Keywords

Palestinian Arab minority; access to higher education; disadvantaged groups; higher education policy

Introduction

Education and especially higher education (HE) shapes the socio-economic future of a society and can help bridge gaps between under­privileged and established populations (Altbach, 2011; Leonard & Rab, 2010; Shiner & Modood, 2002; Unterhalter & Carpentier, 2010). Consequently, access to HE becomes an issue of particular significance for minority and peripheral groups, disadvantaged by their low socio-economic status, lack of privilege, geographical isolation, or discrimination in a particular state (Al-Haj, 2003; Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2010; Arar et al., 2015).

Israel’s HE system was initially developed as part of a nation-building policy even before the establishment of the State (Volansky, 2005). The indigenous Palestinian population was not explicitly envisaged as an integral part of this policy, and their desire to create their own separate university met with resistance (Abu El-Hija, 2005). The integration of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel (PAI) within national institutions has often been seen as problematic and structural blocks have restricted the acceptance of this minority group and other peripheral populations into HEI, as part of an elitist ethos (Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2010; Gamliel & Cahan, 2004).

This chapter offers meta-analysis of Israeli policies concerning access to HE for the PAI and other peripheral groups over time. More specifically, we attempt to characterize policies and trends in HE in Israel with regard to underprivileged groups according to the following questions:

The chapter begins by describing the methodology used for this research. Using this methodology it then describes the research context in the State of Israel, tracing the development of the different components of the HE system and admission criteria. It describes challenges facing the Palestinian minority and other peripheral groups in Israel when attempting to access higher education and the challenges involved in constructing equity of access. The chapter ends with certain conclusions for HE policy in Israel.

Methodology

One of the acknowledged weaknesses of research concerning access policies of Higher Education Institutions (HEI) and their influence on minority and socio-economically disadvantaged groups is the lack of longitudinal data (Croll, 2009). This chapter offers a comprehensive overview of Israel’s HEI policies over time based on meta-analysis of official statistics and other official documents, and conclusions of relevant recent quantitative and qualitative research studies by the authors and others. Conclusions reached from this analysis describe the context in the State of Israel and trace the development of the different components of the Israeli HE system and the challenges faced by the PAI minority and other peripheral groups in attaining access to HEI in Israel.

The Context—Higher Education in the State of Israel

The State of Israel was established in 1948, and defined as the Jewish homeland. The Palestinian Arab population remaining within Israel’s borders numbered a mere 1,56,000, weakened and depleted by war and the loss of its elite due to expulsion or flight. The Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel (PAI) are a unique national minority, because this is a former majority that became a minority in its own land overnight (Morris, 1991). Sixty years later this indigenous ethnic minority has multiplied ten times and according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS, 2014), numbered 1,694,000 persons in 2013, representing 20.7% of the country’s population (composed of 82.1% Muslims, 9.4% Christians and 8.4% Druze).

PAI contend with a constant identity conflict as citizens of a state that is officially defined as a Jewish state and not a state for all its citizens (Rouhana, 1997). Most PAI identify themselves as Palestinians and part of the Arab nation yet they are citizens of a country that is in conflict with members of its own people, the Palestinian people in neighboring states and with the Arab nation (Nakhleh, 1979).

Despite being the state’s largest minority, (CBS, 2014), the PAI endure discriminatory government policies resulting in deprivation in almost all domains (Suleiman, 2002). Additionally, the Jewish majority population is also diversified ethnically, religiously, and culturally. These differences are often reflected in different degrees of socio-economic integration (Iram, 2011).

The Significance of HE for Peripheral Groups in Israel

Minorities and peripheral populations identify Higher Education Institutions (HEI) as an important asset, helping them to acquire vocational qualifications and political skills and improve their socio-economic status (Brooks & Waters, 2011; Shiner & Modood, 2002). As a result, they are willing to invest intensive effort to gain access to HEI (Altbach, 2011). Two main factors have been shown to influence the student’s ability to gain access to HEI: (i) the student’s demographic background, and (ii) the HEI’s selection policy and admission requirements (Altbach et al., 2010; Arar & Mustafa, 2011).

Education in Israel is segregated, with separate systems for religious and secular Jewish children and for Arab children. Each system includes both state and nonstate schools. The language of studies for Jewish children is Hebrew, and for Arab children, Arabic. Because of the segregation, the likelihood of encounters between Jewish and Arab children is very low (Gibton, 2011; Golan-Agnon, 2006). Yet, significant gaps were still found between the lower achievements of Arab schools and higher achievements of Jewish schools in all subjects, in all classes, and in every year.

