Schools comprise a critical arena in which liberal states and ultra-religious communities compete over normative superiority. A prominent manifestation of this contest is the repeating conflicts over the scope of secular education (SE) in Haredi (Jewish ultra-Orthodox) boys schools, which sanctify religious studies and prepare students to become religious scholars, outsiders to the workforce (Author 1, 2015). Recent events put conflicts over Haredi education at the forefront of public and legal discourse. A New York Times investigation revealed serious concerns regarding the quality of SE in New York Haredi schools (Shapiro & Rosenthal, 2022). In the UK, a new Schools Bill seeking to revoke the exemptions accorded to unregistered Haredi schools (Rocker, 2022) met with mass Haredi protests (Bloch, 2022). In Israel, a fierce struggle over a new policy that incentivizes Haredi schools to teach SE nearly dismantled a Haredi political party and could impact the outcome of the national elections (Rabinowitz, 2022).

Despite the enduring conflict over the regulation of ultra-religious education, we have scant empirical knowledge on the role of such regulations in ultra-religious schools’ decision-making processes. We study this question in the context of Haredi elementary schools for boys that are obliged to implement Israel’s core-curriculum regulations.

Theoretical Framework

The conflict over the regulation of ultra-religious education manifests a tension between the acceptability and adaptability features of the right to education (UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1999). The right to acceptable education emphasizes the development of the children’s personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Article 29(1)(a)). The right to adaptable education entails the adaptability of education to children’s cultural affiliations (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Article 29(1)(c)), and the protection of minority children’s cultural rights (Article 30). The conflict over the regulation of ultra-religious education also pertains to parental rights (Lundy, 2005) and state interests in a strong democracy (Guttmann, 1999) and optimal workforce participation (Robeyns, 2006).

Balancing the competing rights and interests is a complex task that concerns policymakers worldwide (e.g., Author, 1, 2014, 2015; Lichtenstein, 2022; Rocker, 2022). A common form of balancing is a universal “core” curriculum that reflects basic educational standards (Beane, 2016). Studies exploring Haredi schools in different countries (Author 1, 2015) and Islamic schools in Singapore (Tan, 2010) concluded that mandatory core curriculum policies are ineffective due to communal resistance and the state’s reluctance to use drastic measures such as school closing. These studies were mainly based on documents. Two small-scale studies addressing conditional funding curricular policies provided data regarding the implementation of such policies (Author 1, 2014, 2019). Another study suggested that ultra-religious communities may be open to implementing core curricula if these programs communicate respect for their identity (Author 2, 2021). These studies laid the foundations for the present study. To date, however, no studies have systematically explored the reality of (non)compliance with the core curriculum in Haredi schools and empirically mapped the factors shaping schools’ decisions regarding SE.

To explore how Haredi schools respond to the core-curriculum regulations, we draw on institutional theory, which offers a framework for analyzing the competing sources that influence organizational decision-making processes. A significant thread in institutional theory has focused on the external sources that influence separate organizations within a field to act in similar ways, a phenomenon termed isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Another thread is institutional work, which highlights the role of agency within institutional theory and explores the purposive action of individuals and organizations aimed at creating, maintaining and disrupting institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2011). 

Our study is based on qualitative and quantitative methodologies, building on in-depth semi-structured interviews and documents drawn from the largest and most systematic sample to date of Haredi schools. We designed and collected a heterogeneous purposive sampling that represents the variation between groups of schools in their curricular requirements and legal status and provides proportionate representation of socio-geographic clusters and affiliations in the Haredi society. Overall, we conducted 88 semi-structured interviews with 48 principals and 34 teachers of Haredi boys schools, providing detailed information on 62 schools serving about 18,000 students; and six state inspectors, each supervising dozens of Haredi schools. We also collected various documents from the schools, including school guidelines, timetables, results of standardized exams, official reports to the state, and weekly letters to parents. All interviews were conducted between 2019-2021. Thirty-seven interviews were conducted in person in the interviewees’ offices or homes. Forty-four interviews were conducted via telephone and one on Zoom due to Covid-19 restrictions. Interview questions addressed the day-to-day teaching of SE at different grade levels, including the number of weekly hours devoted to SE at each grade level and subject, the decision-making process regarding teaching SE subjects, and the relationships between the schools and various figures, such as the state, the municipalities, the parents, and the rabbis. We also queried the educators regarding their personal opinions. The ethical procedures were approved by Author 1’s university IRB and the Ministry of Education. The interviews and documents were analyzed in several steps. First, in line with our interest in the factual patterns of SE teaching, we created a dataset of the quantifiable information that principals and teachers provided regarding the subjects and the number of weekly hours taught at each grade level. This process drew on specific questions about these issues in each interview and on relevant documents. Based on this information, we compared the schools’ SE curricula with the regulations. We then sought similarities and variations between the schools. Second, in line with our interest in the factors shaping schools’ decisions, we developed a qualitative coding scheme. During the first analysis phase, we outlined factual patterns and general themes emerging from the interviews. At this stage, we decided to draw on institutional theory and focus on the sources of schools’ decisions. We designed another coding scheme differentiating between these sources. We used Dedoose to analyze the data according to the final coding scheme.

