A Comparison of special education in Israel and Palestine

Surface and deep structures

Journal of Special Education, Volume: 37 Number: 1; Page: 33

04-01-2003

Gumpel, Thomas P; Awartani, Sana

Comparative studies of special education policy typically compare the provision of special education services in different countries, based primarily on comparative variables such as legal mandates, rules and regulations, and budgetary allocations. Aside from the analysis of these surface structures, it is imperative also to take into account the deep structures (i.e., sociohistorical background) of the culture that created those policies. In this study, different aspects of Israeli and Palestinian Authority special educational policies were compared on both surface and deep levels.

The surface analysis revealed that both systems are currently undergoing major revisions and restructuring. On the one hand, the Israeli system is redefining how it will educate children with special educational needs in more inclusive settings (in stark contrast to previous segregationist policy). On the other hand, special education in the Palestinian Authority is an emerging field, currently experimenting with different models of inclusionary practices. Despite their differences, both systems are similar in that teachers are being asked to implement these changes. On a deep-structure level, Palestinian teachers tended to have a more radical view of issues concerning education and equity as they pertained to the necessity of educating all children in order to build a strong nation. Israelis tended to see their role as less steeped in the language of equity.

Special education policy seems to be in a continual state of flux as policymakers constantly reexamine it, attempting to redefine who we should be teaching, how we should be teaching them, where we should be doing that teaching, which criteria should be used to determine whether that teaching was performed at a sufficient level, and which criteria should be used to determine whether children with special education needs were, indeed, taught. These are recurring dilemmas (Bateman, 1995) that have been examined in different contexts and at different times by Dunn (1968), Deno (1970), Kauffman (1989), and D. K. Lipsky and Gartner (1998), no matter where in the world special education services are provided (Hegarty, 1998). The birth of a global community has once again caused us to visit these issues, although now our perspective is grounded in a comparative special education research paradigm. Cross-cultural comparisons allow us to understand that even though our discipline appears in different national and historical contexts, these are central issues that seem to be almost universal and that converge in both ideology and practice (Hegarty, 1998; Mitchell, 1999; Putnam, 1979). Recent comparative analyses (e.g., Artiles & Hallahan, 1995; the special issue [Vol. 13, No. 1] of the European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1998; Lim & Nam, 2000; Meijer, Pijl, & Hegarty, 1994; Safran, 1989; Yang & Wang, 1994) have described policy and procedures in diverse surroundings, emphasizing these recurring issues.

For example, Lim and Nam (2000) described the push in Singapore for integrating children with special needs by providing both legislative direction and adequate pre- and in-service training for teachers. In a European vein, Ellger-Ruttgardt (1995), outlining similar processes, described the move toward inclusive education in Germany. Despite these convergences at the macro level of analysis, individual policies on the micro level are often dissimilar because they are designed in form and function to fit the host culture's history, economic and social structure, and national identity. As Artiles has argued (1998), special education policies must be understood within these sociohistorical conditions (Hegarty, 1998), because they are informed by a consensus regarding the role of education and the distribution of equity, and by prevalent theories of disability (Christensen & Dorn, 1997; Isaacs, 1996; Meekosha & Jakubowicz, 1996; Peters, 1993; Putnam, 1979; Rizvi & Lingard, 1996). Comparative analyses should examine the "surface structure" of special education policy (i.e., rules, regulations, and budgets) as well as the historical traditions in that country; here we introduce the borrowed term deep structures to refer to these historical/cultural factors.

Without taking into account these two structures, comparative analyses present, at best, a partial picture. For example, as Kauffman (1989) has argued, the U.S. Regular Education Initiative of the 1980s (Biklen, 1985; D. K. Lipsky & Gartner, 1987) should be understood as a manifestation of the conservative economic policies promoted during the Reagan-Bush administration (Hallenbeck & Kauffman, 1994). Likewise, it would be impossible to attempt to understand the Danish model of special education without examining its origins in a social-democratic national identity (Pijl, 1994; Rizvi & Lingard, 1996). These beliefs regarding education, equity, and disability influence both policy and its implementation. Weatherly and Lipsky (1977) addressed this interrelation through their investigation of factors predicting policy implementation by "street-level bureaucrats" (M. Lipsky, 1983).

Special education requires advanced training and resources. The special education teacher is faced with everyday professional stressful challenges. In order to meet these challenges, the teacher must also have faith in his or her ability to work with students with diverse learning needs. These beliefs of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) are central to the teacher's ability to deal with challenges, policy changes, and reforms in working with students with and without special education needs. Gibson and Dembo (1984) conceptualized teachers' beliefs of professional self-efficacy as a two-dimensional construct. Beliefs regarding the general ability (general-professional) of teachers to positively influence and effect change interact with their beliefs in their own personal efficacy (personal-professional) in fostering that change. In the context of stressful transitions, these factors may serve as either a personal resource or a vulnerability factor (Jerusalem, 1993).

A description of special education policy should focus on both the surface structure (i.e., policy and its implementation) and the deep structure (i.e., exosystems) that inform that surface structure. As an example, we wish to examine and compare special education surface and deep structures between two separate yet related systems: special education in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority (see Note 1). As we will demonstrate, these systems are undergoing fundamental reforms and (re)structuring. We hypothesize that understanding these surface structures of reform is possible only from within an analysis of the respective deep structures.

The primary premise of this research was that in addition to a comparison between Israel and Palestine of the surface structure of special education policy, an analysis of each system's deep structure would further elucidate differences and similarities between the two systems. To investigate our hypothesis that the beliefs of teachers and student-teachers in Israel differ from those of their counterparts in Palestine, we will present two analyses: (a) an analysis of special education in Israel and Palestine, and (b) an analysis and comparison of the deep structures of special education policy within and between each national entity (see Note 2).

Special Education in Israel

Israel has a population of 5.5 million, with approximately 1.2 million children. The population is 82% Jewish and 18% Israeli-Palestinian (also known as Israeli-Arab). Members of the latter group are predominately Sunni Muslims (the minority are Christian), with a 95% literacy rate among all citizens over the age of 15. The education system is divided into four main sectors: Jewish secular, Jewish religious, independent (Jewish Ultra-Orthodox), and Israeli-Palestinian (non-Jewish). Every sector has a general education department and a special education department, each with its own administration. All public education services in Israel are managed on a national level but are divided into several districts (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Central, Northern, Haifa, Southern). Each district is managed by a local superintendent who is responsible for the day-to-day functioning of pedagogically related activities within publicly funded schools.

