On legal literacy and mobilization of students’ rights from a disempowered professional status: The case of Israeli teachers

Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

On legal literacy and mobilization of students’ rights from a disempowered professional status: The case of Israeli teachers Lotem Perry-Hazan 1, *, Eden Tal-Weibel 1 Department of Leadership and Policy in Education, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

h i g h l i g h t s
Despite teachers encountering frequent questions concerning students’ rights, most were only minimally knowledgeable.
Some teachers viewed themselves as helpless due to legal myths, which purportedly limit their autonomy.
Teachers perceived themselves as less capable of seeking legal information than students and parents.
Teachers’ lack of legal literacy undermines their professionalism, which requires ‘knowledge work’.
As the rights discourse becomes a dominant discourse, teachers’ legal literacy may enhance their status.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 24 May 2019 Received in revised form 17 November 2019 Accepted 8 January 2020 Available online xxx

The study examined Israeli teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of student’s rights, and their reports on their actions in rights-related cases. Semi-structured interviews with teachers revealed that although teachers encounter frequent legal questions, most of them were only minimally knowledgeable, expressed reluctance to seek out information, and perceived themselves as lacking the capacity to do so. Moreover, due to legal myths that purportedly limit teachers’ autonomy, teachers reported feeling helpless and acknowledged violating rules that in actuality do not exist. The conclusions discuss the interface of legal literacy, Israeli teachers’ low social status, and their perceptions of teachers’ professionalism. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Education law in general and students’ rights in particular have become more and more relevant to teachers’ daily work. Various trends have contributed to this process. One trend is the growing awareness of children’s rights, following the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989 (Byrne & Lundy, 2019; Quennerstedt, 2011). In addition, legal narratives have penetrated school systems due to disciplinary policies that emphasize semi-legal procedures in suspensions and exclusions from school (Kayama, Haight, Gibson, & Wilson, 2015; Perry-Hazan & Birnhack, 2018; Perry-Hazan & Lambrozo, 2018). Moreover, the use of education law litigation is increasing, both by parents and

* Corresponding author. Department of Leadership and Policy in Education, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, 31905, Israel. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Perry-Hazan), edental14@ gmail.com (E. Tal-Weibel). 1 Both authors contributed equally to this work. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103016 0742-051X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

social movements seeking to reform education systems (PerryHazan, 2015a; Superfine & Thompson, 2016; Zirkel & Skidmore, 2014). In this qualitative study, we examined Israeli teachers’ knowledge about students’ rights and their reports on their actions in instances of possible violations of these rights. We also examined whether teachers independently seek out legal information, and characterized the reasons for teachers’ reluctance to seek out such information. Additionally, the study analyzed teachers’ perceptions of students’ rights and portrayed the role of teachers’ social and organizational status in these perceptions. The next subsections of the introduction review the relevant literature. Section 1.1 reviews empirical studies regarding teachers’ legal literacy and discusses the implication of teachers’ low legal literacy. Section 1.2 reviews studies concerning teachers’ professionalism, the role of professional knowledge in the definition of teaching as a profession, and the associations between professionalism and social status. Section 2 details the research design, based on 30 semi-

2

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

structured interviews with Israeli teachers. As the status of Israeli teachers is substantially lower than in other countries (Dolton, Marcenaro, De Vries, & She, 2018), Israel provides an ideal case study to examine the interface of teachers’ legal literacy, professionalism, and social status. The interviews included open questions and presentation of vignettes that portrayed dilemmas relating to students’ rights. Sections 3 and 4 present the findings and conclusions. The findings indicated that although interviewees encounter frequent legal questions, most of them have minimal knowledge of students’ rights, express their reluctance to seek it out, and perceive themselves as lacking the capacity to do so. Interviewees’ legal knowledge was characterized by a lack of confidence and by legal myths, which purportedly limit teachers’ autonomy. The interviewees’ responses indicated that even when in possession of the relevant legal knowledge, such knowledge does not assure compliance. Moreover, in some cases, interviewees reported that they would disobey rules that in actuality, do not exist. The findings also showed that many of the interviewees perceived students’ rights as a tool to enable parents, students, and the education system to undermine teachers’ status and authority. The conclusions discuss the interface of legal literacy, the professionalization of teaching, and teachers’ social status. We argue that teachers’ reluctance to engage in “knowledge work” (Price & Weatherby, 2018, pp. 116e117) concerning students’ rights frame them as passive agents whose professional responsibilities are limited and in turn, perpetuate their low social status. We also argue that due to the growing dominance of the legal discourse in schools, teachers’ knowledge of students’ rights and their capacity to seek out legal information may serve to empower teachers and strengthen them as professionals. 1.1. Teachers’ legal literacy Legal literacy is the ability of ordinary citizens to understand and use the law in their everyday lives in a degree of competence that enables them to protect their interests, know when to turn to a specialist, and understand public debates (White, 1982). Teachers’ legal literacy relates to the basic legal issues that regulate their daily work, many of which concern students’ rights (see Schimmel & Militello, 2007). Several empirical studies conducted in the US (Charmaraman, Jones, Stein, & Espelage, 2013; Mead, 2008; Schimmel & Militello, 2007; Thompson, Arum, Edelman, Morrill, & Tyson, 2015) and in Australia (Walsh, Mathews, Rassafiani, Farrell, & Butler, 2013) have explored teachers’ legal literacy. Some of these studies focused on a wide range of students’ rights (Schimmel & Militello, 2007), while others focused on specific topics such as students’ protection from bullying and abuse (Charmaraman et al., 2013; Walsh et al., 2013), or due process in disciplinary proceedings (Thompson et al., 2015). These studies pointed to the low levels of legal literacy among teachers (Charmaraman et al., 2013; Mead, 2008; Schimmel & Militello, 2007). For example, in their large-scale study that examined US teachers’ knowledge of a range of students’ rights, Schimmel and Militello (2007) found that more than 60 percent of the respondents were wrong or unsure about most of the questions, including questions regarding legal issues that have been clearly resolved by the courts for more than a decade before the research was conducted. In addition, Charmaraman et al. (2013) revealed low levels of legal literacy in a qualitative study that explored how US educators viewed bullying and sexual harassment and their role in preventing both. Their findings revealed, among other things, that the study’s participants defined sexual harassment as something that transpires between adults or between adults and students, and consequently, they did not understand their role in

