Attitudes of Israeli Early Childhood Educators Who Work in Kibbutz, Rural Villages and Cities Towards Their Community and Its Significance for Children
Funding: The research was supported by the MOFET Institute Grant for Applied Research in Education.
ABSTRACT
The societal context of community is of critical importance in understanding its effect on pedagogic practice in ECEC, and yet, the role of community in ECEC is taken for granted by both scholars and practitioners. Little is known about the attitudes of ECEC educators towards their communities and how they affect children. This research examines the perspectives of Israeli ECEC educators from three ecologies: Urban, village and kibbutz and the way in which they are expressed in their practice. Semi-structured interviews with 24 educators were conducted and analysed thematically. Israeli educators from all three ecologies were characterised as viewing community focused on children yet moving beyond the kindergarten itself, standing in contrast to the commonplace among teachers elsewhere in the world, where community involvement is limited to parents helping their children with academic tasks. Other findings reveal two central themes: Family involvement and the overall conception of community which point to differences among educators in the three ecologies. Regarding family involvement, urban educators limited and controlled parent participation, while their village and kibbutz colleagues were more inclusive by integrating children into the life of the wider community. Regarding concepts of community, urban educators understood community in a utilitarian sense while village and kibbutz educators understood community as an essential building block of the kindergarten program for the benefit of children with mutual support and obligation between the ECEC setting and the surrounding community. The research findings shed light on the significance of the interplay between the wider community and ECEC and the importance of developing educational models that are sensitive to local cultural contexts.
1 Introduction
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) is rooted in community and is influenced by interactions between educators, families and community members. This research seeks to examine Israeli educators' perceptions regarding the role of community in the ECEC setting and the relatedness of educators to its broader communal context. We use three layers of association to view community in ECEC: The kindergarten itself as a community consisting of children and staff; the kindergarten and the families including children, staff and family members; and the kindergarten and the surrounding community, consisting of children, staff, persons in the neighbourhood and formal and informal institutions. Thus, each educational setting is a community by itself, expanded upon with parents and family and further enhanced by the larger community that provides cultural, health, technological, leisure and other affordances, consisting of people living and working in the geographical area of the ECEC setting.
Recognising the centrality of community, we argue that the societal context of community is of critical importance in understanding its effect on pedagogic practice in ECEC, as reflected by attitudes of ECEC educators regarding the communities in which they work. Israeli society provides a rich variety of ecologies in which the relationship between community and ECEC can be examined. Three different ecologies—kibbutz, rural and urban, represent a gradient of communality in Israel (Goroshit and Eshel 2013). The attitudes of ECEC educators in all three will be examined and compared in this study.
2 Community and Its Socio-Cultural Context
Community refers to a social structure that connects individuals on the basis of norms, common identity and solidarity (Bradshaw 2008; Dahan 2021). Although the community usually has no legal status nor physical characteristics, it is present in the lives of people who live within it and plays a significant role in social structures. Communal connections consist of social mechanisms such as community norms and social support networks (Galster 2012; Sampson 2001). Interest in communities is gaining research momentum based on a desire to understand their influence on people's resilience and well-being. In a meta-analysis, community-based variables show a positive relationship with community engagement (Talò 2018). Positive and cohesive communities accumulate human resources that improve quality of life and resilience (Bourdieu 1990; Barnhart et al. 2022). An emphasis on the communal good as the essence of community has been theorised through the communitarian theory (Etzioni 2014), suggesting that mutual reciprocity between individuals and their community is based on collective identity and aspirations (Alexander 2001; Dickson 2012).
In Israel's diverse human ecologies, a range of communality levels is found in kibbutz, village and city. Goroshit and Eshel (2013) found a direct relationship between the level of communality and communal resilience in these ecologies and showed a gradient of communality from higher to lower: Kibbutz, village and city. This gradient of communality is characterised by multiple factors. Kibbutzim (the plural form of the term kibbutz) are collective settlements based on communal sharing (DeMalach 2017). This organisational structure is based on theories of community and communalism and driven by kibbutz ideology (Blackshaw 2010) finding expression in community education (Harpaz 2004). In its early days, the kibbutzim were considered as living laboratories for innovative social experiments offering an alternative lifestyle. Over the years, the kibbutzim and their educational systems underwent changes resembling social processes occurring in Israel and around the world (Dror 2002; Gan 2021).