Approximately 33,500 children (about 2.8% of the school population) currently have been identified as eligible to receive special education services. Between 1984 and 1996, the number of identified Jewish children has steadily decreased while the number of identified Israeli-Palestinian children has more than doubled, with both sectors now approaching parity. This population shift reflects changes in the affluence and the standard of living in both groups as well as other socio-cultural changes. In the Jewish sector, as affluence grows, treatment and placement options-as well as relevant budgets-rise. Children identified as having special needs who previously might have been placed in special schools are being integrated into general education schools, which are able to support the provision of special education within the general classroom. This move from segregation (in solely special education frameworks) to more inclusionary approaches means that many children with mild disabilities are currently integrated in general education classrooms and no longer appear in the "identified" statistics, reducing reported prevalence levels. On the other hand, as the socioeconomic status of Israeli-Palestinians rises, parental awareness and support for special education also grows, budgets increase, screening procedures improve, and the number of identified children rises (Gumpel, 1999). This is not to say that the increase in identification and service provision for Israeli-Palestinians is solely based on demand; the Ministry of Education's stated policy over the last several years has been to increase access for this national minority.

Types of special education placements are also changing as the Ministry of Education strives to limit the number of children being placed in segregated settings through two maneuvers:

1. not formally identifying them as children with special needs, and hence not bringing them before the Placement Committee (only a decision by this committee will provide for placement in a special education school), which thus circumvents the restrictive budgetary aspects of the law; and

2. establishing a series of decentralized resource centers in each community in the country to provide services for those newly identified children.

These Local Support and Resource Centers (LSRC) currently serve only children in the mild disability categories, function in a semi-autonomous manner, and are able to allocate resources according to specific local needs. The LSRCs are changing the nature of service provision in Israel: Special education teachers are no longer associated with specific schools but rather are associated with their LSRC. Therefore, teachers and paramedical services are provided from within an itinerant consultative/ collaborative framework. Currently, LSRCs are operating in selected communities throughout the country and are expanding rapidly; little empirically controlled data, however, have been collected regarding their efficacy.

The LSRC system is designed to benefit primarily school-children with mild disabilities. A concurrent improvement in the provision of services to children with more severe disabilities has been less noticeable. A firm and clear mandate to strive for each child's education in his or her own least restrictive environment would substantially help rectify this problem because identified children are now exclusively educated in segregated special education systems, with individual schools having a wide range of autonomy in making decisions about curriculum, assessment, and transition.

Teacher training in Israel is divided into two strands: elementary education and secondary education. Elementary school teachers typically attend a teacher's college for 3 to 4 years, earning either a teaching certificate after 3 years or a BED (bachelor's of education degree) after 4 years. During the first 3 years of training, student-teachers spend progressively more time in the classroom in field placements. For secondary education, students study at one of the five Israeli universities and receive both a baccalaureate degree and secondary education certification after 4 years. Training at the college/ university level is differentiated into general and special education specializations, with the latter being general (i.e., no differentiation between mild and severe disabilities). In addition to undergraduate training, many teachers now pursue a graduate degree in either education or special education at one of the national universities.

In summary, Israel boasts a well-funded and professional special educational system that is undergoing fundamental changes in concept and procedures. The Ministry of Education's move to limit the number of children formally identified as in need of special education has led to the creation of the LSRCs. These centers present a fundamentally different structure for both special and general educators, causing the entire system to struggle to redefine itself and find a new balance.

Special Education in the Palestinian Authority

The population in the Palestinian Authority consists of 2.8 million individuals: 1.6 million in the West Bank and 1.2 million in Gaza. Demographically, the West Bank and Gaza are slightly different. In the West Bank, 46% of the population is below the age of 14, and 54% between the ages of 15 and 65. The average number of children per family is 4.8, and 92% of the population is Sunni Muslim; the remaining 8% is Christian. In Gaza, 52% of the population is below the age of 14, whereas 46% is between the ages of 15 and 65. The average number of children per family is much higher (7.5); 99.2% of the population is Sunni Muslim, and the remaining 0.8% is Christian (Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics, 2001). Both the West Bank and Gaza were acquired by Israel in the 1967 "Six Day War," and they are currently administered through a military occupation governing body.

Two separate ministries deal with education in the Palestinian Authority: The Ministry of Education deals with elementary and secondary education, and the Ministry of Higher Education deals with colleges, polytechnics, and universities. The education system is divided into 12 directorates in the West Bank and three directorates in Gaza. The government, the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), and private agencies (non-governmental agencies, or NGOs) provide educational services.

Severe financial constraints have imposed limitations and have adversely affected the development of classrooms, curricula, and teacher training. During the period of the intifada (the popular "uprising") of the 1980s and since the autumn of 2000, education in the occupied territories was and has been in a constant state of turmoil, with frequent school closures and large parts of the population suffering from economic difficulties.

Following the Oslo peace accords of 1993 and the transfer of educational responsibility to the Palestinian Authority, special education services-a relatively new field for the Palestinian Authority-fell into two different categories: special education services provided by the Ministry of Education in the Palestinian Authority, which only recently began its first real experience in the area, and services provided by UNRWA for all registered refugees (see Note 3). The remaining services are provided by several NGOs and local initiatives. In the 1997-1998 school year, approximately 770,000 children studied in the general education system in the Palestinian Authority. Despite the dearth of structured information regarding placement options in Palestine, it appears that four primary "placement" choices exist:

1. placement within a general education setting,

2. placement in a segregated school,

3. nonidentification (i.e., the provision of services continuing in the general education setting), and

4. no provision of special education services (i.e., the child with special education needs is not served and is kept out of school.

The exact number of children with special education needs in Palestine is unknown; however, it is assumed that a majority of children are still not being served. For example, in East Jerusalem, out of approximately 20,000 school-age children, only about 400 children (2%) were identified in 2001 as having special education needs.

Because diagnostic tools are virtually nonexistent, identification of children with special needs is difficult, which may explain why the identification of learning disabilities appears only infrequently in the Palestinian Authority; official data may not reflect the actual prevalence of mild disability categories. The high prevalence of physical disabilities such as cerebral palsy is apparent and may be the result of poor pre- and postnatal care, poor nutrition, the lack of adequate medical services, and interfamilial marriage trends among traditional Palestinian communities.

Clan structure, common in traditional, rural Palestinian society, is considered an obstacle to the provision of special education services (Dukmak, 1994). Such services are often designed for the individual child, whereas traditional communities often regard any separation of the child from the extended clan as a negative outcome. This clash between the individualistic nature of special education service provision and the clan emphasis on the collective, coupled with stigmatizing conceptualizations of disability, may explain the estimated large proportions of children not receiving special education services. Furthermore, as in other traditional societies, the presence of a child with special education needs is often regarded as reflecting negatively on the child's family and on the chances for marriage of other siblings. Families often fear that their community will reject them, and they may neglect or even reject the child with special education needs. As the Palestinians modernize and become more aware of disabilities, they are changing their perceptions of disability and of the need and right of all children to receive education services (Gumpel & Awartani, 1999).