Our findings show that schools subject to stricter legal requirements are more compliant than schools with looser requirements. Nonetheless, the law’s overarching role was in tension with its under-enforcement. The findings indicate that all groups of schools fall short of full compliance with curricular regulations. Noncompliance was typically explicit, appearing even in formal reports principals submitted to the state; Indeed, state inspectors were aware that most schools were not compliant. This tension we found between the overarching role that the law plays in schools’ curricular compliance and the widespread noncompliance appears to maintain the relationships of the Haredi community with the state. On the one hand, the Haredi community has a growing participation in public spheres, including politics and higher education (Hakak, 2016; Novis-Deutsch & Rubin, 2019). Participation requires accommodating public structures. On the other hand, the relationships of the Haredi community with the state are characterized by noncompliance, resistance to state authorities, and exemptions from generally applicable laws, such as secondary school SE education and army service (Authors 1-2, 2021). Practices of institutional maintenance typically involve supporting, repairing, or recreating the social mechanisms that ensure compliance or reproduce existing norms and belief systems (Adler & Lalonde, 2020; Heaphy, 2013; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Sapir, 2021). In contrast, breaching rules is typically defined as a disruptive attack on institutions (Heaphy, 2013). Our findings challenge this conventional classification. In contexts where noncompliance and resistance to state authorities is the social norm, such as the case of Haredi education in Israel (Authors 1-2, 2021; Author 1, 2015a, 2015b), noncompliance can be best understood as institutional maintenance. We also identified multiple sources of schools’ decisions, uncontrolled by prevalent templates of noncompliance. These spaces offer new paths for regulatory efforts to improve SE and fulfill the educational rights of Haredi students.

Adler, C., & Lalonde, C. (2020). Identity, agency and institutional work in higher education: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 15(2), 121-144. Beane, J.A. (2016). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. Teachers College Press. Bloch, B. (2022). Charedi parents say children might be sent to Belgium if schools bill passes. The Jewish Chronicle. https://www.thejc.com/news/community/charedi-parents-say-children-might-be-sent-to-belgium-if-schools-bill-passes-2Q6IPIYFykLVtde73pZ76y DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–60. Guttmann, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton University Press. Hakak, Y. (2016). Haredi masculinities between the Yeshiva, the army, work and politics: The sage, the warrior and the entrepreneur. Brill. Heaphy, E. D. (2013). Repairing breaches with rules: Maintaining institutions in the face of everyday disruptions. Organization Science, 24(5), 1291-1315. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T.B. Lawrence, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, 2 (pp. 215- 254). Sage. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58. Lichtenstein, M. (2022). Legitimizing tactics: Hasidic schools, noncompliance, and the politics of deservingness. American Journal of Sociology, 127(6), 1860-1916. Lundy, L. (2005). Family values in the classroom? Reconciling parental wishes and children’s rights in state schools. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 19, 346-372. Novis-Deutsch, N., & Rubin, O. (2019). Ultra-Orthodox women pursuing higher education: Motivations and challenges. Studies in Higher Education, 44(9), 1519-1538. Rabinowitz, A. (2022). Progress reported in talks on joint run of ultra-Orthodox parties Degel Hatorah and Agudat Yisrael. Haaretz. https://www.thejc.com/family-and-education/all/new-schools-bill-introduces-move-to-regulate-yeshivot-69CkyWZ7VHltmUyuJImA5Q Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education: Rights, capabilities and human capital. School Field, 4(1), 69-84. Rocker, S. (2022). New schools bill introduces move to regulate Yeshivot. The Jewish Chronicle. https://www.thejc.com/family-and-education/all/new-schools-bill-introduces-move-to-regulate-yeshivot-69CkyWZ7VHltmUyuJImA5Q Sapir, A. (2021). Brokering knowledge, monitoring compliance: Technology transfer professionals on the boundary between academy and industry. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(3), 248-263. Shapiro, E., & Rosenthal, M. (2022). In Hasidic enclaves, failing private schools flush with public money. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/11/nyregion/hasidic-yeshivas-schools-new-york.html Tan, C. (2010). Contesting reform: Bernstein’s pedagogic device and Madrasah education in Singapore. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(2), 165–182. UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999). General comment no. 13. U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1999/10. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25.