preventing sexual harassment between students. The participants lamented that school administrators did not provide information on school policies, but they did not request further training. Schimmel and Militello (2007) also examined the sources of teachers’ legal information, finding that most teachers receive such information from other teachers. The closest other source of legal information was the school administration. In a subsequent study, Militello, Schimmel, and Eberwein (2009) found that a majority of US school principals are uninformed or misinformed about school law issues. Studies conducted in other countries have raised similar concerns as to the legal literacy of school principals and administrators (Findlay, 2007; Perry-Hazan & Birnhack, 2016; Tie, 2014). Other studies have examined the factors that influence teachers’ legal literacy. Thompson et al. (2015), in their exploration of US teachers’ and administrators’ understanding of students’ due process rights, pointed to the organizational contexteeincluding information obtained from colleagues, on-the-job training, and organizational practiceseeas a key factor in shaping educators’ rights conceptions. Another study, focusing on Australian teachers’ knowledge of their reporting duties with respect to child sexual abuse, found that teachers having higher levels of knowledge had received training concerning child sexual abuse, had more positive attitudes toward reporting, were more likely to hold administrative positions, and had reported child sexual abuse at least once (Walsh et al., 2013). This study also found that teachers having higher levels of knowledge were also more likely to work in the state having the most robust legislated reporting mandate, which had been in place for a considerable period. There are several justifications for strengthening teachers’ legal literacy, particularly regarding students’ rights. First, teachers unfamiliar with students’ rights might unwittingly violate these rights, exposing themselves to grievances and lawsuits (Schimmel & Militello, 2007). Legally, lack of knowledge does not exempt teachers from responsibility. Moreover, such lack of knowledge may be considered negligence. Second, violations of students’ rights have educational implications (Lundy & Martinez-Sainz, 2018; Osler & Starkey, 2010; Perry-Hazan, 2015b; Struthers, 2015; Tibbitts, 2017). Rights-based school practices contribute to the development of students’ rights consciousness, namely their ability to define problems and obstacles in terms of rights (Almog & Perry-Hazan, 2011; Birnhack, PerryHazan, & German Ben-Hayun, 2018; Perry-Hazan & Lambrozo, 2018). When children’s rights are protected, they are likely to view these rights as more important (Hart, Pavlovic, & Zeidner, 2001) and are more likely to respect the rights of others (McCowan, 2012). Third, teachers may be unnecessarily concerned about being held liable for an illegal practice (Davies, 2009; Schimmel & Militello, 2007). Schimmel and Militello (2007) noted that too many teachers view the law as a source of fear and anxietyd“an invisible monster … waiting to ensnare any educator who makes an innocent mistake” (pp. 257e258). Consequently, teachers may make decisions driven by fear rather than by pedagogical considerations. Fourth, teachers unfamiliar with the law and whose source for legal information is their colleagues, who are similarly unfamiliar with the law (Schimmel & Militello, 2007), may generate legal myths. When organizational practices become a myth, they are taken for granted and adopted ceremoniously (see Meyer & Rowan, 1977), with no one doubting or questioning their legitimacy. The development of such a legal myth was discussed in a study that examined the decision-making process of Israeli school principals in installing closed-circuit TV systems in schools (Perry-Hazan & Birnhack, 2016). An unexpected source that principals relied upon for their legal knowledge was imagined law: they wrongly assumed the presence of a law that guided them in the matter. The principals

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

did not seek out professional guidance and did not consult others. Rather, they filled the imagined law with endogenous sources, namely, their own perceptions as to the balance between security, privacy, and educational considerations. Fifth, as we will argue in this study, teachers’ legal literacy may strengthen their professional status in light of the growing influence of the legal discourse on education policy (see Perry-Hazan, 2015a; Superfine & Thompson, 2016; Zirkel & Skidmore, 2014) and the growing interest in human rights education (e.g., Bajaj, 2011; Lundy & Martinez-Sainz, 2018; Tibbitts, 2017) and related concepts (e.g., Myers & Rivero, 2019; Yemini, Tibbitts, & Goren, 2019). Following Foucault’s studies on discourses (1969, 1971), Shoshana (2014, p. 101) defined a dominant discourse as one with a strong and pervasive presence in everyday life, which has gained institutional support and has received encouragement from culturally prestigious actors or hegemonic platforms. Dominant discourses are intertwined with expertise, power, and class (Shoshana, 2014, 2016) and tend to marginalize other systems of meaning (Foucault, 1969). The following sections, which review studies highlighting the interconnections of teachers’ professionalization, professional knowledge, and social status, clarify the importance of providing teachers with tools that enable them to engage in the dominant discourses that are present in their daily work, as well as to critically examine these discourses. 1.2. The interface of teachers’ professionalism, professional knowledge, and social status 1.2.1. Teachers’ professionalism and professional knowledge From the early 20th century, educators have struggled to advance the perception that teaching is a highly complex occupation, requiring specialized knowledge and skills and deserving the same status as traditional professions, such as law and medicine (Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011). Many scholars have explored the contested definitions of teaching as a profession (e.g., Bourke, Lidstone, & Ryan, 2015; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011; Torres & Weiner, 2018; Whitty, 2000). Ingersoll and Merrill (2011) set several indicators to assess the professionalization of the teaching profession in various countries. These include credential and licensing levels; induction and mentoring programs for entrants; professional development support, opportunities, and participation; specialization; authority over decision making; compensation levels; and prestige and occupational social standing. According to Ingersoll and Merrill, many of these indicators highlight the feature that professions are “knowledge-based” occupations (p. 187). Similarly, Price and Weatherby (2018) contended that contemporary professionals need to be “knowledge workers,” who are lifelong learners (p. 116). Knowledge work, they noted, includes searching for existing knowledge, creating new knowledge, processing and sharing knowledge, and applying knowledge in work tasks and in solving new problems (pp. 116e117). Various studies emphasized teachers’ professional knowledge as a key indicator in the definition of teaching as a profession (Fuller, Goodwyn, & Francis-Brophy, 2013; Price & Weatherby, 2018; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2009; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Winch, 2004), and stressed the interconnections of such knowledge and prestige (Fuller et al., 2013; Price & Weatherby, 2018). Delineating the scope of professional knowledge necessary for characterizing teaching as a profession is a complex undertaking (Winch, 2004). Shulamn’s seminal work on knowledge-based teaching (1987) offers categories of teachers’ professional knowledge, which include not only content, pedagogical, and curricular knowledge, but also knowledge of school governance. Other scholars highlighted the importance of teachers’ ethical knowledge (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2009; 2018; Whitty, 2000), which enables

3

teachers to make linkages between core values and the nuances of their daily actions (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2009). These contentions are applicable to teachers’ legal knowledge as well, as such knowledge may encourage them to reflect on the ways values are embedded in their everyday practices (see Stefkovich, 2006). 1.2.2. Teachers’ professionalism and social status As noted, teachers’ professionalism in general and teachers’ professional knowledge specifically are intertwined with teachers’ social status (Fuller et al., 2013; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011; Price & Weatherby, 2018). Teachers’ social status is reliant upon the national and cultural context (Hargreaves, 2009; Park & Byun, 2015). However, the teaching profession’s low social status in comparison with other occupations and the attendant difficulty in recruiting high achievers to teaching is a concern of many countries (Braun, 2015; Han, Borgonovi, & Guerriero, 2018; Price & Weatherby, 2018). As high-quality teachers comprise a key factor in improving education systems (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; OECD, 2018), several studies have sought to identify the factors attracting highachieving candidates to the teaching profession. Some of these studies included comparative data on different countries (e.g., Han, 2018; Han et al., 2018; Park & Byun, 2015; Price & Weatherby, 2018), whereas others focused on specific national contexts (e.g., Braun, 2015; Lankford, Loeb, McEachin, Miller, & Wyckoff, 2014). Teaching’s professional standing was found to be a factor highly associated with teachers’ social status (Braun, 2015; Park & Byun, 2015). Comparative studies have shown that successful education systems manage to recruit the best teaching candidates by providing highly professional training and on-going support that prepare teachers to exercise considerable autonomy and promote their image as respected and trusted professionals (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Rothman, 2015). Other related determinants of the teaching profession’s status concern teachers’ salaries (Han et al., 2018; Park & Byun, 2015), the conceptualization of teaching as a feminized profession (Braun, 2015), cultural norms (Braun, 2015; Fwu & Wang, 2002), and neoliberal reforms that promoted test-based accountability and undermined teachers’ autonomy (Braun, 2015; Han, 2018; Price & Weatherby, 2018). Regulation of teachers’ work can produce outcomes both consistent and in tension with efforts to professionalize teaching and enhance teachers’ status (Torres & Weiner, 2018). Scholars have warned that contemporary perceptions of teachers’ “new professionalism” use exams, observations, and regulations of teachers’ behavior to generate disciplinary power (Bourke et al., 2015; see also; Berkovich & Benoliel, 2018; Bourke, Ryan, & Lloyd, 2016; Zeichner, 2010). Many other studies similarly discussed the negative ramifications of teacher surveillance and control (FinefterRosenbluh, 2016; Hall & Noyes, 2009; Page, 2017; Perry-Hazan & Birnhack, 2019; Ryan et al., 2017; Santoro, 2018). Since school law may be one of the institutional tools that breeds teacher surveillance, legal knowledge may assist teachers in controlling their professional agency, and consequently, strengthening their social status. As Sahlberg (2013) argued regarding the extended, researchbased, education of Finnish teachers, profound professional knowledge not only raises the status of the teaching profession but also prepares teachers to more confidently resist potentially harmful reform ideas. 2. Research design 2.1. Objectives and context In this study, we examined Israeli teachers’ knowledge of students’ rights and their reports of their actions in instances of