Of course, economic limitations are always an important factor in special education services. In the absence of a comprehensive policy on the provision of special services and the means to fund those services, private Palestinian institutions have had to offer mostly extant services. One of the main obstacles to the provision of special education services is the lack of sufficient professional personnel. Only a few colleges or universities in the West Bank and Gaza offer special education programs, and the few in existance are often conducted by professionals trained in the United States, England, Germany, or other Arab nations. Because of their varied backgrounds, these teachers and professionals often use different theoretical and applied didactic and pedagogic practices.

In Palestine, student-teachers are trained at any of the national universities and hold an undergraduate degree in education. Students usually enroll in either the department of education or the deparment of psychology, and they can choose among three specialties: elementary education, instructional methods (e. g., Arabic, English, math, science), or psychology; a baccalaureate degree usually takes 4 years. All of these specialties are related to general education only. Some universities do have a small number of courses on special needs education as part of the core program in education. As part of their degree program, students do a practicum in the local schools, usually during their senior year. In addition, in the recent past, many teachers in the field have been working toward obtaining their graduate degree in general education. None of the universities or teacher's colleges in the Palestinian Authority provide a specific degree or accredited program in special education, and the majority of teachers in special education are not trained or are undertrained (Dukmak, 1994). They get most of their training on the job and through informal means.

In summary, special education in Palestine is an emerging system undergoing wide-ranging and fundamental changes. The Palestinian education system is striving to achieve its independence and viability and to provide fundamental, modern services to its population as the Palestinians struggle to free themselves from military occupation.

Summary of Surface Structure Analysis

It is clear that the special education systems in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority are undergoing periods of intense and fundamental change. In Israel, the system is in the midst of a major restructuring as it invests resources into bringing Israeli-Palestinian special education to parity with the Israeli-Jewish system, while at the same time focusing energies on creating a more inclusive special education system based on administrative and budgetary decentralization.

In the Palestinian Authority, the system is struggling to create clear and progressive special education provisions for all Palestinian children. This struggle takes on added and difficult dimensions as Palestinian teachers and governmental agencies assert their independence from Israeli control and create bureaucratic structures where none had previously existed, in a national economy struggling to gain independence while simultaneously joining the global community and providing for all its citizens.

Method

Participants

A total of 1,107 respondents participated in the study, broken down as follows: Israeli teachers (IT), n = 266, 24%; Israeli student-teachers (IS), n = 241, 21.7%; Palestinian teachers (PT), n = 280, 25.3%; and Palestinian student-teachers (PS), n = 320, 28.9%. The first author collected data on Israeli respondents, all of whom were Jewish.

The IT group was selected from a random sample of all elementary and secondary teachers in Israel who received their questionnaires through the mail. A total of 1,500 questionnaires were sent out with self-addressed and stamped return envelopes; 226 questionnaires were returned, for a return rate of 15.06%. This group was composed mainly of women (94.2%), with the majority (65.6%) having either a baccalaureate degree or a master's degree (as opposed to a teacher's certificate) and living in urban areas (80.7%). One hundred four out of 266 (51.7%) taught children not identified as having special education needs in the general education setting, and 140 (48.3%) were studying to be general education teachers (IS).

The IS group was randomly chosen from fourth-year students (parallel to seniors in U.S. universities) from two large teaching colleges in the center of Israel. Through the participation of faculty members at the two colleges, questionnaires were handed out during a mandatory class. A total of 241 questionnaires were returned (80.33% return rate). The IS group consisted almost entirely of women (97.1%), all working toward their baccalaureate degree in education, and 84% of them lived in urban areas of Israel.

Palestinian respondents were recruited by the second author through their affiliation with An Najah University in Nablus, a major Palestinian city in the northern area under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. The PT group was recruited based on their current affiliation with the university; all had taken coursework or in-service training at the university. Two hundred eighty questionnaires out of a total of 2,200 were returned (12.7% return rate), and the group consisted of 69% women, with 64.1% having either a baccalaureate degree or a master's degree in education, 47.4% living in an urban area, and 46.8% living in a rural village.

The PS group was composed of fourth-year students in education (equivalent to seniors at a U.S. university) at An Najah University. Thesecond author collected questionnaires during several large and mandatory courses. This group consisted of 320 respondents (80% return rate); 72.1% were women, with 32.4% living in urban areas and 63.8% living in rural villages. Table 1 shows the distribution of all four groups of respondents, based on their teaching or teacher-training status in special education versus general education; no differentiation was made between types of special education framework (i.e., mild vs. severe disabilities).

Palestinian teachers were slightly older (M = 34.84, SD = 8.61) than their Israeli counterparts (M = 31.69, SD = 10.04), t(401) = 3.18, p < .05, d = .33. However, Israeli students (M = 23.55, SD = 3.16) were older than their Palestinian counterparts (M = 21.09, SD = 4.69), t(469) = 6.70, p < .001, d = .62. The difference in ages between students can most likely be explained by the fact that Israeli youth participate in mandatory military service immediately following high school.

Instrumentation

Initially, a blueprint (Thorndike, 1982) of potential test domains was created based on domains discussed by different authors (cf. Christensen & Dorn, 1997; Putnam, 1979; Rizvi & Lingard, 1996). Items were arranged in nine domains, with approximately 20 items in each domain. All items were reviewed by a panel of graduate students in special education; panel members were instructed to read, correct, or remove poorly worded, inappropriate items (Thorndike, 1982). Following the paneling procedure, nine scales consisting of between 5 and 9 items were developed, with scoring on a 4-point Likert-type scale (completely disagree to completely agree).

Items concerning personal and professional self-efficacy were taken from Gibson and Dembo (1984). This instrument consists of 16 items divided into two subscales, with a total reported reliability of Cronbach's alpha = .79. The first subscale, Personal Teaching Efficacy (personal-professional), consists of 9 items with a reported reliability of Cronbach's alpha = .78. Thesecond subscale, Teaching Efficacy (general-professional), contains 7 items with a reported reliability of Cronbach's alpha = .75. These items were added as a block to the entire questionnaire. (A copy of the questionnaire is presented in the appendix.)

