The question which values are important for schools to teach is an ideological and culture-dependent question; however, the desire and responsibility to educate for values is at the core of the Israeli education system.

In Israeli society, education for values has been considered one of the overarching goals of the education system since its inception. Section 2 of the State Education Law 5713-1953 lists the aims of state education and reserves a significant place for values education: “To instill the principles described in The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and to develop respect for human rights, basic freedoms, democratic values, upholding the law, the culture and worldviews of others, and to educate for the pursuit of peace and tolerance between human beings and nations.”

Coping with the changes in modern lifestyles and the deepening socio-cultural rifts in Israeli society underscores the pressing need for values education. Educating students for values will enable students to be good people and citizens, to live fully and ethically, and to work for the betterment of society.

The Ministry of Education’s multi-year plan expresses the importance of education for values in two of the four objectives of education: Objective A: “Promotion of meaningful and quality learning: knowledge, skills and values”; and Objective B, which is entirely dedicated to values: “Values education in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.” This objective also includes four main school goals: values education; social involvement; optimal classroom climate; and, tolerance and cultural competence.

It is important to note that the Ministry of Education (MOE) both acknowledges and welcomes the ideological diversity among the various communities in Israeli society (as well as between parents within the same community). The MOE has no intention of imposing a uniform program of values education for every student and every educational institution. At the same time, however, educational institutions are expected to conform to the State Education Law.

The founding of the expert committee was driven by the recognition that education for values is just as important as the study of any other subject. Moreover, it is important that learning be accompanied by valid and reliable measurement and evaluation processes which also include measurement of academic achievements and school climate. Measurement and evaluation are a central pillar in the professionalization and accountability of systems and individuals. Thus, despite the risks involved in measurement and evaluation processes, including the occasionally misguided or erroneous use of data and information, it is agreed that the absence of measurement, or poor measurement, is a major obstacle to the ability of organizations and individuals to improve themselves. As such, the MOE, as both the initiator of educational curricula and the body supervising their implementation, is required to constantly demonstrate responsible and careful thinking on this topic.

In order to do so, the MOE requires access to a compendium of the knowledge developing in the field around the world, as well as of the experience accumulated in Israel. Such knowledge can assist decision-makers at headquarters and in the field, can serve as a basis for development and integration of measurement tools and evaluation processes, and will stimulate public discourse on the topic. Towards this end, The Yozma – Center for Knowledge and Research in Education established an expert (consensus) committee chaired by Professor Chanan Alexander. The committee was created following a request made by the MOE’s chief scientist to the Israel Academy of Sciences, and is operating with the support and encouragement of Yad Hanadiv.

During the course of its work, the committee will raise key topics and questions, gather and analyze critically-appraised research knowledge from Israel and abroad, and will learn from the experience of professionals and academicians. Upon completion of the learning process, the committee will publish a final report which will include its findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future policy. Publication of the final report is planned for fall 2021, and a workshop in which the committee’s findings and conclusions will be presented is expected to take place in summer 2021.

The committee will work in collaboration with two additional committees currently active within The Yozma, and whose areas of endeavor overlap: The Committee to Adapt Curricula and Learning Materials for the 21st Century, and the Committee for Social and Emotional Skills Cultivation in the Education System.

The committee will also be assisted by the products of two earlier expert committees: The committee on Revising the System of Education Indicators in Israel, chaired by Professor M. Justman, and the expert committee which studied the topic of A Proposal to Revamp Schooling for the 21^st Century, chaired by Professor M. Yaari. The former pointed to the fact that the MOE’s system of measurement and evaluation was richer in areas related to academic achievements and school climate than in the area of values education. The latter committee delineated values-related topics important to shared existence in Israel. The Education for Values Committee will complete the important work of its predecessors and use their recommendations as a foundation.

Examples of topics the committee will address are:

• How are values typically defined, interpreted, measured and evaluated in research conducted in other countries? What are the main methodologies used in these fields?
• What is known about the validity, reliability, authenticity, fairness and effectiveness of measurement and evaluation methods in the field of values education?
• What are the proper uses of values education measurement and evaluation data, and how can the findings be used as an opportunity for deep processes in a range of educational frameworks?
• What are the main educational, pedagogical, emotional and ethical challenges in measurement and evaluation in this area, and how may they be addressed?