These gaps have significant consequences for PAI students aspiring to gain access to Israel’s HEI, and they reflect the disadvantaged status of most Arab school education. Table 6.1 illustrates differences in numbers and percentages between Arab and Jewish students at all stages of HE.

The reports of the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS, 2013) indicate that only approximately 16% of all PAI students studying for their first degrees in Israel’s universities came from communities graded in the lower socio-economic clusters (clusters 1–4). Approximately 35% of Arab and Jews studying for a first degree on the main campuses of Israel’s universities come from localities situated in the top socio-economic clusters (7–10), including mixed Arab–Jewish towns (see Table 6.2 below). These data seems to indicate that HE in Israel’s universities remains a privilege for those with greater financial resources.

HE Expansion in Israel

Altbach et al. (2010) identified three basic stages in contemporary HE development: elitism, massification, and universal access. Almost all countries, including Israel, have dramatically increased their HE participation rates (Hemsley-Brown, 2012; Kirsh, 2010). The Israeli state participates in approximately 50.6% of the funding for HEIs. Its declared goal is to broaden access to HE as an important step in integrating different sectors of the population into the labor market, investing in the development of human capital and building a knowledge-intensive economy (Kirsh, 2010).

From the early nineties, three major structural reforms effected changes in the HEI system in response to growing demand for HE (Yogev & Ayalon, 2008):

By 2012, there were 68 HEI recognized by the CHE to grant academic degrees (9 universities, 20 public academic colleges, 16 private academic colleges and 23 academic colleges of teacher education) (Iram, 2011; Volansky, 2012).

Despite the government’s declared policy of strengthening HE in peripheral regions, 38.5% of the HEI are located in the central urban region. This is despite a rise in population of 31% in the peripheral regions. This uneven geographical distribution of HEI, leads also to paucity of courses available in peripheral areas so that its residents often have to study far from home (Kirsh, 2010). The trends of diversification, privatization, and internationalization of HEI were not specifically tailored to accommodate PAI needs for access and development. The CHE continued to restrict the establishment of Arab HEI (Arar & Mustafa, 2011). Figure 6.1 below represents the distribution of PAI students studying 1st degrees in the different types of Israeli HEI from 2000 to 2013.

In 2012, 29,240 Arab students studied for all levels of academic studies in Israel’s HEI. An additional 5210 Arab students studied in the Open University. Of the Arab students studying in the universities, academic colleges, and academic colleges of education, 23,065 studied for first degrees, 4895 for second degrees. 510 studied for a doctorate and 230 undertook certificate studies (Haj-Yehia & Arar, 2014). An increase was noted in the proportion of PAI students among all Israeli first degree students rising to 13% in 2012. A substantial part of this increase stemmed from the opening of colleges, in peripheral areas where there are concentrations of PAI population. In the academic year 2013, 36% of the PAI students in HEI studied for a first degree in the main university campuses, 23% in academic colleges of education, 19% in publicly funded academic colleges, 11% in annexes of major universities, and approximately 11% in privately funded colleges (ibid.).

The increase in total number of PAI academic students actually stems from several factors, three of them more prominent: (i) the increased rate of success in Matriculation examinations in Arab high schools, which rose from 22% in the mid-1990s to 38% at the beginning of the 21st century; (ii) a continuous increase in the proportion of PAI women studying in universities since the late 1980s (Arar & Mustafa, 2011); and (iii) the above-mentioned expansion of the HEI system. Having described the expansion of the Israeli HE system, the discussion now turns to changes in admissions policy and criteria for the different HEI.

Trends in HEI Admissions Policy and Criteria

Israel’s HEI mostly select first-degree students according to an aggregate computation of matriculation exams and psychometric entrance exams. In certain cases, an especially high result for one of these tools may exempt the candidate from the need to present results for the other tool. Public debate concerning the dubious value of the psychometric exam as an essential admission criterion for Israeli HEI, recently prompted a proposal for reform of senior high schools’ evaluation processes that will be implemented from the academic year 2014–2015, so that the matriculation certificate can serve as an entry certificate for HEI instead of psychometric testing (Weinenger & Stener, 2014). Since PAI students face many difficulties when they apply for acceptance to HEI in Israel, some have described their path to academia as a “Via Dolorosa.” Table 6.3 illustrates the underachievement and other obstacles impeding PAI candidates’ admission to Israeli universities in comparison to Jewish candidates and their actual rates of participation in Israel’s HEI.