Data Analyses

The structure of the instrument was investigated by first examining the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of each subscale. The data were then subjected to an exploratory factor analysis using a Varimax rotation to determine the dimensionality of each scale. When appropriate, and depending on eigenvalues and percentage of variance explained, the subscales were broken down into smaller subscales that described viable subdomains. (Factor loadings and eigenvalues are presented in the appendix.) Based on the results of this data reduction procedure, the subscales were subjected to a 2 (Nationality Groups: Israeli, Palestinian) x 2 (Professional Status: Student-Teacher, Teacher) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) omnibus test. Effect sizes ([eta]2) are reported, with .01, .06, and .14 signifying small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. Significant main effects were then examined using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc tests (using the Bonferroni correction to correct for the possibility of inflated Type I errors) consisted of independent-sample t tests. Effect sizes (d) are reported, with .2, .5, and .8 signifying small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. The nine scales were divided into two categories: scales dealing with education, equity, and social justice and scales dealing with disability. Next, bivariate Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated between each subscale and the measures of professional and general self-efficacy. Finally, a composite scale (Disability-Stigma scale), consisting of the sum of all scales dealing with disabilities and special education, was created. Linear regressions were conducted for each nationality and professional status group to determine whether attitudes toward special education were predicted by different deep-structure variables.

IMAGE TABLE

TABLE 1. A Breakdown of Respondents by Nationality, Professional Status, and Educational Framework

Conceptualizing Education

Five scales examined different facets of social justice and education.

Social Justice Scale. The first scale examined respondents' perceptions of the centrality of education to a national identity. Internal consistency of this scale as measured by Cronbach's alpha was .72. This scale was broken down by factor analysis with Varimax rotation into three subscales that accounted for 60.7% of the variance: Education as a necessary endeavor to promote national independence, as the central national challenge, and as a primary right of all citizens. A 2 (Nationality) x 2 (Status) MANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of national group and professional status on each of the three dependent variables. Significant differences were found between the national groups, Wilks's lambda = .82, F(3, 1069) = 77.24, p < .001. The multivariate effect size ([eta]2) based on Wilks's lambda was very strong, .19.

Table 2 contains the means and standard deviations for the two groups. ANOVAs on each dependent variable were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. Use of the Bonferroni method indicated that the Necessary subscale, F(1, 1071) = 172.94, p < .001, [eta]2 = .15, and the Challenge subscale, F(1, 1071) = 11.68, p < .005, [eta]2 = .01, were significant. Post hoc analyses for the univariate ANOVA for the Necessary and Challenge subscales consisted of planned pair-wise comparisons, using the Bonferroni method, to determine which national group felt most strongly about domains reflected in these two subscales. For both subscales, both groups of Palestinian respondents felt most strongly that education is both a necessary means of ensuring a strong nation and a nation's greatest challenge.

Equity Scale.

The second scale examined the relationship between equity and educational expenditures. This scale consisted of seven items with a Cronbach's alpha of .72; based on the factor analysis with Varimax rotation, items were divided into two subscales: the degree to which the educational system should support all students and the means by which limited resources should be earmarked for education. Significant differences were found between the two national groups, Wilks's lambda = .72, F(2, 1088) = 192.12, p < .001, [eta]2 = .28, and between the two types of professional status, Wilks's lambda = .96, F(2, 1088) = 14.10, p < .001, [eta]2 = .02. The ANOVA on each dependent variable, using the Bonferroni method, showed that nationality groups differed on the Support subscale, F(1, 1088) = 386.02, p < .001, [eta]2 = .28, and Resources subscale, F(1, 1088) = 4.53, p < .001, [eta]2 = .02. The status groups, F(1, 1088) = 26.47, p < .001, [eta]2 = .03, significantly differed only on the Support subscale. Post hoc analyses showed that Palestinians felt more strongly that educational support and resources should be earmarked for groups of children with differing special needs.

National Role Scale. The third scale, which consisted of seven items and examined how respondents saw their national role as a teacher, had a Cronbach's alpha of .80. Based on the factor analysis with Varimax rotation, the scale was divided into two subscales accounting for 65.37% of the variance: degree to which the respondent, as a teacher, must build a nation' s future and the extent to which he or she must prepare his or her students for their own future. The MANOVA found a main effect for both nationality, Wilks's lambda = .71, F(2, 1079) = 201.63, p < .001, [eta]2 = .29, and status, Wilks's lambda = .99, F(2, 1079) = 3.56, p < .05, [eta]2 = .01. Follow-up ANOVAs showed that for the nationality variable, both the Nation subscale, F(1, 1074) = 243.30, p < .001, [eta]2 = .20, and Future subscale, F(1, 1074) = 2.52, p < .05, [eta]2 = .01, were significantly different. Post hoc analyses indicated that the Palestinians felt most strongly that a teacher's job is to build a strong nation. Conversely, Israelis felt more strongly that a teacher's job was to prepare each child for his or her individual future.

Professional Role Scale. The fourth scale examined how respondents perceived the teacher's role and had a Cronbach's alpha of .71. Based on the factor analysis with Varimax rotation, this scale was broken into two subscales accounting for 60.41% of the variance: a teacher's responsibility to teach all children and a teacher's degree of satisfaction with his or her professional status. The 2 x 2 MANOVA showed an interaction between nationality and professional status, Wilks's lambda = .97, F(2, 1058) = 12.92, p < .001, [eta]2 = .03. A follow-up ANOVA showed that this interaction was present for both subscales. Figure 1 shows that Israeli teachers appear to believe slightly more, t(489) = 1.89, ns, than Israeli student-teachers in their responsibility to teach all children in their school; however, this trend is reversed among Palestinians, F(1, 959) = 8.63, p < .05, [eta]^sup 2^ - .01, with Palestinian student-teachers feeling more strongly than Palestinian teachers, t(565) = 2.35, p < .05, d = 2.35.

Figure 2 shows that whereas Israeli respondents were less satisfied with their professional status than their Palestinian counterparts, Israeli teachers were more satisfied than were student-teachers, t(591) = 2.36, p < .05, d = .22. Palestinians were significantly more satisfied with their professional status, F(1, 959) = 19.50, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .02, with student-teachers more satisfied than teachers, t(570) = 3.43, p < .001, d = 3.83. In addition, a significant main effect for nationality was found, Wilks's lambda = .84, F(2, 1058) = 91.21, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .16. A follow-up ANOVA showed that both nationality groups differed in their opinions regarding their professional status, F(1, 1058) = 180.46, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .16. Planned post hoc analyses showed that for the status subscale, Palestinians were more satisfied with their status than were the Israelis.