While the kibbutz movement has shown remarkable resilience and adaptability over its 100-year history, it has also strayed significantly from its founding principles. The majority of kibbutzim today bear little resemblance to the egalitarian, communal vision of their founders. Only about 15% of kibbutzim are still considered fully communal, with most having embraced privatisation and individual property ownership. This shift raises questions about whether the ‘reconstituted kibbutz’ can truly be called a kibbutz at all (Palgi and Reinharz 2014). Despite those changes, the kibbutzim maintained their socio-educational doctrinal theory of communal education, renewing and adjusting to these theories (Osem 2021). The kibbutzim perceive education as an essential component in their lifestyle focusing their educational goals on a holistic connection with community (Dror 2021). They envision education of children as a microcosm of the entire adult kibbutz society (Plotnik and Eshel 2008), and in the past, they understood this process as preparing children for full-fledged kibbutz membership (Lahav and Shner 2024). Despite the far-reaching changes that kibbutzim experienced, the demand for kibbutz education among urban parents in Israel has continued to grow (Gan 2021). At the same time, once seen as innovative and groundbreaking, kibbutz education has largely conformed to mainstream models in pursuit of academic achievement and standardised test scores. The educational system has lost much of its distinctive character and alternative approach, becoming more aligned with conventional schooling rather than offering a truly unique pedagogical model. This transformation in both the economic and educational spheres suggests that while the kibbutz may have survived, it has done so at the cost of its core ideological commitments and innovative spirit (Gan 2021).
The kibbutz community shares certain similarities with closed utopian communal groups worldwide such as the Bruderhof, Hutterite and Amana societies which often coalesce around shared religious beliefs (Coulthard 2024). However, the kibbutzim are more open, and their ideology calls for integration into the broader Israeli society (Blasi 2017). Similarly, the kibbutz shares commonalities with modern Swedish collective houses in promoting interpersonal relationships while respecting individual space, addressing the growing tension between an increasingly individualistic society and the human need for community (Törnqvist 2021). Although no study was found on ECEC in these communities, the Amish educational approach for older children has been addressed by researchers. In that community, the rural atmosphere and the emphasis on education through labour (Yang 2022) as a means to uphold cultural values (Paul Dana 2007) echoes the kibbutz model. The kibbutz fully integrates the value of work and physical labour into the educational program (Gan 2021).
Rural villages in Israel are small entities situated in open country (Ricketts, Johnson-Webb, and Taylor 1998). Their members tend to value mutual commitment and involve themselves in their educational institutions (Ostrovsky 2018). These villages show a sense of group belonging, uniqueness of the community, influence of community on its surroundings, provision of individual freedom and renewal (Moran et al. 2010). Community, social and place attachment all constitute distinguishing components of village communal life (Brehm, Eisenhauer, and Krannich 2004), where communal cohesion has been found to influence lifestyle satisfaction (Arnon, Shamai, and Cahaner 2016).
Most kibbutzim and some rural villages are characterised by their involvement with agriculture as a community basis, requiring cooperation and the need to work within the community's geographical confines, thus strengthening their communal basis (Rifman 2016).
Israeli urban settings are characterised by low levels of community resilience (Goroshit and Eshel 2013). In the absence of communal norms, individuals often garner strength from wherever they are able in order to survive in this environment (Flint, Alfasi, and Benenson 2014). In the 21st century, urban settings have witnessed decentralisation of the family and intensification of the intergenerational gap, leading to disconnection from the social group and individual identity, intensifying feelings of loneliness and alienation (Hatuka et al. 2020). In contrast, Checkoway (2011) found that the multicultural participation across ethnic boundaries enhances a sense of community1 in Israeli cities. These findings suggest important community differences in kibbutzim, villages and cities. This study examines differences between communities in the three ecologies through the perspective of ECEC educators.