4

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

possible student rights violations. We also examined whether and how teachers independently seek out legal information. Additionally, we characterized teachers’ perceptions of students’ rights and portrayed the role of teachers’ social and organizational status in these perceptions. Only few studies have incorporated qualitative analyses of teachers’ legal literacy (Charmaraman et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2015), and none of these studies examined the interface of teachers’ legal literacy and their professionalism and status. Israel offers an ideal arena to examine this interface, as the status of Israeli teachers is substantially low, compared with other countries. An international study on teachers’ social status surveyed the general population in 21 countries, revealing that Israeli teachers are ranked next to last (Dolton et al., 2018). The study examined how teachers are respected relative to other professionals; to what extent would parents encourage their children to be teachers; to what extent are teachers entrusted with delivering a good education; and what people think teachers ought to be paid. Israel received a ranking of 6.65 out of 100 points. A particularly low ranking related to parental encouragement of their children to be teachers. In the previous index, five years earlier, Israeli teachers were ranked last, receiving a ranking of only two points (Dolton & Marcenaro-Gutierrez, 2013). These data explain why in Israel, the gap between the achievements of students who anticipate embarking on a career in teaching and those planning a non-teaching professional career requiring academic credentials is one of the highest in the world (OECD, 2018, pp. 27e28). Reforms that raised teachers’ salaries in recent years did not improve the quality of new teachers due to other factors, such as a parallel extension of teachers’ in-school working hours (Bank of Israel, 2019; see also The State Comptroller of Bank of Israel, 2019). Some studies have indicated that Israeli teachers’ low status is perpetuated in the schools by their exclusion from decision-making processes (Addi-Raccah, 2009), surveillance (Perry-Hazan & Birnhack, 2019), increased pressure due to national standardized tests (Feniger, Israeli, & Yehuda, 2016), and reforms that strengthened school principals’ authority to dismiss teachers (Berkovich, 2014). It should also be noted in this regard that Israeli teachers do not have a code of ethics, which comprises one of the features of professionalization (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2018). Various attempts to formulate such a code have failed over the years (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2016) due to the MoE’s reluctance to invest resources in its implementation and the teacher unions’ apprehensions of tighter control (Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2017). 2.2. Methodology The research was based on 30 in-depth semi-structured interviews with Israeli teachers. We recruited teachers through personal contacts and Facebook. The sampling was diverse in terms of the teachers’ age, seniority, and fields of expertise; and the schools’ sector (Jewish/Arab/Druze), legal status (public/private), level (elementary/secondary), and the socioeconomic status of the students’ families. The interviews were held in teachers’ homes, their schools, or other places the teachers determined. Our university’s IRB granted ethical approval for the research procedures (approval no. 186/17). We asked the teachers open questions regarding the Student’s Rights Act (2000), their sources of legal information, and their perceptions of students’ rights. The Act includes provisions relating to various students’ rights, including dignity, equality, due process in school expulsion, and privacy. It was enacted according to the recommendations of a professional committee aiming to implement the Convention on the Right of the Child (1989) in Israeli law (Gibton, 2011). The Act does not address all legal aspects of

students’ rights. For example, provisions relating to students’ protection are anchored in the criminal law, and provisions relating to school discipline are anchored in MoE regulations. The interview protocol also included vignettes that presented cases relating to students’ rights. The cases concerned three primary topics that we perceived as important, depicting common situations in schools, and that their legal regulation is relatively clear and accessible: teachers’ duty to report abuse of students by their parents or their peers, school discipline (classroom suspension, recess detention, separating fighting students), and students’ privacy (revealing students’ private information, searching students’ school bags). The detailed legal framework of each vignette is elaborated in the findings. Designing vignettes that are realistic and contain all the critical information for the decision being studied (see Aguinis & Bradley, 2014) required a situated knowledge of legal, organizational, and educational practices and the social and discursive interactions that characterize them (Cunliffe & Scaratti, 2017; Gherardi, 2008). Consequently, we consulted school law lawyers to verify the unequivocal nature of the vignettes’ legal interpretation. We also tapped our own experienceeeAuthor 1, an attorney, investigates and teaches students’ rights in an educational administration master degree program; Author 2 is an experienced teacher. The interviews lasted approximately 45 min. They were recorded and transcribed. We used thematic analysis for analyzing the data. The analysis comprised several stages. First, we created detailed tables of teachers’ reported knowledge and behavior. Second, we formulated a coding tree that described all the themes that emerged from the study. Third, we grouped the themes according to the research questions and designed the final coding scheme that is presented in the following section. 3. Findings 3.1. Teachers’ knowledge of students’ rights and their reported behavior in specific cases Most interviewees were unfamiliar with the content of Israel’s Student’s Rights Act (2000). Half of the interviewees claimed they knew there was a Student’s Rights Act, but were unable to describe its content. Thirteen interviewees admitted that they had not heard about the Student’s Rights Act, or did not know what it includes. Only two interviewees had a general knowledge of the rights protected by the Student’s Rights Act. We also used vignettes to examine teachers’ knowledge and behavior as manifested in specific instances of rights’ violations. Our findings are described in the following sections and are summarized in Table 1. 3.1.1. The duty to report We designed two vignettes concerning the duty to report. The first described a teacher who suspects that a student was abused at home, and the second described a case in which the teacher has received information that one of their students frequently uses threats to extort money from another student. The duty to report applies when a person has reasonable grounds to think that a child was recently abused by a family member, or abused in an educational or residential care system (The Criminal Act, 1977, Article 368). An educator has an extended duty to report, even if the suspected abuse is not recent (Article 368(4)(1)). The duty to report requires reporting directly to the police or a social worker. Knowledge. In the case of abused children, 17 interviewees did not mention any duty to report, three interviewees thought that they should report to someone, but did know to whom, and 10 interviewees knew that social services need to be apprised of the suspicion of abuse. In the case of extortion, 23 interviewees did not

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

5

Table 1 Teachers’ knowledge and reported behavior (n ¼ 30). Knew Did not know the rules the rules The duty to report Abuse 10

Extortion

7

School discipline Suspension 5 from class

Recess 11 detention 1 Separating fighting students Students’ privacy Confidential 5 information School bag 22 searches

Would act according to the rules

Would not act according to the rules

1 20 17 did not mention a duty to report; 3 did not know to whom to report 23 did not mention a duty to report 0

29 Most teachers would report to other agents in the school 30 Most teachers would report to other agents in the school

5 would suspend a student and provide a learning assignment and an alternative place to complete it 7 would not suspend a student; 5 of them assumed a prohibition 19 9 would withhold a recess and ensure adult supervision 9 assumed a prohibition; 10 were unsure 13 would not withhold a recess 23 29 12 assumed a moral duty; 9 assumed a prohibition; 8 were unsure

18 7 would suspend a student despite an imagined prohibition

25 12 assumed a prohibition; 13 did not know the conditions

8 would withhold a recess despite an imagined prohibition 7

25

10

20

8

16

14 6 would search a student’s bag although they know it is prohibited

The bold text highlight the main categories and the main findings.

