Teachers as street level bureaucrats and their role as cultural mediators in the integration of immigrants: the Israeli case

ABSTRACT

Schools, as public institutions cope with the challenge of immigrant absorption. Lipsky’s theory of street-level bureaucrats argues that civil servants at the end of the hierarchy are the most significant in implementing policy. This article examined the conditions that lead teachers to become street-level bureaucrats and cultural mediators, and how they influence student immigration policy. The qualitative study included interviews with 25 teachers of immigrants and found four conditions under which teachers positively influence policy on the ground. As they play significant roles in immigrants’ lives, investment in appropriate training for teachers of immigrants is recommended.

KEYWORDS:

• Street-level bureaucrats
• teachers of immigrants
• immigrant students
• professional development
• immigration
• education
• Israel

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Linn, “Accountability.”

2. Lee, “Racial and Ethnic,” 3–12.

3. Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy, 13–26.

4. Brodkin, “Reflections,” 940–9.

5. Maynard-Moody and Musheno, “State Agent,” 329–58.

6. Tummers and Bekkers, “Policy Implementation,” 527–47.

7. Keiser, “Understanding Street-Level Bureaucrats,” 247–57.

8. Hupe and Hill, “Street-Level Bureaucracy,” 279–99.

9. Cohen and Gershgoren, “The Incentives,” 267–89; and Tummers et al., “Explaining the Willingness,” 716–36.

10. Gofen, “Mind the Gap,” 273–93.

11. Cohen, “How Culture Affects,” 175–87.

12. Banks, “Multicultural Education,” 25–43.

13. Ibid.

14. Dee, “Evidence of Cultural Competence,” 262–75; Gay, “Teaching to and Through,” 48–70; Hramiak, “Using a Cultural Lens,” 147–63; and Kymlicka and Banting, “Immigration, Multiculturalism,” 281–304.

15. Aceves and Orosco, “Culturally Responsive Teaching,” 1–37; and Aronson and Laughter, “The Theory and Practice,” 163–206.

16. Hachfeld et al., “Should Teachers Be Colorblind,” 44–55.

17. van Tartwijk et al., “Teachers’ Practical Knowledge,” 453–60.

18. Sakamoto, Wei, and Truong, “How Do Organizations,” 343–54.

19. Ayalon and Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, “Tahalich nituach hatochen,” 359–82.

20. Moustakas, Phenomenological Research Methods, 25–43.

21. See note above 19.

22. Lincoln and Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry.

23. Shkedi, Milot haminasot l’ga’at, 13–23.

24. See note above 19.

25. Banks, “Multicultural Education,” 25–43; Dee, “Evidence of Cultural Competence,” 265–75; Gay, ‘Teaching to and Through,” 48–70; and Hramiak, “Using a Cultural Lens,” 147–63.

26. Amir, Golan, and Rotstein, “Hitmodadutan shel michanchot,” 79–91.

27. State of Israel, Ministry of Education, National Task-Force for the Advancement of Education in Israel, “Hatochnit haleumit l’chinuch,” 11–37.

28. Kymlicka and Banting, “Immigration, Multiculturalism,” 281–304.

29. Eisikovits and Buck “Modelim hamanchim,” 33–50; and Golden and Baram, “Hanochachut hachamkamkah,” 156.

30. Binhas, “Are You Being Served,” 459–478.

31. Brodkin, “Reflections on Street-Level Bureaucracy,” 940–49.

32. See note above 7.

33. Tummers and Bekkers, “Policy Implementation, Street-Level Bureaucracy,” 527–47.

34. See note above 17.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Adi Binhas

Adi Binhas is Lecturer in the Society & Culture Faculty and the Education Faculty at Beit Berl College, Israel.