Following this review of HEI admission policies, the discussion now turns to review other challenges faced by PAI and other peripheral populations when applying to HEI.

Challenges to Access and Equity in Israel

Studies have shown that structural blocks are often set up to limit the access of weaker populations and minorities to HE institutes (Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2013; Shiner & Modood, 2002). PAI and other underprivileged strata of society still have a lower rate of acceptance to HEI than Jewish students do.

Arar and Mustafa (2011) found five structural blocks that obstruct access to Israel’s HEI for PAI students. While socio-economic gaps also disadvantage other weaker peripheral and marginal populations, there are some specific blocks, detailed below, which mainly hinder PAI applicants so that only 23% of PAI high school graduates met the entrance criteria for acceptance into academic institutes in 2011/2012; and only 9% of those who completed first-degree studies were PAI (Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2013).

Israel’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)—Psychometric Testing

It is argued that psychometric tests discriminate against examinees from minority or underprivileged socio-cultural backgrounds (Abu-Saad, 2006; Yogev & Ayalon, 2008). Accordingly, PAI students achieve 123–126 points less (out of 800 maximum points) in psychometric testing results than Jewish Israeli students (Maagen & Shapira, 2009). Low psychometric results limit the acceptance of many PAI students to their preferred disciplines and they compromise by studying fields in which they have less interest (Arar & Mustafa, 2011).

Karletz, Bin-Simon, Ibrahim, and Avitar (2014) and other researchers argue that Arab students’ lower results in psychometric testing are due to significant differences in the efficient reading of texts in the two languages, Hebrew and Arabic. Thus the psychometric test in Arabic, constructed primarily on restricted time thinking, does not accurately reflect the PAI candidate’s potential to succeed in academic studies (ibid).

Overcoming Blocks and Achieving Equity in Access to HEI in Israel

The documentary analysis revealed four main categories of themes that help to answer the research questions relating to blocks encountered by minority, marginal, and peripheral groups aspiring to access HEI in Israel, and the strategies these populations employ to overcome these blocks.

Blocks Encountered by Students Seeking Access to HEI in Israel

Research in Israel and abroad has pointed up significant discrepancies in education availability and achievements between students with different demographic characteristics, between the state’s central and peripheral regions and between majority and minority groups (Ben-David, 2014a). These gaps deepen due to preferential distribution of government funding to schools in central regions rather than to peripheral regions, and to the Jewish school system rather than to the Arab school system (Arar & Abu-Asbah, 2013). Education budgets given to Arab local governments are 35% less in proportion to the PAI population than those given to Jewish local governments (Ben-David, 2014a). Results of PAI students in the international standard PISA exam were on average 116 points less than Jewish Israeli achievements (Arlosoroff, 2014). This differential is maintained in university entrance exams and in the underrepresentation of PAI and other peripheral students in HEI (Arar & Mustafa, 2011; Karletz et al., 2014).

Coping Strategies to Overcome Blocks

The students who are unable to pass the admission process to study their chosen discipline in HEI may choose one of three alternative paths:

Since the 1994 Israel-Jordan treaty, the number of PAI studying in Jordan has increased from 198 in 1998 to 5400 students today, including a relatively high proportion of women (in comparison to the gender distribution in PAI studies in other HE venues abroad) (Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2010). In 2011, the number of PAI studying abroad was estimated at 9260 students, the majority of them studying in Jordanian and Palestinian Authority universities (Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2013; Haj-Yehia & Arar, 2014; OECD, 2013). Most PAI went abroad to study prestigious majors such as Medicine, Pharmacy, and Para-medical disciplines, which they were unable to access in Israel. The phenomenon of PAI studying abroad exceeds the percentage of migrant students from other nation states (Brooks & Waters, 2011).

Figure 6.2 shows how the numbers of PAI students studying in HEI increases when those studying abroad are also taken into account.