note any duty to report, and seven interviewees thought the police should be apprised. In both cases, most of the interviewees who mentioned the duty to report did not know that they needed to report directly to a social worker or the police, rather than passing the duty to report to the school principal or the school counselor. Behavior. In the case of abused children, only one teacher said that she would report directly to the social services, and in the case of extortion, none of the interviewees considered submitting a direct report. In both cases, most interviewees noted that they would turn to the school counselor. For example, T15, who was familiar with the duty to report, said that the school counselor has much more knowledge about how to handle such cases and her goal as a teacher is not “to follow the legal rules,” but “to help the student.” About one-third of the interviewees said that they would also turn to one of the school’s administrators, usually the school principal, the grade coordinator, or the teacher in charge of the school’s atmosphere. Most interviewees expressed a lack of confidence concerning how to handle such cases. For example: T28: I don’t handle such cases. I don’t know what to do … You’re talking to me, and I say to myself: “how many things we don’t know, after so many years of teaching.” T12: I don’t know most of the things … I’m “small-minded”; I pass things to the person who is above me [in the school]. Many interviewees noted that they are afraid to act without the backing of the school’s administration. For instance, T9 noted that she “won’t take the reins,” and T21 said that school administrators “are paid to handle such cases.” T15, who knew that she needed to report to the social services, said the following: “I’m supposed to pass it directly to social services, but I would find some false reason to refer the student to the school counselor.” 3.1.2. School discipline In order to explore interviewees’ legal knowledge of school discipline, we chose common disciplinary measures that are clearly regulated by the MoE regulation of school discipline (Ministry of Education, 2015): suspension from class, recess detention, and

separating fighting students. The first vignette described a case in which a student repeatedly disrupts the lesson. We asked the interviewees to describe their anticipated responses, specifically relating to the options of suspension from class and recess detention. The regulations determine that when a student repeatedly disturbs the class, the teacher may suspend him or her for the lesson, on condition that the student will be given a learning assignment and provided with an alternative place to complete it (Article 2.4.2). The teacher may also withhold a recess from the student, on condition that, in the case of an elementary school student, that student will be under adult supervision (Article 2.4.3). The second vignette described a teacher who tries to separate students hitting each other by touching a student’s shoulder and trying to push him back from the other student. Then, in the vignette, the student shouts at the teacher, claiming that she is not allowed to touch him. According to the MoE regulations (Article 3.1.1), a teacher is required to intervene when students hit each other and act to stop the injury. The teacher is allowed to use “reasonable force.” Suspension from class: knowledge. Only five interviewees knew that they are allowed to temporarily suspend a student from class if they provide him or her with a learning assignment and a place to complete it. Thirteen interviewees thought that they could temporarily suspend a student from class but were not familiar with the conditions. Twelve interviewees thought that they could not temporarily suspend a student from class. Their assumption that suspension from class is “illegal” or “prohibited” was mostly based on the practices in their own schools. One of these teachers described her source of knowledge as follows: “a friend told me that a parent approached her and shouted at her that [suspension from class] is illegal (T9).” Suspension from class: behavior. Most of the interviewees (n ¼ 18) said that they would temporarily suspend a student from class without providing the student a learning assignment. Seven interviewees who thought that they could not suspend a student from class said that they had done so in the past. Another five interviewees reported that they had suspended students from class according to the rules, but only three knew the rules. Seven

6

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

interviewees said that they would not suspend a student from class, and four of them said that they would ask the disturbing student to leave the class for several minutes “to wash his face,” or “breath some fresh air.” Five of these seven interviewees thought that suspending a student from class was prohibited. T6 noted, in this regard: “I’d be happy to throw the student down the stairs, but I can’t. It’s illegal to suspend a student from a lesson.” Recess detention: knowledge. Eleven interviewees knew that they are permitted to withhold a recess from a student and were familiar with the conditions. Nineteen interviewees did not know the relevant rules. Nine of them were sure that they would not be permitted to withhold a recess and the remaining were unsure. Recess detention: behavior. Seventeen interviewees said that they would withhold a student’s recess. Nine of them knew the rules and said they would follow them, and the other eight thought that they are not permitted to withhold a recess. Thirteen interviewees said that they would not withhold a recess. Most of them were unsure concerning the legality of recess detention. Some said that a recess is an entitlement of every student, reflecting an acknowledged need of both students and teachers. Various studies have indicated that school recess indeed serves children’s cognitive, social, emotional, and physical needs (see review in Ramstetter, Murray, & Garner, 2010). Separating fighting students: knowledge. Thirteen interviewees thought it was their responsibility to separate fighting students and prevent physical injury, but only one of them knew that it is a legal duty. Eight interviewees did not know whether they were allowed to separate fighting students, and nine interviewees thought that they were not allowed to do so. For example: T12: A teacher cannot touch and cannot separate [fighting students]. I don’t know how we’re expected to separate fights only with words! T15: [A teacher] cannot touch a student, even to put a hand on a student. It could always be considered sexual harassment. Separating fighting students: behavior. Twenty-three interviewees noted that they would use proportional force to separate students who were hitting each other. Thirteen of them knew that it is their obligation. In response to the vignette, the remaining 10 interviewees chose to intervene, though some of them thought that such intervention contradicts the law. For instance: T9: There are written laws, and there are things transpiring on the ground. Are we supposed to watch students fight [and do nothing]? T19: [I would separate the students], even though I’m not allowed to do so, and I could get hurt … I have no choice. T6: I can’t be a bystander and do nothing. No way. Seven interviewees said that they would not separate fighting students. T21 said that she would do so only if she would think that a student’s life is at risk. All of these seven interviewees work in secondary schools and said that they might get hurt. Some of them expressed a fear of facing violence charges: T1: If I would accidentally hit a child, it’s his word against mine. T8: Children know how to misuse these things. T27: The “wheel can turn,” and I can face charges that I hit the child. In all three vignettes on school discipline, some interviewees

reported that they would break a rule that in actuality does not exist. Generally, interviewees’ perceptions regarding these vignettes revealed a feeling of helplessness in light of the lack of disciplinary tools. Some interviewees lamented that the legal rules hinder them from applying their discretion. As T3 put it: “At the end of the day, a smart child who knows the rules can do whatever he wants. Teachers don’t have too many options.” 3.1.3. Students’ privacy The first vignette regarding students’ privacy described a conversation between two teachers sharing a student’s confidential information concerning his family. The teacher who revealed the information was the student’s homeroom teacher, and the other teacher did not have any professional connection to the student but knew the family. According to Article 14 of the Student’s Rights Act (2000), teachers are allowed to reveal students’ confidential information only for professional purposes. The second vignette on students’ privacy concerned students’ school bag searches. The vignette described a case in which teachers suspect that a student stole a cellphone (in elementary school) or possessed alcohol (in secondary school). The MoE regulations (Ministry of Education, 2015, Articles 2.2.3, 5.3.1) prohibit educators from searching student’s private belongings unless there is a suspicion that the student is carrying weapons. In such cases, only a police officer or a security officer is authorized to conduct the search. Confidential information: knowledge. In responding to the vignettes, 25 interviewees did not mention the issue of students’ privacy. The remaining five interviewees noted that such information is confidential and differentiated between gossip and professional consultation. These five interviewees did not cite specific rules. Confidential information: behavior. Twenty interviewees said that they would reveal the confidential information described in the vignette. Of these interviewees, only one teacher knew that the case represents a violation of the student’s privacy. Some of these interviewees noted their obligation to provide their colleagues with advice and help them prevent difficulties with parents. For example, T2 noted that the school staff is “unified” and “very solidified” and that sharing private information is an element of “a need to belong [to the staff].” T4 stated that teachers ought to share information, as they need “lots of support due to crazy things that they’re going through.” Ten interviewees said that they would not share the information, or would carefully consider how to share it. Four of them knew that they are not allowed to do so. The remaining six interviewees anchored their behavior in moral grounds rather than legal grounds. Most interviewees noted that they encounter gossip regarding students and their families. For example, T10 said that “many, many teachers talk about their student’s character,” T17 noted that she has “a million examples” of teachers who reveal “irrelevant” and “tabloid” information on students, and T28 said that “there’s lots and lots of gossip.” Some interviewees reported that teachers share students’ private information mostly during informal conversations, usually in the teachers’ lounge, which was mentioned repeatedly as a place to “ventilate” and unburden. Interviewees also reported teachers’ sharing students’ private information in formal pedagogic meetings during which the performance of an individual student is discussed by all those who teach that student. T6 said that during these meetings, teachers usually embellish their assessment with gossipy information, and T12 said that when a teacher mentions that a certain detail is confidential, the other teachers begin asking her yes/no questions, and “their smiles help you detect whether it’s true.” Some interviewees portrayed the sharing of students’ private information as a routine and justified