IMAGE TABLE

TABLE 2. Means and Standard Deviations for the Nationality and Status Groups on the Scales and Subscales Examining Social Justice, Equity, and Education and the Scales and Subscales Examining Disability

School Purpose Scale. The fifth scale examined respondents' opinions regarding school's purpose, and it had a Cronbach's alpha of .64. Based on the factor analysis with Varimax rotation, this scale was broken down into two subscales that explained 68.12% of the variance: school as a place that transmits values and school as a community focal point. The 2 x 2 MANOVA showed an interaction between nationality and professional status, Wilks's lambda = .99, F(2, 1069) = 3.72, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .01. A follow-up ANOVA for this interaction indicated that nationality and professional status interact regarding the degree to which respondents see the school as a central focus of the community. Within each nationality there were no statistically significant differences between student-teachers and teachers; however, student-teacherss from both groups viewed this community orientation similarly.

Israeli teachers, on the other hand, saw this community centrality slightly more than did their Palestinian counterparts (see Figure 3). In addition, a main effect for nationality was found, Wilks's lambda = .58, F(2, 1069) = 343.64, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .42. A follow-up ANOVA showed that both nationality groups differed in their opinions regarding the role of the school both in promoting values, F(1, 1070) = 688.89, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .42, and as a central focus of the community, F(1, 1070) = 6.72, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .01. Planned post hoc analyses showed that for the Values and Community subscales, Israelis felt more strongly than Palestinians that the role of the school is to inculcate values and be a central focus of the community.

Summary of Findings on Education and Equity. Generally, Palestinian respondents had more pronounced opinions concerning the different aspects of social justice we examined. They primarily felt that education is a necessary and central focus for building a strong nation. This was pronounced in the results of the third scale, which indicated clearly that Palestinians believed that the teacher's role should be understood from within a national context, whereas Israelis felt that this role should be understood from within an individual's context. Despite the fact that, in general, respondents were dissatisfied with their professional status, Palestinians were more satisfied than their Israeli counterparts, with Palestine student-teachers more satisfied than Palestinian teachers and Israeli teachers more satisfied than Israeli student-teachers. All respondents felt that the school should be a central element in the community (Israelis more so than Palestinians). Israeli teachers felt more strongly about this than Israeli student-teachers, and Palestinian student-teachers felt more strongly about it than Palestinian teachers.

Disability

Effect of Disability Scale. The sixth scale examined respondents' opinions concerning the stigmatizing effect of children with special education needs and had a Cronbach's alpha of .72. Based on the factor analysis with Varimax rotation, the scale was divided into two subscales that accounted for 56.96% of the variance. The two subscales were the degree to which a child with special education needs will affect a family's reputation and the degree to which the family will require special assistance. The MANOVA indicated an interaction between nationality and professional status, Wilks's lambda = .99, F(3, 1086) = 2.88, p < .05, [eta]^sup 2^ = .01, as well as a main effect for both nationality, Wilks's lambda = .99, F(3, 1086) = 283.39, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .47, and status, Wilks's lambda = .54, F(3, 1086) = 3.23, p < .05, [eta]^sup 2^ = .01). The follow-up ANOVA revealed that the interaction was carried by the Assistance subscale, F(1, 1078) = 8.13, p < .005, [eta]^sup 2^ = .01; see Figure 4. In equal numbers, Israeli student-teachers and teachers do not feel that families with a child with special needs will need a lot of assistance; however, Palestinian student-teachers do feel that such assistance will be necessary more than do Palestinian teachers, t(566) = 3.65, p < .001, d = .35. Planned post hoc analyses showed significant differences for all three scales. Palestinians were more acute in their beliefs regarding the stigmatizing effects of a child with special education needs on the family and on the community.

Classroom Scale. The seventh scale consisted of five items and asked how respondents would feel if they had a child with special education needs in their classroom. This scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .69, and the factor analysis with Varimax rotation showed that the items were all part of the same scale (accounting for 59% of the variance). The ANOVA revealed a main effect for both nationality, F(1, 1076) = 983.74, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .50, and professional status, F(1, 1076) = 4.19, p < .05, [eta]^sup 2^ = .01. Planned post hoc analyses showed significant differences between the two nationalities, with Palestinians significantly more likely to feel sorry for the child with special needs (student-teachers more so than teachers).

Teacher's Focus Scale. The eighth scale consisted of four items and asked whether respondents saw their roles as teachers for all children (with and without disabilities); this scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .70, and the factor analysis with Varimax rotation showed that all items were part of the same scale (accounting for 53% of the variance). The ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between nationality and status, F(1, 1044) = 972.74, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .02. Figure 5 shows that for the Israeli respondents, teachers and student-teachers felt strongly that the teacher's role is to teach all of the children in his or her classroom, with Israeli teachers feeling most strongly about this, t(596) = 2.67, p < .05, d = .22. Palestinian teachers and student-teachers felt less strongly about this role: Teachers were much less adamant than were student-teachers, t(418) = 8.62, p < .001, d = .87. In addition, we found main effects for nationality, F(1, 1044) = 63.18, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .06, and status, F(1, 1044) = 9.16, p < .05, [eta]^sup 2^ = .01.

Special Education Scale. The ninth scale consisted of six items that examined how respondents saw the field of special education; this scale had a Cronbach's alpha of .63 and consisted of two factors based on the Varimax rotation accounting for 54.65% of the variance: the extent to which special education is a separate discipline and the extent to which it is a helping profession suited only for altruistic individuals. The MANOVA found a main effect for nationality, Wilks's lambda = .89, F(1, 1062) = 57.47, p < .01, [eta]^sup 2^ = .11, and for status, Wilks's lambda = .97, F(2, 1062) = 14.73, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .03. A follow-up ANOVA indicated that both nationality groups differed in their opinions regarding their professional discipline, F(1, 1063) =12.28, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .01, and the altruistic nature of being a special education teacher, F(1, 1063) = 69.99, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .07. In addition, the two status groups differed regarding the status of the discipline, F(1, 1063) = 20.56, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .02, and the altruistic nature of being a special education teacher, F(1, 1063) = 17.20, p < .001, [eta]^sup 2^ = .02. Planned post hoc analyses showed that Palestinians saw special education more as a profession for altruists than did their Israeli counterparts; student-teachers also felt this way more than did the teachers.

IMAGE GRAPH
FIGURE 1. Interaction effect.
IMAGE GRAPH
FIGURE 3. Interaction effect.
IMAGE GRAPH
FIGURE 5. Interaction effect.
IMAGE GRAPH
FIGURE 2. Interaction effect.
IMAGE GRAPH
FIGURE 4. Interaction effect.

