institutions of Kibbutz Artzi (Tel Aviv, Kibbutz Artzi) (Hebrew). Alon Hamehanchim, 14 (1955) (Hebrew). Kibbutz Artzi Ways and Means of Communal Education (1965), 5–15. Kibbutz Artzi Ways and Means of Communal Education (1965), 64–65. Alon Hamehanchim, 2 (1951), 1–3 [q. 3] (Hebrew). Alon Hamosadot, 37–38 (1958), 7–12 [q. 9] (Hebrew). Alon Hamosadot, 1 (1949), 6; 36 (1958), 26–27; 48 (1961), 2; 63 (1967), 1 (Hebrew). Hahinuch Bakibbutz, 1 (1971), 57–58 (Hebrew). Igeret Lahinuch, 3 (21) (1961), 60–62 (Hebrew). Alon Hamosadot 25 (1955), 4 (Hebrew). Dror (1986), 36–41. Alon Hamehanchim Bachevrot Hazeirot, 14 (1955), 6–13 (Hebrew). Alon Hamosadot, 39 (1958), 37; 65/66 (1968), 26–28 (Hebrew). Hahinuch Hameshutaf, 76 (1972), 42–50; 46 (1960), 11–15 (Hebrew). Trends of learning in our institutions (Tel Aviv, Kibbutz Artzi, 1951) (Hebrew). Alon Hamosadot, 29 (1956), 32–33 (Hebrew). Hahinuch Hameshutaf (69), 3 (1969) (Hebrew). Alon Hamosadot, 65/66 (1968), 28–30 (Hebrew). Hahinuch Hameshutaf, 44 (1960), 21–27 (Hebrew). For example: Alon Hamosadot, 15 (1953), 35–36; 56 (1964), 16–22 (Hebrew). Hashavua, 11 (488/9) (1960), 7 (Hebrew). Kibbutz Artzi Ways and Means of Communal Education (1965), 13. Dror (1986), 33–43. Ibid. Hahinuch Hameshutaf, 40 (1958), 5–6 (Hebrew). Yediot Lamehanchim, 25 (45) (1973), 15–18 (Herbrew). Alon Hamosadot, 73 (1973), 1–5 (Hebrew). For example: Hahinuch Hameshutaf, 87 (1975); 103 (1981) (Hebrew). Hahinuch Hameshutaf, 99 (1980), 100–103; Alon Hamosadot, 73 (1973), 9–11 (Hebrew). Dror (1986), 52–62. Ibid. Igeret Lahinuch, 68 (1983), 5–27 (Hebrew). Alei Hinuch, 12 (1996), 2–3 (Hebrew). Dror, Y. & Liebermann, Y. (1994) The Kibbutz School between Uniqueness and Size (Tivon, Oranim), 61–69; 133–175 (Hebrew). Foelling, W. & Foelling‐Albers, M. (1999) The Transformation of Collective Education in the Kibbutz: The End of Utopia? (Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Peter Lang), 96–105; 106–135 Dror, Y. & Shapira, R. (1997) Fostering School Autonomy in Israel with Partnerships between Academia and the Field, International Journal of Educational Reform, 6(3), 334–342. Dar, Y. (Ed.) (1998) Education in the Changing Kibbutz: Sociological and Psychological Perspectives (Jerusalem & Efal, Magnes & Yad Tabenkin), 99–118; 119–136 (Hebrew). Shoam, E. (1995) Kibbutz Values in School‐based Curricula for Kibbutz Studies, Journal of Moral Education, 24(3), 245–258. Gibton, D. & Sabar, N. (1995) Many Doubts, Few Excuses: Zionist Education in Kibbutz High Schools, Journal of Moral Education, 24(3), 289–306. Yediot Hamachon Leheker Hahinuch Hakibbutzi, 20 (1994). Alei Hinuch, 8 (1995) (Hebrew). Dror, Y. (1997) The Total Institution—Day School Continuum: A Model for Adapting and Updating the ‘Ideal Commune’, Communal Societies, 17, 59–74. Foelling & Foelling‐Albers (1999), 122–135. Proposal: Megiddo Regional School (5th version) (Megiddo Regional Council, 1995) (Hebrew). Additional informationNotes on contributorsYUVAL DROR **The Jaime and Constantiner School of Education, Tel Aviv University, PO Box 39040, Israel. E‐mail: droryurl@post.tau.ac.il *The Jaime and Constantiner School of Education, Tel Aviv University, PO Box 39040, Israel. E‐mail: droryurl@post.tau.ac.il

This article deals with the contribution of visual presentation to education for national identity, an issue not examined sufficiently by recent theories of nationalism. Studies of nationalism mention education only in general terms, as an instrument of socialisation on the macro level of the national system, and do not consider specific ‘micro’ educational tools. One such tool is the use of visual presentation, notably in textbooks. To demonstrate the use of visual images in promoting nationalism, this study focuses on Zionist geography textbooks at the time of the British Mandate (1918‐1948) in what Israelis refer to as Eretz Israel (pre‐state Israel), exploited by the Jewish Yishuv (Jewish community) to rally pupils to contribute to ‘the state in the making’.

The uniqueness of the Kibbutz Artzi ‘social movement’ of educators is illustrated and summarized in two articles: (1) The first (previous) article, ‘The Education Department of the ‘Kibbutz Artzi’ as leader of ‘a social movement of educators’ (1926–2000) influencing the environment in the sphere of formal education’ (Journal of Educational Administration and History, 36(1)) described in historical sequence the unique activities in the ‘Kibbutz Artzi’ schools, under the guidance of the education department as a ‘movement of educators’; (2) In this second article we shall analyze these activities by means of the theory regarding social movements, including also the unique features of kibbutz education, and providing tools for the study of other educational and social movements. At the beginning of the 21st century it is possible to sum up briefly the story of the ‘Kibbutz Artzi’ educators’ movement, described in the previous article. It originated in the Gilboa Children’s Society in the twenties, as a practical experiment. The writings of the founding fathers and their collaborators were published in the educational press and in forums of educators. Golan began the process in ‘Kibbutz Artzi’ in the 1930s and 1940s, together with planning and founding the first Shomria secondary institution and instituting its ‘subject method’. In the 1950s and 1960s it was further developed at educators’ conferences and training sessions, and summarized in resolutions regarding both principles and practice, published in the Movement’s press. A process of change and continuity in the elementary ‘societies’ and the secondary ‘institutions’, in their size and unique methods, has been going on since the 1950s. The radical changes and a revival in ‘Kibbutz Artzi’ education theory and practice have occurred in the last two decades, marked by a shifting of collaboration within the national frameworks to collaboration within regional ones. The ups and downs of communal education went hand in hand with general developments: after the climax from the

The kibbutz ‘communal education’ system was initiated in the Yishuv, the Jewish community, at the end of Ottoman rule in Eretz (pre‐state) Israel (Palestine). Degania, the first kibbutz, was founde...

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsYuval DrorProf. Yuval Dror, Tel Aviv University and Oranim, The Academic College of Education. Reprinted from In Touch with MOFFET, No. 9, May 2002 droryuvl @ macam.ac.il