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

practice. For example, T3 said that the teachers in his school “don’t have such off-limit information … it doesn’t fit the school’s culture.” T5 said that she is “for transparency … to say everything.” Similarly, T15 said that “it’s extremely stupid” not to share students’ private information because “everyone knows one another” and thus, it is unrealistic for the information to remain confidential. School bag searches: knowledge. Twenty-two interviewees were aware that teachers are not allowed to search students’ school bags. Some of them mentioned a specific prohibition on such searches, although they could not cite its source. Others did not know of a specific prohibition on school bag searches but said that such a prohibition is embedded in students’ right to privacy. Eight interviewees were not familiar with a legal prohibition on teachers’ search of students’ school bags and thought that such searches are routine procedure. School bag searches: behavior. Sixteen interviewees said they would not search students’ school bags. All of them knew that they are not authorized to do so. Some said that they would seek alternatives to conducting the search, such as school CCTV, or sniffing the students suspected of having alcohol. The remaining interviewees (n ¼ 14) reported that they would conduct a search. Six of them knew that such a search is illegal. Some noted that they would search only the bag of the suspected student, while others said that they would search the bags of the entire class in order not to shame a specific student. Another strategy they offered was requiring the students to examine the contents of the bag in front of the teacher. T4 and T17, who knew that the search is illegal, explained as follows: T4: Teachers should have rights to do things that protect the public order. It can’t be that a teacher can’t search a student’s bag in order to solve a huge problem. T17: I think that the legal rules were created because teachers misused them … But I know that I’m not misusing my authority.

3.2. Teachers’ willingness to learn about students’ rights and seek out legal information Most of the interviewees (n ¼ 24) did not learn about students’ rights in their higher education training or in professional development courses. Twenty interviewees said that they would like to learn about students’ rights, as questions concerning students’ rights occupy them on a daily basis, particularly questions relating to school discipline. Most of them have encountered parental grievances regarding their children’s rights, and some were subjected to a threat of legal proceedings. The remaining ten interviewees felt that their knowledge of children’s rights is sufficient despite their not having previously learned this topic. For example: T2: [I don’t want to learn about students’ rights] because I feel that I respect their rights, and if not, they probably deserve it [laughing]. T29: I don’t care … If there’s a problem with children, I don’t reach a level that I should check on their rights. T26: It doesn’t interest me. What I know is enough … Education isn’t democracy. Despite the willingness of most interviewees to learn about students’ rights, the vast majority of them said that they would not independently seek out legal information when they are unsure of how to act. The interviewees raised various reasons for their reluctance to seek out legal information. Most of them indicated

7

that they trust the knowledge of the school principal, the school counselor, or the grade coordinator more than they trust written information. For example, T23 noted that she “goes with experience, as it feels more secure,” and T25 said that she works with a professional staff, and she “isn’t a skeptic who turns to [external] sources.” Many interviewees also stated that they do not know how to search for legal information, or lack sufficient legal literacy to understand it and translate it to actions. For instance: T1: These things usually don’t tell me much. I don’t understand what I’m permitted or not permitted to do. T6: I don’t have a clue where to find [the legal information]. T12: I imagine many, many pages of laws that I would need to start researching and reading … What if l read it and it’s still unclear [to me]? A related perception was that due to teachers’ lack of legal literacy, the MoE is viewed as responsible for supplying the teachers with the pertinent legal information in the school. Some interviewees also thought that legal rules are irrelevant, as they do not provide realistic solutions, or are less valuable than their own intuition as educators. As T17 put it: “these dry laws do not mean anything to me. [The solutions] are always [going to be] about people and souls.” In this context, T15, T20, T26, and T29 noted that they follow their heart, T3 said that he knows he is doing “the right thing,” and T6 said that she assumes that students’ rights are congruent with “common sense” and are consistent with the actions of “the reasonable educator.” Another reason that the interviewees mentioned is their lack of willingness to be accountable for potential conflicts between legal rules and the advice of school administrators. For example, T9 said that she would not seek out information as she “doesn’t want to stick her nose [in the incident]” and prefers to “let the authorized agents” tell her what to do. Similarly, T18 said that “it’s more convenient to transfer the responsibility.” In addition, some interviewees associated their lack of willingness to seek out legal information to their own personal traits. For instance: T12: I’m not a person who goes and seeks out legal rules. T17: I’m more a “people person.” T20: I’m not one of those who will start searching the Internet. I don’t have the patience for that.

3.3. Teachers’ perceptions of students’ rights The vast majority of interviewees noted their support for students’ rights as a value. They used various justifications for their view, relating to the positive impact of rights on well-being and life opportunities, to the importance of rights for promoting citizenship and democracy, and to the responsibility of educators to protect students’ rights. Many interviewees also noted the importance of students’ being aware of their rights. However, most interviewees (n ¼ 20) tended to criticize the practical implementation of students’ rights due to the power imbalance it creates between students and teachers to the perceived detriment of the latter. The interviewees offered several main reasons for the resulting distortions. One reason concerns the actions of overprotective parents, who back up their children, even when they misbehave (T1, T29), frequently criticize teachers (T4,

8

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

T24, T30), undermine teachers’ authority (T9, T12, T14, T15), and think that they “own” the school (T26). As T14 and T20 put it: T14: Parents have become school principals, and it influences the students’ status … There’s recoiling, fear, of the procedures that the parents will operate [against teachers]. T20: Parents have much more power than teachers … We often encounter parents who wave “the law, the law, the law.” The second reason mentioned by the interviewees is the education system, which provides students with too much power and control (T2, T24, T27), does not know how to put limits on students’ behavior and educate them about their responsibilities (T4, T7, T25), and has no tools to handle severe disciplinary problems (T3, T21, T24). T3 said in this regard that “a smart student knows that he can disregard the system, and there are no avenues to cope with [his disciplinary violations],” and T21 said that “in 90% of the cases, students can do whatever they want, and there won’t be any consequences.” Several interviewees thought that the students are too demanding of their rights. T9 contended in this regard that students often adopt a rights discourse, and when a teacher does something that the students “didn’t like,” the students know how to spew forth terms such as “regulations,” “illegal,” and “violation of rights” to describe the teacher’s behavior. T8 noted that there is always a blurred line between students’ legitimate demands for rights and cases that reflect their being “spoiled,” “whiny,” and “Y generation.” Our findings reveal that many interviewees perceived students’ rights as a tool that enables parents, students, and the system to undermine teachers’ status and authority. Some interviewees explicitly noted the impact of the unbalanced application of students’ rights on their own rights. T7 said in this regard that whereas teachers are required to respect students, students are not required to respect teachers. “It needs to be two-way,” she lamented. T4 noted that “there’s a law that protects students’ rights, but there’s no law that protects teachers’ rights,” and that “teachers today are under surveillance” much more than are students. Similarly, T27 noted that due to “excessive” use of the students’ rights discourse, teachers have to watch “every little word that comes out of their mouth.” “We’re human beings, after all … we make mistakes,” she contended. Another group of interviewees (n ¼ 10) thought that students are not accorded sufficient rights. Some of them lamented that the public education system does not provide quality education (T4, T16, T17) and that many teachers lack motivation and qualifications for their job (T7, T17, T28). Additionally, some interviewees bemoaned the fact that students’ rights are not enforced due to teachers’, parents’, and students’ lack of pertinent knowledge (T8, T11, T17, T19) and exclusion of students from decision-making processes (T11, T19). Almost all interviewees, regardless of their perceptions of students’ rights, noted their own low social and organizational status. In addition to the power imbalance between teachers and students, interviewees indicated various reasons for teachers’ low social status, including the lack of social appreciation of teachers’ hard work, their inadequate salary, the low entrance requirements of teacher education programs that lead to low teacher quality, and a discourse of constant complaints among teachers. Most of the interviewees indicated that only a system-wide change in the education system and society could improve their status. For example, T24 contended that “something big and systematic needs to happen,” which would change parental attitudes toward teachers and toward their children’s education. Similarly, T16 noted that

teachers’ status depends on a “social change,” T28 said that the individual teacher can do nothing to improve teachers’ status, and T8 emphasized that a teacher “cannot stand alone [before] the government and the entire social culture.”