Summary of Findings on Disability. Generally, Palestinians felt most strongly regarding the stigmatizing effect of having a child with special education needs and that they would tend to feel pity for the child. They also more strongly felt that special education is an altruistic profession, a belief held most strongly by student-teachers. On the other hand, Israelis felt most strongly that their own professional mandate was to teach all children, with or without a disability.

Self-Efficacy

Based on Gibson and Dembo's (1984) self-efficacy scale, two subscales were created: Personal Teaching Efficacy (personal-professional; Cronbach's alpha = .72) and Teaching Efficacy (general-professional; Cronbach's alpha = .65). These two scales were moderately correlated, Pearson's r = .25, p < .001. The correlation between each of the nine scales and the two self-efficacy scales was calculated using the Bonferroni correction to control for the family-wise alpha rate; the results are presented in Table 3. Most scales are moderately and positively correlated with one another, with the only negative correlation being between the general efficacy and the school scales (opinions regarding the school's purpose).

Predicting Attitudes Toward Disability and Special Education

We created a composite score for the four scales directly dealing with disabilities (disability-stigma scale), with a high score indicative of the respondent feeling most strongly that children with disabilities are stigmatizing for the family and that working with children with special education needs is akin to charity work. A univariate 2 (Nationality) x 2 (Professional Status) ANOVA with this disability score as the dependent variable showed a significant, yet weak, interaction, F(1, 980) = 5.96, p < .05, [eta]^sup 2^ = .01. Post hoc analyses indicated that Palestinians felt this more acutely than did Israelis, t(982) = 23.16, p < .001, d = 1.48. Furthermore, although Israeli student-teachers and Israeli teachers did not significantly differ on this measure, Palestinian student-teachers differed significantly from Palestinian teachers, t(476) = 3.01, p < .05, d = .30.

We next conducted a stepwise multiple regression analysis to predict this overall disability-stigma score, using the disability score as the dependent variable and the other five subscales-professional and general self-efficacy and respondent gender, nationality, and professional status (recoded as dummy variables)-as predictor variables. The regression equations for all four groups of respondents was significant, R = .74, R^sup 2^ = .55, F(8, 920) = 137.99, p < .001, with the disability-stigma score predicted by being a Palestinian (teacher or student-teacher); having high scores on the personal-professional self-efficacy scale, the equity scale, the general-professional self-efficacy scale, the teacher's national role scale, and the professional role scale; and being a male teacher.

We conducted four separate regression analyses, one for each nationality group and one for each professional status, in order to determine whether the disability-stigma score was predicted by nationality or professional status. Multiple regression analyses for each of the two nationality groups were both significant. The linear combination of the predictive variables was significantly related to the disability-stigma score for the Israeli respondents, yet it had poor predictive ability: R = .52, R^sup 2^ = .27, F(5, 462) = 33.83, p < .001. The Personal-Professional Self-Efficacy scale, the National Role scale, the Professional Role scale, the General-Professional Self-Efficacy scale, and male gender predicted the disability-stigma score. For the Palestinians, predictive ability was also significant but low: R = .52, R^sup 2^ = .27, F(4, 456) = 42.73, p < .001. The disability-stigma score was predicted by the General-Professional Self-Efficacy scale, the Equity scale, the National Role scale, and teacher status.
IMAGE TABLE
TABLE 3. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Each of the Nine Scales and the Two Subscales of Teachers' Self-Efficacy (Gibson & Dembo, 1984)

Multivariate regression analyses on the two status groups (teachers and student-teachers) showed stronger predictive ability for the disability-stigma score. For student-teachers, R = .77, R^sup 2^ = .59, F(5, 523) = 147.29, p < .001, Israeli nationality, the National Role scale, the Personal-Professional Self-Efficacy scale, the General-Professional Self-Efficacy scale, and the Equity scale predicted the disability-stigma scale. For teachers, R = .67, R^sup 2^ = .45, F(5, 394) = 63.53, p < .001, Israeli nationality, the General-Professional Self-Efficacy scale, the Equity scale, the Professional Role scale, and the Personal-Professional Self-Efficacy scale best predicted the disability-stigma score.

Summary of Regression Analyses

Generally, being a Palestinian man with high scores on most of the scales was predictive of seeing disability as stigmatizing. Predictive ability was less pronounced for each of the two national groups than it was for each of the status groups. For the four different groups, predictive ability was more pronounced for student-teachers than for teachers, and Israelis perceived more of the disability stigma than did their Palestinian counterparts. In addition, personal-professional and generalprofessional beliefs of self-efficacy were related to the disability-stigma scores.

General Discussion

We have shown that examining the surface-structure differences between the Israeli and the Palestinian Authority special education systems reveals tha the two are undergoing far-reaching changes. Israeli special education is slowly metamorphosing into a system based on the concept of inclusion of children with special education needs in the general education system while simultaneously preserving the integrity of the special education system. Currently, the Israeli special education system is vibrant and well-funded, and we can see these changes as being indicative of a healthy system that is reexamining and renewing itself. On the other hand, it would be a gross understatement to describe the changes in the Palestinian special education system as a mere metamorphosis. Indeed, Palestine is grappling with fundamental issues of equity, identification, and service provision, and as a developing Third World nation, it is reeling under the pernicious effects of poverty, unemployment, poor health services, and, primarily, military occupation.

The data further indicate significant differences in the deep structures informing these special education policies. Teachers in the Palestinian Authority were generally more politicized-seeing their role as nation builders ensuring a strong future and the equal and just distribution of resources. Israelis, on the other hand, were more professionally and less ideologically oriented. They were less influenced by a potentially stigmatizing conceptualization of disability, and they were more able to see children with disabilities as potential pupils. In additional, increased conviction regarding the costs of special education and the necessity of the services those costs provide was predictive of attitudes regarding disability as stigmatizing. The data from this study confirm the results of Dukmak (1994) in describing the stigmatizing influence of disabilities for Palestinian respondents.

The question remains regarding how to merge these surface and deep structures. On the one hand, the Israeli respondents showed a lack of ideological conviction regarding the different aspects of education and special education we examined, yet they come from a developed and well-funded special education system (or, perhaps, because they come from a developed and well-funded system). On the other hand, Palestinian respondents, with their heightened awareness of the historical and national value of their endeavors, are conspicuous in their general lack of special education services. Perhaps the Palestinian system is in such a state of flux, as is the entire Palestinian society under military and economic occupation, that special education services, despite their perceived importance, are a luxury.

Approximately 150 million children around the world have disabilities, and only a very small proportion are receiving an education (Artiles, Csapo, & DeLorenzo, 1995).The provision of education services for these children has received increased attention from many governments as they implement the provisions promulgated by the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). Understanding and comparing the development of special education services in two differing national systems is a difficult endeavor.

