Parental Involvement in the Arab and Jewish Educational Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, no comparison has been made between the Arab and Jewish educational systems regarding parental involvement. This preliminary study examines the perceptions about parental involvement as described by the pedagogic staff and compares the two sectors (Jewish vs. Arab as two ethno-religious groups). Staff members from four elementary schools (two Jewish schools and two Arab schools) were interviewed. The findings indicate that parental involvement in the Arab sector is lower than in the Jewish sector. The Arab parents have more respect and trust towards the school, the principal, and the teachers compared to the Jewish parents. This is reflected by lower involvement of the Arab parents in comparison to the Jewish parents. While Jewish parents who volunteer for parents’ associations use their status to promote their personal interest (their child’s benefit) and less desire to contribute to the school, Arab parents volunteer more to help the principals and teachers to get resources from the Mayor/ Head of the municipal council and less for their own child’s benefit. The depth and the type of parental involvement in the Jewish and the Arab educational systems can be explained by cultural differences, namely an individualistic Jewish society vs. a collectivistic Arab society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".