4. Discussion 4.1. Teachers’ legal literacy, knowledge work, and professionalism The findings indicated that many interviewees did not have minimal legal knowledge pertaining to all the examined issues. Interviewees’ legal knowledge was characterized by a lack of confidence, which produced a sense of powerlessness. Similar findings as to the interface of teachers’ lack of professional tools and resources and their feelings of powerlessness were discussed in Shapira-Lishchinsky’s study (2009), which explored how Israeli teachers perceive ethical dilemmas. As noted, there is no code of professional conduct that can guide teachers in Israel. Interviewees’ legal knowledge was also characterized by the adoption of legal myths (see Perry-Hazan & Birnhack, 2016). These legal myths purportedly constrain teachers’ autonomy by prohibiting them from removing disruptive students from class, withholding their recess, or touching students who physically harm € other students (compare Ohman & Quennerstedt, 2017). The interviewees’ preference to turn to other agents in the school rather than seek out official information when unsure of how to proceed explains how legal myths in schools are perpetuated (see also Schimmel & Militello, 2007). The interviewees offered various reasons for their reluctance to independently seek out legal information. Most of them indicated that they trust the knowledge of their superiors on these matters, and many also stated that they do not know how to search for legal information or lack sufficient legal literacy to understand it. A related perception was that the system is responsible for providing teachers with legal information in the school. Some interviewees also thought that legal rules are irrelevant, as they do not provide realistic solutions or are less helpful than following their intuition as educators. Another reason mentioned by the interviewees is their reluctance to be held accountable for possible conflicts between legal rules and the recommendations of school administrators. In addition, some interviewees attributed their reluctance to seek out legal information to their own personal traits. Our study is not the first to present empirical findings on teachers’ low level of legal literacy (see Charmaraman et al., 2013; Mead, 2008; Schimmel & Militello, 2007). However, the current study’s qualitative findings shed light on the interface between teachers’ knowledge of students’ rights and teachers’ perceptions of their professionalism. Most interviewees absolved themselves of the responsibility to possess basic legal knowledge required for their daily work despite their reporting that questions concerning students’ rights occupy them frequently (compare Evans, Butterworth, & Law, 2019). Many interviewees also reported being subjected to parental grievances regarding their children’s rights. As noted in the literature review, professions are considered as knowledge-based occupations (Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011), and various studies have stressed that professional knowledge is a critical indicator in the definition of teaching as a profession (Fuller et al., 2013; Price & Weatherby, 2018; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2009). Thus, teachers’ professionalism requires “knowledge work,” which includes, among other factors, searching for and processing information (Price & Weatherby, 2018, pp. 116e117). In this context, Nolan and Molla (2017) highlighted the interconnections between teachers’ confidence and their tendency to independently search for professional knowledge. They argued that teachers’ confidence

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

is “a functioneeand a constitutive featureeeof teacher professional capital” (p. 17), noting that “[e]ducators with sound professional capital have a strong sense of certainty and tend to proactively seek learning opportunities, and critically question policies and strategies that inform their practices” (p. 11). Thus, when unconfident teachers do not seek out legal information because they perceive themselves as either lacking the capacity to do so, expect someone else to provide them with the information, or believe that it is insignificant, they undermine their own professionalism. Accordingly, they frame themselves as passive agents whose “decisional capital,” namely the ability to make discretionary judgment, is constrained (see Hargreaves & Fullan, 2015, pp. 93e96). 4.2. The gap between teachers’ knowledge of students’ rights (or legal myths about students’ rights) and teachers’ compliance The analysis of the interviewees’ responses to the vignettes showed that in most cases, these responses were not congruent with the legal rules that protect students’ rights. This conclusion is evident, as most interviewees were unaware of the legal rules. In many cases, interviewees who did not have legal knowledge reported that they would violate rules that in actuality do not exist. They noted that they would disobey legal rules that purportedly prohibit teachers from suspending students from class, withholding their recess, or touching them to prevent injury. Interviewees reporting that they would violate such imagined rules saw themselves as resisting the system and their perceptions revealed a sense of helplessness deriving from a perceived lack of disciplinary tools. This phenomenon of legal myths that restrict teacher behavior reduces available disciplinary tools and reinforces the teachers’ narrative of their sense of helplessness. Thus, by relinquishing authority for an arena of decision making, teachers may be further diluting their professionalism (see Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011). It is important to note that these contentions as to teachers’ authority to suspend students from class or withhold their recess do not reflect on the moral and educational justifications of such disciplinary tools. There are various negative ramifications for punitive disciplinary policies in schools (Perry-Hazan & Birnhack, 2018; Perry-Hazan & Lambrozo, 2018; Ramstetter, Murray, & Garner, 2010), and there are alternative restorative approaches based on rights-based practices (see, e.g., McCluskey et al., 2008; Morrison, 2007). Teachers who refrain from employing certain disciplinary practices due to a false assumption that the MoE prohibits such practices feel that their autonomy is undermined. Conversely, teachers who are familiar with the rules but choose not to apply disciplinary practices that in their view harm students’ best interests are exercising high levels of professional discretion (compare Oolbekkink-Marchand, Hadar, Smith, Helleve, & Ulvik, 2017). 4.3. Students’ rights and teachers’ social and organizational status The vast majority of the interviewees noted that they support students’ rights as a value. However, most interviewees tended to criticize the application of students’ rights, which in their view, created an imbalance of power between students and teachers. They noted several main reasons for this imbalance, including overprotective and intrusive parents, students claiming excessive rights, and the system that disempowers teachers and disregards their rights. Conversely, around one-third of the interviewees thought that students are not granted sufficient rights, mainly due to the low quality of Israeli schools, and particularly, the low quality of teachers. Almost all interviewees, regardless of their perceptions

9

of students’ rights, professed that teachers’ social and organizational status is low. As noted, the status of Israeli teachers is substantially lower, compared with other professions and with teachers in other countries (Dolton et al., 2018; OECD, 2018). Most interviewees said that only a systemic change could rescue teachers from remaining trapped in their low social status. Teachers’ perceptions of students’ rights as a threat to their authority have been addressed in other empirical and nonempirical studies (e.g., Howe & Covell, 2005; Lyle, 2014; Tibbitts, 2017; Trivers & Starkey, 2012). Our study contributes to the literature by highlighting the interface of these perceptions and teachers’ low legal literacy. Some studies have indicated that teachers’ professionalism in general and teachers’ professional knowledge in particular are intertwined with teachers’ social status (Fuller et al., 2013; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2011; Price & Weatherby, 2018). Our study exemplifies the link between teachers’ lack of the professional knowledge required for their daily work and their view of themselves as helpless and disempowered. Another conceptual framework that explains our findings relates to dominant discourses. With the legal discourse gaining prominence in the various arenas in which education policy is produced and implemented (Perry-Hazan, 2014, 2015a; Superfine & Thompson, 2016; Zirkel & Skidmore, 2014), it has become a dominant discourse that is intertwined with expertise, power, and class and tends to marginalize other discourses (Foucault, 1969; Shoshana, 2014). The growing interest in children’s rights (Byrne & Lundy, 2019; Quennerstedt, 2011) and human rights education (Bajaj, 2011; Lundy & Martinez-Sainz, 2018; Tibbitts, 2017) strengthens this dominance. Thus, teachers’ reluctance to engage in the dominant legal discourse of everyday school life, despite their view of parents and students as the controlling agents of this discourse, has ramifications for their social status. Enhanced legal literacy could provide teachers with professional and personal tools to critically examine students’ and parents’ rights-based arguments and differentiate between justified claims and manipulation. 5. Concluding remarks Teachers’ knowledge of students’ rights is important because it contributes to the fulfillment of these rights, promotes human rights education, and develops students’ rights consciousness (Birnhack, Perry-Hazan, & German Ben-Hayun, 2018; McCowan, 2012; Perry-Hazan & Lambrozo, 2018). Additionally, it protects teachers from lawsuits (Davies, 2009; Schimmel & Militello, 2007) and prevents the rise of legal myths (Perry-Hazan & Birnhack, 2016). The current study’s findings imply that knowledge of students’ rights may also serve to empower teachers, strengthen them as professionals, decrease their sense of helplessness, and provide them with tools to cope with dilemmas that occupy them daily. These implications should inform policymakers who search for mechanisms to enhance teachers’ social status. The limitations of this study concern its small sample. Our decision to conduct a qualitative investigation stemmed from the desire to understand the nuances of teachers’ perceptions of legal knowledge and the implications of these perceptions on their professionalism and status. Whereas our sample may not be statistically representative of Israeli teachers, the findings enable policymakers and educators to recognize the importance of strengthening teachers’ legal literacy. Future research may use quantitative methods to compare teachers’ legal literacy in different countries. Mechanisms to improve teachers’ legal literacy may include expanding the study of school law in teacher education and professional development programs as well as producing courseware for self-learning. In all varieties of programs, teachers should