As Artiles and Hallahan (1995) pointed out, developing nations face monumental andseemingly irreconcilable challenges: to develop their fragile economies while struggling under huge debt, to provide their populations with basic resources, and to develop their own natural and human resources based on long-term development plans. There is, however, another, more salient factor in understanding developing nations' struggles in dealing with special needs populations: Attributions regarding causation and the learning potential and rights of children with disabilities influence the efficacy of special education reform (Marches!, 1998; Obiakor, 1998). Understanding fiscal and bureaucratic structures will paint only part of the picture for a comparative special education analysis. Although the effects of macro ecosystems on special education policy are central to any understanding of that policy, this aspect is often ignored in the comparative literature.

For comparative analyses in education, Bray and Thomas (1995) proposed a three-dimensional framework: geographical or locational levels, nonlocational demographic groups, and aspects of education and society. Focusing on issues such as curriculum, teaching methods, educational finance, management structures, political change, and the labor market (Bray & Thomas, 1995) ignores what Marchesi (1998) called the history, culture, and educational tradition of a nation that sets the tone for the receptiveness to fundamental change. In her discussion of how particular patterns of special education develop in different countries, Putnam (1979) described the demand hypothesis of special education provision, wherein the society's articulation of the need to educate children with special needs interacts with other factors to determine the local topography of special education services. In this vein, our findings are similar to those discussed by Obiakor (1998) regarding the influence of culture on the perception and care of children.

Creating and implementing policy to assist and teach individuals who heretofore were refused accessibility would necessarily encompass not only bureaucratic changes but also a wide cultural consensus as to the importance of such an endeavor. The state of special education in the Palestinian Authority vis-a-vis Israel appears similar to that of pre- and postapartheid South Africa. In both nations, an affluent portion of the population enjoys a high standard of living, with a commensurately funded education/special education system. Alongside this system exists a separate and less structured system that is slowly gaining independence and developing into a structured bureaucratic entity. As in South Africa, it is imperative that an understanding of special education in Israel and Palestine be based on an historical and a political overview of prevailing pre- and postreform conditions (Gwalla-Ogisi, Nkabinde, & Rodriguez, 1998; Nkabinde, 1995).

Both groups of Palestinian respondents perceived the central role of the education system in Palestine as helping to grow a strong and vibrant nation. Palestine is an emerging nation, undergoing what Sharaga (1986) termed a period of "nation building." Interestingly, Sharaga used this term in describing the Israeli context from independence (in 1948) to the 1980s; we feel certain that the Palestinian respondents' responses should be understood in a similar way as an historical snapshot of an emergent nation. Future research should examine this hypothesis by analyzing the surface and deep structures of special education in well-established nations with high standards of living (i.e., the United States, Japan, or Western Europe) and by revisiting Palestinian teachers and student-teachers over time.

Generally, Israelis tended to see education and special education from within an individually oriented context; in other words, Israelis tended to see their educational role as a professional whose mandate is to work with individual children in order to facilitate the children's development according to each one's potential. Palestinian educators, on the other hand, tended to see their role as more community and nationally oriented. This view may be caused by two separate, yet related, trends. During a time of nation building, educators must assume a central role as they attempt to forge a new national identity. There may also be a cause more basic to traditional Palestinian culture and mores, however. Traditionally, Arab communities are based on an extended family unit, and in Palestinian culture, the individual derives security from his or her membership in the clan. Special education is inherently an individually based process whereby special educators assess-and work to ameliorate-individual disabilities. This clash between cultures may explain general reticence on the part of Palestinian respondents to examine the individual aspects of special education provision. This hypothesis should be examined in future research through the analysis of these deep structures among other indigenous and traditional cultures. When analyzing policy, one must also compare the general opinions of the respondents with actual practice. Despite the fact that the Palestinian respondents were clear in their opinions regarding the right to an education for a child with disabilities, in reality the Ministry of Education in Palestine is struggling to provide basic education services for those same children. Clearly, a discrepancy exists between intentions and actions; this discrepancy should be investigated further.

Study Limitations

This research has four primary flaws. First, the conceptualization of deep structures as evidenced by teacher attitudes presents only one aspect of a deep structure. It would be naive to assume that these teacher/student-teacher attitudes constitute the deep structure of the two systems; they are, rather, a reflection of part of that deep structure. It is more likely that the deep structures of the two systems rest on the collective and interconnected beliefs of many groups, including not only teachers and student-teachers but also school administrators, government policymakers, parents, and teacher trainers. Further investigation into the deep structures of Israel and the Palestinian Authority should examine these other groups as well. second, our samples of Israeli respondents included only Israeli-Jewish student-teachers and teachers. Including another sample of Israeli-Palestinian respondents would have shed important light on the question of whether our findings are primarily due to economic considerations in an emerging nation or are more culturally anchored.

Examining Israeli-Palestinian respondents will provide a unique opportunity to investigate this issue. Third, response rates for both teacher groups were low. Because we have no way of knowing whether the teachers who responded to the questionnaire constituted a distinct group based on their self-selection, we must acknowledge that the low response rates may reflect an idiosyncratic sampling error and should be controlled for in future studies. This problem is also present for the two samples of student-teachers, albeit at a lower level. Future research should include both survey and interview data in order to further clarify this issue. Fourth, we are not convinced that an investigation of deep structures based on a purely quantitative methodology is possible. Despite the fact that survey research can provide a broad picture of respondent attitudes and beliefs, it is clear that interviews and possible ethnographic methodologies are called for. Given the sociopolitical climate in which we found ourselves during the course of this study (i.e., we were unable to travel to conduct interviews due to military closures; hence, we were unable to add a qualitative aspect to this research), we caution against reaching definite conclusions. Future special education research exploring surface and deep structures should use these combined methodologies. Focusing on descriptions of rules and regulations as indicative of special education policy should be eschewed for comparisons of both surface and deep structures.

Some Personal Reflections

We would be remiss in reporting on our research on the surface and deep structures of special education in Israel and Palestine without reporting on the surface and deep structures of an Israeli researcher and a Palestinian researcher working together at a time of strife, and even war. We began our joint endeavor after working together in a different setting and after developing a level of mutual trust, personal friendship, and mutual admiration. This did not prepare us for the inherent difficulties of working together across "enemy lines," however. We worked together in times of peace, through military closures, and even during times of war. During times of military conflict, as each national people became more entrenched in their position, so too did we as researchers. Contact foundered and caused hard feelings; we continuously found that we had to expend increasing time and energy in keeping lines of communication open, even while attack helicopters, bullets, and mortars were flying, with terrorists ruthlessly targeting civilians on both sides. Despite the fact that we were often perplexed, angered, and most often saddened and worried by the events surrounding us, we persevered in the name of our research, our field, our nations, our friendship, and our belief that international collaborative research is important any time, yet even more imperative during times of conflict. If we could, we would do it all again.
FOOTNOTE
NOTES

1. In this article we use the term Palestinian Authority to refer to individuals and land falling under the bureaucratic jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority as of June 1, 2000, as set forth under the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles signed in Washington, DC, on September 13, 1993.

