Background to the Research

• Mixed religion/cultural schools in NI and Israel were first established in the 1980s to address community divisions. Underpinned by broad variations of the 'contact hypothesis', the schools welcome groups from diverse cultural backgrounds and aim to instil greater communal tolerance and respect. Whilst attracting much positive publicity, the qualitative process through which they seek to improve relations have not been widely discussed and questions remain as to the contribution they can make to the community relations problems. This article aimed to compare the processes adopted by schools in NI and Israel, beginning with a brief background of mixed religion in both countries.
  

Research Approach

• The primary schools involved were a Controlled Integrated and a Grant Maintained Integrated school in NI (schools C and G) and two Israeli schools (schools S and E). Thirty semi-structured interviews, conducted with staff, parents and governors, ranged across a series of common themes, related to perceptions of the school ethos and the process of building better inter-group relations. Interviews were supplemented by observations of staff-rooms in NI and classrooms in Israel, and documentary evidence obtained from the School Prospectus and the School Development Plans (or equivalents).
  

Main Findings

• There was a general consensus both within and across the schools about how to establish an ethos of tolerance and respect for diversity. Teachers and parents all agreed that the ethos of a 'mixed' school was intrinsically linked to the presence of three key factors - maintaining religious balance, taking time out of formal teaching to discuss important issues, and commemorating national days and symbols.
• All four schools used the term 'balance' as the key descriptor for the school ethos. However, both attaining and maintaining a balanced enrolment was proving difficult for both NI schools and school E; many NI parents did not want to identify themselves publicly as either Catholic or Protestant. A further example of a problem was in one school which, to ensure that it was meeting the necessary criteria, decided to classify all children from mixed marriages as 'other'. The backgrounds of teaching staff further complicated the issue.
• School E in Israel had difficulty maintaining a balanced enrolment, mainly because it was viewed differently by the Arab and Jewish communities. The school thus employed a variety of 'marketing strategies', particularly to attract Jewish children.
• The overriding focus in both NI schools was clearly on meeting/being seen to meet targets on pupil balance. In Israel there was a general agreement that any imbalance needed urgent attention, not just because it undermined a formal commitment to a 50/50 balance, but mainly because it would adversely affect the mission to build equality.
• The management of linguistic diversity created an additional set of equality issues in the Israeli schools. In school E, two teachers, each fluent in one of the languages (Arabic and Hebrew) are assigned to co-teach each class. The teachers believed that having to plan lessons together assisted them in overcoming their own prejudices and fears.
• To overcome the general perception/reality of Arab subjugation in Israeli society, both schools tried to encourage the use of Arabic in and outside the classroom. However, there was a tendency in school E to speak English outside formal lessons, which frustrated teachers that the language policy was not working.
• Circle time was practised in all four schools and regarded as the key mechanism for encouraging cultural tolerance, with frequent opportunities for debating issues relevant to the conflict. In NI, all but one staff stated being either nervous of such discussions or not seeing it as important in the integrated school context. In Israel, with 2 exceptions, teachers tended to describe these discussions as cathartic and a natural part of the process of breaking down political and cultural boundaries. The Israeli teachers used Circle time to encourage stories about being affected by the violence, leading to an exchange of views and information and thus positive consequences for inter-group relations. In contrast, the main concern for most teachers in the NI schools was avoiding emotional or empathetic conversations.
• There were dissenters to these trends in both countries, with some teachers in NI disagreeing over how the integrated ethos is achieved. Only one teacher in Israel fundamentally disagreed with their ethos of openly addressing and discussing issues of difference and similarity.
• The various teaching techniques employed in Circle Time also stress participants' different perspectives. The open and emotional discussion of conflict related issues, a key priority in Israel, sat in direct contrast to the detached and aloof responses of the NI teachers.
• In attempts to give prominence to cultural events in the NI schools, both the type of event that was celebrated and the way in which the celebrations took place was subject to a subtle filtering process that seemed to reflect the cultural preferences of the most vociferous and influential staff members.
• School C emphasised creating a 'neutral' atmosphere, with a discernible reluctance to become embroiled in discussions about which symbols to display/sporting achievements to celebrate. However, the issue of cultural and political expression was far from resolved, as shown by older pupils wearing football shirts under their uniforms.
• According recognition to cultural identity also proved difficult in Israel, particularly in school S where the celebration of Independence Day/El Naqbe Day had inspired considerable debate amongst staff. School E celebrated each according to the particular remembrance dates on the Jewish and Arab calendars. In essence, this school provided a context which allowed individuals the space to reflect on and challenge their conceptions of what was normal which, in turn, allowed them to try and accept the right of each group to free cultural and political expression.
• In keeping with the open and direct communication style, both Israeli schools accorded considerable emphasis to frank and forthright discourse. Various mechanisms were also put in place to assist schools in creating better relations, such as conflict resolution training, and parental training and guidance. Both NI schools revealed rather cautious practices; neither highlighted open discussion nor debate about what the school should achieve in terms of community relations.
• A strategic attempt in school G to building better community relations was not accorded high priority status by the majority of staff, parents and governors. The NI schools regarded the development of good community relations as a matter of structure, rather than as a strategic or process issue. There was no agreed definition of integrated education beyond an official commitment to integration, and no agreement on the practical processes that should be taken to instil the values of tolerance and respect.

Conclusions

• The contact process was not value-free or objective, but determined by the prevailing cultural conditions in each school, which reflected elements of their local cultures. The open and direct patterns of dialogue, identified as a key cultural trait in Israel, were also an important and defining feature in the Israeli schools. Equally, the reticence and reserve, identified as a defining cultural trait in NI, seemed to feed into the school environment.
• Other separate but related factors appeared to play a part in shaping behaviour and attitudes in schools. One of the most significant emerging from the research was the distinct policy environments in which the schools operated. United Kingdom schools are largely influenced by an emphasis on performance and marketization, and the NI schools did tend to focus on aspects of school activity that they knew the Government would measure. The demonstration of tangible results is not given such a high priority in Israel, and the Israeli schools appeared to have more autonomy, opportunity and incentive to define their own goals; this seemed important for the construction and development of the school ethos. Importantly, those factors which are critical for improving inter-group relations (empathy with out-group members, understanding uniqueness and differentiation) appeared to be difficult to construct within the present climate and culture of NI schools.
• The paper is concluded to have shown how culture and policy can interact to influence the process and outcome of the contact hypothesis in mixed-faith schools.