10

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016

acquire an understanding of the values embedded in the legal rules, learn to connect these values to broader principles of democracy and social justice, obtain tools to seek out legal knowledge, and strengthen their confidence in their capacity to do so. A code of ethics, an important component of professions (ShapiraLishchinsky, 2018; Whitty, 2000), may also raise teachers’ awareness to the legal discourse that impacts their work. Acknowledgments We thank Arie Kizel and Benny Benjamin for helpful comments. We also thank the Israel Science Foundation (Grant 448/15) and the Amira and Michael Dan Foundation for financial support. References Addi-Raccah, A. (2009). Between teachers’ empowerment and supervision: A comparison of school leaders in the 1990s and the 2000s. Management in Education, 23(4), 161e167. Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351e371. Almog, S., & Perry-Hazan, L. (2011). The ability to claim and the opportunity to imagine: Rights consciousness and the education of ultra-Orthodox girls. Journal of Law and Education, 40, 273e303. Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(2), 481e508. Bank of Israel. (2019). Report for 2018: Development of the education budget and teaching quality of recent years. Retrieved from https://www.boi.org.il/he/ NewsAndPublications/PressReleases/Documents/%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%A6% D7%99%D7%91%20%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9A%20%D7%90%D7% 99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA%20%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%94.pdf [Hebrew]. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best performing systems came out on top. London: McKinsey & Co. Berkovich, I. (2014). Neoliberal governance and the “new professionalism” of Israeli principals. Comparative Education Review, 58(3), 428e456. Berkovich, I., & Benoliel, P. (2018). Marketing teacher quality: Critical discourse analysis of OECD documents on effective teaching and TALIS. Critical Studies in Education, 1e16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2018.1521338. Birnhack, M., Perry-Hazan, L., & German Ben-Hayun, S. (2018). CCTV surveillance in primary schools: Normalization, resistance, and children’s privacy consciousness. Oxford Review of Education, 44(2), 204e220. Bourke, T., Lidstone, J., & Ryan, M. (2015). Schooling teachers: Professionalism or disciplinary power? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(1), 84e100. Bourke, T., Ryan, M., & Lloyd, M. (2016). The discursive positioning of graduating teachers in accreditation of teacher education programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 1e9. Braun, A. (2015). The politics of teaching as an occupation in the professional borderlands: The interplay of gender, class and professional status in a biographical study of trainee teachers in England. Journal of Education Policy, 30(2), 258e274. Byrne, B., & Lundy, L. (2019). Children’s rights-based childhood policy: A six-P framework. The International Journal of Human Rights, 1e17. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13642987.2018.1558977. Charmaraman, L., Jones, A. E., Stein, N., & Espelage, D. L. (2013). Is it bullying or sexual harassment? Knowledge, attitudes, and professional development experiences of middle school staff. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 438e444. Convention on the Right of the Child. (1989). U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25. Criminal Act. (1977). Israel laws 226 [Hebrew]. Cunliffe, A. L., & Scaratti, G. (2017). Embedding impact in engaged research: Developing socially useful knowledge through dialogical sensemaking. British Journal of Management, 28(1), 29e44. Darling-Hammond, L., & Rothman, R. (2015). Teaching in the flat world: Learning from high-performing systems. NY: Teachers College Press. Davies, T. A. (2009). The worrisome state of legal literacy among teachers and administrators. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 2(1), 1e9. Dolton, P., & Marcenaro-Gutierrez, O. (2013). 2013 Global teacher status index. Varkey GEMS Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.globalteacherprize.org/ media/2787/2013globalteacherstatusindex.pdf. Dolton, P., Marcenaro, O., De Vries, R., & She, P. (2018). Global teacher status index 2018. University of Sussex & Varkey Foundation. Retrieved from https://www. varkeyfoundation.org/what-we-do/policy-research/global-teacher-statusindex-2018. Evans, D., Butterworth, R., & Law, G. U. (2019). Understanding associations between perceptions of student behaviour, conflict representations in the teacherstudent relationship and teachers’ emotional experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 82, 55e68. Feniger, Y., Israeli, M., & Yehuda, S. (2016). The power of numbers: The adoption and consequences of national low-stakes standardised tests in Israel. Globalisation,

Societies and Education, 14(2), 183e202. Findlay, N. M. (2007). In-school administrators’ knowledge of education law. Education and Law Journal, 17(2), 177. Finefter-Rosenbluh, I. (2016). Behind the scenes of reflective practice in professional development: A glance into the ethical predicaments of secondary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 1e11. Foucault, M. (1969). Archeology of knowledge. New York: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1971). Orders of discourse. Social Science Information, 10(2), 7e30. Fuller, C., Goodwyn, A., & Francis-Brophy, E. (2013). Advanced skills teachers: Professional identity and status. Teachers and Teaching, 19(4), 463e474. Fwu, B. J., & Wang, H. H. (2002). The social status of teachers in Taiwan. Comparative Education, 38(2), 211e224. Gherardi, S. (2008). Situated knowledge and situated action: What do practicebased studies promise. In D. Barry, & H. Hansen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 516e525). London: Sage. Gibton, D. (2011). Who is the student that the law cares about? The student’s rights act: Its contribution and role in the perspective of case law. Law & Business, 14, 767e801 [Hebrew]. Hall, C., & Noyes, A. (2009). New regimes of truth: The impact of performative school self-evaluation systems on teachers’ professional identities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(6), 850e856. Han, S. W. (2018). Who expects to become a teacher? The role of educational accountability policies in international perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 141e152. Han, S. W., Borgonovi, F., & Guerriero, S. (2018). What motivates high school students to want to be teachers? The role of salary, working conditions, and societal evaluations about occupations in a comparative perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 3e39. Hargreaves, L. (2009). The status and prestige of teachers and teaching. In L. Saha, & G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (Vol. 21, pp. 217e229). New York, NY: Springer. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2015). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. NY: Teachers College Press. Hart, S. N., Pavlovic, Z., & Zeidner, M. (2001). The ISPA cross-national children’s rights research project. School Psychology International, 22, 99e129. Howe, R. B., & Covell, K. (2005). Empowering children: Children’s rights education as a pathway to citizenship. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ingersoll, R. M., & Merrill, E. (2011). The status of teaching as a profession. In J. Ballantine, & J. Spade (Eds.), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (4th ed., pp. 185e198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kayama, M., Haight, W., Gibson, P. A., & Wilson, R. (2015). Use of criminal justice language in personal narratives of out-of-school suspensions: Black students, caregivers and educators. Children and Youth Services Review, 51, 26e35. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., McEachin, A., Miller, L. C., & Wyckoff, J. (2014). Who enters teaching? Encouraging evidence that the status of teaching is improving. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 444e453. Lundy, L., & Martinez-Sainz, G. M. (2018). The role of law and legal knowledge for a transformative human rights education: Addressing violations of children’s rights in formal education. Human Rights Education Review, 1(2), 4e24. Lyle, S. (2014). Embracing the UNCRC in Wales (UK): Policy, pedagogy and prejudices. Educational Studies, 40(2), 215e232. McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Stead, J., Kane, J., Riddell, S., & Weedon, E. (2008). ‘I was dead restorative today’: From restorative justice to restorative approaches in school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38, 199e216. McCowan, T. (2012). Human rights within education: Assessing the justifications. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42, 67e81. Mead, J. F. (2008). Teacher litigation and its implications for teachers’ legal literacy. Action in Teacher Education, 30(2), 79e87. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340e363. Militello, M., Schimmel, D., & Eberwein, H. J. (2009). If they knew, they would change: How legal knowledge impacts principals’ practice. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 93(1), 27e52. Ministry of Education. (2015). Optimal educational climate: Dealing with violent and dangerous events in schools. Retrieved from http://cms.education.gov.il/ EducationCMS/Applications/Mankal/EtsMedorim/2/2-1/HoraotKeva/K-2015-82-2-1-15.htm [Hebrew]. Ministry of Education. (2016). Professional ethics for educators and teachers: Code of ethics e current state of affairs. Retrieved from http://cms.education.gov.il/ EducationCMS/Units/Staj/PituachMiktzoai/KodEti.htm [Hebrew]. Morrison, B. E. (2007). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response to bullying, violence and alienation. Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press. Myers, J. P., & Rivero, K. (2019). Preparing globally competent preservice teachers: The development of content knowledge, disciplinary skills, and instructional design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77(1), 214e225. Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2017). Teacher confidence and professional capital. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 10e18. OECD. (2018). Effective teacher policies: Insights from PISA. Retrieved from https:// read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/effective-teacher-policies_9789264301603en#page1. € Ohman, M., & Quennerstedt, A. (2017). Questioning the no-touch discourse in physical education from a children’s rights perspective. Sport, Education and Society, 22(3), 305e320. Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. W., Hadar, L. L., Smith, K., Helleve, I., & Ulvik, M. (2017). Teachers’ perceived professional space and their agency. Teaching and Teacher