2. In this article we use the term national entity because as of this writing, Palestine has not declared itself an independent and sovereign state, yet it is recognized as a national entity by the United Nations, the United States, and the European community.

3. We are using the term refugee to describe those Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel during its War of Independence in 1948. Most of these refugees fled to the West Bank (at that time, part of Jordan). Following the June 1967 "Six Day War," with the military occupation of the West Bank, those refugees once again fell under Israeli administration.
REFERENCE
REFERENCES

Artiles, A. J., Csapo, M., & DeLorenzo, E. G. (1995). Special education for students with mild disabilities: A Third World perspective. In A. J. Artiles & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Special education in Latin America: Exceptional issues (pp. 41-58). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Artiles, A. J., & Hallahan, D. P. (1995). Special education in Latin America: Exceptional issues. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Artiles, A. J., & Larsen, L. A. (1998). Learning from special education reform movements in four continents. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(1), 5-9.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bateman, B. D. (1995). Who, how, and where: Special education's issues in perpetuity. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 75-90). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Biklen, D. (Ed.). (1985). Achieving the complete school. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of comparison in educational studies: Different insights from different literatures and the value of multi-level analyses. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 472-490.

Christensen, C. A., & Dorn, S. (1997). Competing notions of social justice and contradictions in special education reform. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 181-198.

Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. EC, 37, 229-237.

Dukmak, S. J. (1994). West Bank and Gaza Strip. In K. Mazurek (Ed.), Comparative studies in special education (pp. 44-63). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded-Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 35, 5-22.

Ellger-Ruttgardt, S. (1995). Special education in Germany. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 10(1), 75-91.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

Gumpel, T. P. (1999). Special education in Israel. In C. R. Reynolds & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education (Vol. 2, pp. 995-998). New York: Wiley.

Gumpel, T. P., & Awartani, S. (1999). Executive summary: Strategic work-group on special education. Jerusalem: The Charles R. Bronfmann Foundation & The Palestinian Consultancy Group.

Gwalla-Ogisi, N., Nkabinde, Z. P., & Rodriguez, L. (1998). The social context of the special education debate in South Africa. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(1), 72-85.

Hallenbeck, B. A., & Kauffman, J. M. (1994). United States. In K. Mazurek (Ed.), Comparative studies in special education (pp. 403-451). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Hegarty, S. (1998). International perspectives on special education reform. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(1), 112-115.

Isaacs, P. (1996). Disability and the education of persons. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice (pp. 27-45). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Jerusalem, M. (1993). Personal resources, environmental constraints, and adaptational processes: The predictive power of a theoretical stress model. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 15-24.

Kauffman, J. M. (1989). The Regular Education Initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-reach. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 256-278.

Lim, L., & Nam, S. S. (2000). Special education in Singapore. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 104-109.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1987). Capable of achievement and worth of respect: Education for handicapped students as if they were full fledged human beings. EC, 54, 69-74.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1998). Reaction essay: International perspectives on special education reform. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(1), 128-133.

Lipsky, M. (1983). Street level bureaucracy. New York: Sage.

Marchesi, A. (1998). International perspectives on special educational reform. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(1), 116-122.

Meekosha, H., & Jakubowicz, A. (1996). Disability, participation and social justice. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice (pp. 79-95). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Meijer, C. J. W., Pijl, S. J., & Hegarty, S. (1994). New perspectives in special education: A six-country study of integration. London: Routledge.

Mitchell, D. (1999). Transfer of beliefs, knowledge, and experiences between countries. In P. Retish & S. Reiter (Eds.), Adults with disabilities: International perspectives in the community (pp. 259-285). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nkabinde, Z. P. (1995). The role of special education in a changing South Africa. In P. Potts, F. Armstrong, & M. Masterton (Eds.), Equality and diversity in education: Vol. 2. National and international contexts (pp. 175-183). London: Routledge.

Obiakor, F. E. (1998). Special education reform in Nigeria: Prospects and challenges. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(1), 57-71.

Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics. (2001). The final results of the first Palestinian census. Palestine Central Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved November 21, 2001, 2000, from http://www.pcbs.org/inside/selcts.htm

Peters, S. J. (1993). Education and disability in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Garland.

Pijl, S. J. (1994). Denmark. In C. J. W. Meijer, S. J. Pijl, & S. Hegarty (Eds.), New perspectives in special education: A six-country study of integration (pp. 25-40). London: Routledge.

Putnam, R. W. (1979). Special education-Some cross-national comparisons. Comparative Education, 15(1), 83-98.

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (1996). Disability, education and the discourses of justice. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice (pp. 9-26). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Safran, S. P. (1989). Special education in Australia and the United States: A cross-cultural analysis.

Sharaga, D. (1986). Human rights in emergency situations under the European Convention on Human Rights. In Y. Dinstein (Ed.), Israel yearbook on human rights (Vol. 15, pp. 217-242). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press.

Thorndike, R. L. (1982). Applied psychometrics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education: World conference on special needs education: Access and equality. New York: Author.

Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 171-197.

Yang, H., & Wang, H. (1994). Special education in China. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 93-105.
AUTHOR_AFFILIATION
Thomas P. Gumpel, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Sana Awartani, Nablus, Palestine
AUTHOR_AFFILIATION
Address: Thomas P. Gumpel, Department of Special Education, School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel; e-mail: tgumpel@vms.huji.ac.il
AUTHOR_AFFILIATION
AUTHORS' NOTES

1. The research on which the present publication is based was funded by the Palestinian-Israeli-Netherlands Programme for Social Research, which is part of the Netherlands-Israel Development Research Programme (NIRP) in collaboration with Nuffic, The Hague, and Haigud, Jerusalem. These organizations, however, do not take responsibility for the facts stated, the opinions expressed, or the conclusions reached in this publication.

2. The authors would like to thank all of the Israeli and Palestinian respondents as well as two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments.
APPENDIX
Appendix All items and factor loadings: Factor-related eigenvalues are presented in parentheses.
IMAGE TABLE
Social Justice Scale

Equity Scale
IMAGE TABLE
National Role Scale