Developing Policy Concerning the Barrier of Psychometric Testing

In 2000, the CHE, identified the problems hindering access for PAI students to Israeli HEI, indicating the block created by the psychometric test, The committee recommended constructing pre-academic courses for PAI students and information and support centers in PAI localities, changes in the psychometric test contents, and programs to help ease integration of PAI in HEI campuses. However, these recommendations were mostly not implemented (Al Haj, 2003). In 2012, another committee appointed to study these issues proposed a five-year holistic program to improve access, assimilation, and support for PAI in Israel’s HEI. The committee made several policy recommendations: (i) development of pre-academic information and guidance centers; (ii) pre-academic preparation courses and improvement of the image of these courses; (iii) programs to support successful integration of PAI during first year of academic studies; (iv) improved enlistment of minorities to the academic faculty staff and institutional platforms; and (v) establishment of a scholarship fund ensuring financial support during studies (Shaviv, Benishtein, Ston, & Podam, 2013). It is hoped these recommendations will be implemented.

Today despite the obstacles involved in access, the university continues to be the preferred venue for the enrollment of PAI students. Approximately 35% of all PAI students in HE studied in 2012/2013 at Haifa University, which is located in the heart of the largely Arab Galilee, and nearly 16% in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 12% of all PAI students prefer to study at the Open University. 25% of PAI students, mainly female students, study in teacher education colleges, which still attract a large percentage of Arab students, especially the Arab colleges: al-Qasimi College in the Triangle area, and the College of Sakhnin in the Galilee region (Haj-Yehia & Arar, 2014).

Conclusions

The Israeli HE system began as a standardized system that failed to consider weak populations such as the PAI and other peripheral groups (Gibton, 2011; Sbirsky & Degan-Bouzaglo, 2009). Findings show that despite increasing numbers and percentages of PAI in Israeli HEI (especially female students), structural blocks have continued to hinder their access to certain HEI, including requirements for an especially high matriculation average, psychometric testing, and a minimum age threshold (Karletz et al., 2014). This situation is exacerbated by Arab students’ deficient preparation at the pre-academic stage (Al-Haj, 2003). The Arab education system does not adequately provide Arab school students with a stimulating learning environment to realize inherent abilities and equip them with 21st century skills.

Among the recommendations of the Planning and Budgeting Committee set up by the CHE (Shaviv et al., 2013) to improve access to HE for the PAI were suggestions for a form of corrective preference, recognizing the depth of the gap between Arab and Jewish achievements in education, that is, a policy of differential academic fees according to a socio-economic key, moderation of accumulative blocks in Arab education, greater autonomy for the Arab education center, opening information and guidance systems, encouraging Arab high school students to study HE and increasing their awareness of the academic process in pre-academic courses, opening streams to bypass psychometric testing, and limiting the weight of the psychometric test to at the most 50% of the calculated grade for university entrance (Shaviv et al., 2013). They also suggested annulling minimum age restrictions, adapting, and being more flexible with regard to admission interviews with consideration for linguistic and cultural difficulties. They proposed annulling discriminatory practices in the award of scholarships and university residence, greater respect for the language and culture of PAI students and encouragement of young researchers and affirmative action for their admission (Arar & Mustafa, 2011; Kirsh, 2010; Shaviv et al., 2013). These decisions of the CHE have yet to be supported by the necessary legislation with allocation of the necessary funding for implementation, supervision, and evaluation.

Our findings also showed how another solution attracted peripheral groups who encountered obstacles in entry to Israeli HE, so that they increasingly turned to study HE abroad (Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2013). Changes in policy regarding the acceptance of PAI to Israeli HE institutions could improve their access to tertiary education. “Affirmative action” legislation was applied successfully to improve university access for minorities in certain regions of the USA (Haj-Yehia & Arar, 2014). In order to facilitate university entrance for disadvantaged populations such as the PAI, Israeli universities should consider allocating minimal entrance percentages for promising minority students, without harming the principle of meritocracy, and assisting Arab students with guidance and instruction in their initial period of assimilation within the universities.

The expansion of HEI in Israel that began during the 1980s was among the greatest in the world. The HEI system has evolved in the past 30 years toward universal access and a differentiated system, responding to changing demands of the economy and workplace and to student’s different aspirations (Iram, 2011). Yet, steps that are more effective should be taken in order to equalize access to HE for the PAI minority and other peripheral populations in Israel. The underrepresentation of the PAI is inconsistent with the general percentage of HE expansion in Israel, and drives many PAI students to pursue their studies abroad (Arar & Haj-Yehia, 2013).

This chapter contributes to an understanding of the process of change in Israeli policies concerning HE for disadvantaged populations, especially citizens from the Palestinian minority. It points up inequity in these policies and investigates ways these populations have found to cope with barriers to their entry to Israeli HE institutions, including temporary migration to other countries. The findings may have international significance since similar difficulties are encountered in access to HE among underprivileged or peripheral populations in other world states.