L. Perry-Hazan, E. Tal-Weibel / Teaching and Teacher Education 90 (2020) 103016 Education, 62, 37e46. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2010). Teachers and human rights education. London, UK: Trentham Books. Page, D. (2017). Conceptualising the surveillance of teachers. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(7), 991e1006. Park, H., & Byun, S. Y. (2015). Why some countries attract more high-ability young students to teaching: Cross-national comparisons of students’ expectation of becoming a teacher. Comparative Education Review, 59(3), 523e549. Perry-Hazan, L. (2014). From the constitution to the classroom: Educational freedom in Antwerp’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish schools. Journal of School Choice, 8(3), 475e502. Perry-Hazan, L. (2015a). Court-led educational reforms in political third rails: Lessons from the litigation over ultra-religious Jewish schools in Israel. Journal of Education Policy, 30(5), 713e746. Perry-Hazan, L. (2015b). Freedom of speech in schools and the right to participation: When the First Amendment encounters the Convention on the Rights of the Child. BYU Education and Law Journal, 2015(2), 421e452. Perry-Hazan, L., & Birnhack, M. (2016). Privacy, CCTV, and school surveillance in the shadow of imagined law. Law & Society Review, 50(1), 415e449. Perry-Hazan, L., & Birnhack, M. (2018). The hidden human rights curriculum of school CCTV systems. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 47e64. Perry-Hazan, L., & Birnhack, M. (2019). Caught on camera: Teachers’ surveillance in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 193e204. Perry-Hazan, L., & Lambrozo, N. (2018). Young children’s perceptions of due process in schools’ disciplinary procedures. British Educational Research Journal, 44(5), 827e846. Price, H. E., & Weatherby, K. (2018). The global teaching profession: How treating teachers as knowledge workers improves the esteem of the teaching profession. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(1), 113e149. Quennerstedt, A. (2011). The construction of children’s rights in education e a research synthesis. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 19(4), 661e678. Ramstetter, C. L., Murray, R., & Garner, A. S. (2010). The crucial role of recess in schools. Journal of School Health, 80(11), 517e526. Ryan, S. V., Nathaniel, P., Pendergast, L. L., Saeki, E., Segool, N., & Schwing, S. (2017). Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability policies on turnover intent. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 1e11. Sahlberg, P. (2013). Teachers as leaders. Educational Leadership, 2013(October), 36e40. Santoro, D. (2018). Demoralized: Why teachers leave the profession they love and how they can stay. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schimmel, D., & Militello, M. (2007). Legal literacy for teachers: A neglected responsibility. Harvard Educational Review, 77(3), 257e284. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2017). Organizational ethics in human resources management in Israel’s educational system. Haifa: Padres publications [Hebrew]. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2018). International aspects of organizational ethics in educational systems. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2009). Towards professionalism: Ethical perspectives of Israeli teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(4), 473e487. Shoshana, A. (2014). Discursive alliances and clashes in everyday life. Sociological Spectrum, 34(2), 99e113. Shoshana, A. (2016). Youth, class, and reality (TV): The discursive alliance between

11

the orientalist discourse and the neo-liberal discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 13(4), 429e443. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4e14. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1e23. Stefkovich, J. A. (2006). Best interests of the student: Applying ethical constructs to legal cases in education. NY: Routledge. Struthers, A. E. (2015). Human rights education: Educating about, through and for human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(1), 53e73. Student’s Rights Act. (2000). Israel laws 42 [Hebrew]. Superfine, B. M., & Thompson, A. R. (2016). Interest groups, the courts, and educational equality: A policy regimes approach to Vergara v. California. American Educational Research Journal, 53(3), 573e604. The State Comptroller of Israel. (2019). Annual report 69B. Retrieved from https:// www.mevaker.gov.il/sites/DigitalLibrary/Documents/69b/2019-69b-214Morim.pdf [Hebrew]. Thompson, J., Arum, R., Edelman, L. B., Morrill, C., & Tyson, K. (2015). In-services and empty threats: The roles of organizational practices and workplace experiences in shaping US educators’ understandings of students’ rights. Social Science Research, 53, 391e402. Tibbitts, F. (2017). Evolution of human rights education models. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Human rights education: Theory, research, praxis (pp. 69e95). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Tie, F. H. (2014). A Study on the legal literacy of urban public school administrators. Education and Urban Society, 46(2), 192e208. Torres, A. C., & Weiner, J. (2018). The new professionalism? Charter teachers’ experiences and qualities of the teaching profession. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26, 19. Trivers, H., & Starkey, H. (2012). The politics of critical citizenship education: Human rights for conformity or emancipation? In R. C. Mitchell, & S. A. Moore (Eds.), Politics, participation and power relations: Transdisciplinary approaches to critical citizenship in the classroom and community (pp. 137e152). Rotterdam: Sense. Walsh, K., Mathews, B., Rassafiani, M., Farrell, A., & Butler, D. (2013). Elementary teachers’ knowledge of legislative and policy duties for reporting child sexual abuse. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 178e199. White, J. B. (1982). The invisible discourse of the law: Reflections on legal literacy and general education. University of Colorado Law Review, 54, 143e159. Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher professionalism in new times. Journal of In-Service Education, 26(2), 281e295. Winch, C. (2004). What do teachers need to know about teaching? A critical examination of the occupational knowledge of teachers. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(2), 180e196. Yemini, M., Tibbitts, F., & Goren, H. (2019). Trends and caveats: Review of literature on global citizenship education in teacher training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77(1), 77e89. Zeichner, K. M. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1433e1552. Zirkel, P. A., & Skidmore, C. A. (2014). National trends in the frequency and outcomes of hearing and review officer decisions under the IDEA: An empirical analysis. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 29, 525e575.