3 Community and Its Significance to ECEC
Family, community and the wider social contexts are meaningful socialising forces that affect young children's development and learning (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Crawford 2020), suggesting the importance of nurturing and maintaining close connections between the community and ECEC (NAEYC 2020). Knowledge and values constructed at the communal level are conveyed to children through educators and parents (Dahan 2021). These values include familiarity with communal institutions and a sense of cohesiveness and were the basis of the concept of ‘Sense of Community’ (Doolittle and MacDonald 1978)1. This psychological construct reflects the ‘fundamental human phenomenon of collective experience’ (Peterson, Speer, and McMillan 2008, 62). School, family and community partnerships can improve school programs and climate, provide family services and support, increase parents' skills and leadership and connect families with others. Most of all, partnership between schools and community aids teachers with their work and helps students succeed in school and in later life (Epstein 2010).
Despite this emphasis on the contribution of the wider community to the quality of ECEC programs, most research on community in ECEC focuses on parents supplementing the kindergarten program through home-learning activities (e.g., Greenbank 2023; White and Vossler 2023; Xiong, Her, and Yunizar 2023; McCauley et al. 2023). A major exception exemplifying a broader conception in which the strength of communities enhances children's development is the Reggio-Emilia approach (McNally and Slutsky 2017) emphasising civic commitment to ECEC by relating to physical, historical, familial and social aspects of their communities. Another exception is the Israeli kibbutz that provides a comprehensive ECEC model based on communal involvement (Dror 2021; Lieblich 2010). This phenomenon finds expression in administrative resources, such as the early childhood coordinator; physical resources, such as the building and maintenance of high-quality facilities; and human resources, such as the involvement of a variety of community members in the day-to-day life of the early childhood settings (Golan, Aviezer, and Poyas 2024). Even though the kibbutz has become less collectivistic and more family-based and individualistic in recent decades, the centrality of ECEC within the kibbutz has remained (Plotnik 2021).
Benefits of community-based ECEC programs are brought to the fore in an American study comparing outcomes for children in such programs with those following more conventional models that isolate the ECEC setting from the broader community (Winter et al. 2007). Significant improvement was found in motor development, abstract knowledge and language skills among children in the community-based models, compared to traditional models. These communal models suggest that ECEC needs to be understood in the context of the community in which they are embedded, pointing to benefits accrued from tighter linkage to community.
The salience of community in ECEC is highlighted in a recent revision of the Developmentally Appropriate Practice position paper (NAEYC 2020). Community is emphasised in three sections—principles, guidelines and recommendations. The guidelines emphasise family connections and benefits of the wider community. In conclusion, recommendations include engaging family and the broader community in program planning and implementation and cultivating relationships with community resources.
Policy regarding the importance of community in ECEC was highlighted in Israel by a law in 2000 that encourages all educational institutions to contribute to their communities (U.S. Const. Amend. II, § 2000) and by a revamping of the nation's ECEC goals encouraging educators to strengthen connections between kindergartens and community (Ministry of Education 2021) benefits of community involvement entail maximising communal resources for the children's advantage (Caldwell et al. 2005). Communal involvement that promotes resource allocation and coordination between various stakeholders enhances children's wellbeing (Sayers et al. 2007). Among the three ecologies, kibbutz, village and city, communality on kibbutz has received the most research attention (Aviezer, Sher-Censor, and Stein-Lahad 2017; Bachrach 2013; Lieblich 2010). The research on kibbutz ECEC includes harsh criticism of communal sleeping arrangements for children that were universal until the 1980s when this practice was discontinued. For example, Keini (2021) characterises such parenting as narcissistic which fails to see the differential needs of each child. Unfortunately, the topic of communality in kibbutz ECEC has not been adequately addressed, and no research has been found addressing communality and ECEC in rural villages and cities. Characteristics of those communities suggest that educators in each of these arenas might think differently about community and their work. Thus, this research was designed to reveal differences in attitudes towards community in the three ecologies to better understand how community contributes to ECEC at the level of practice.
4 Connection Between Educator and Community in ECEC
Most studies on educators' views towards community focus on family engagement. Mellinger's (2009) survey of American ECEC practitioners found that teachers felt that family involvement was an important part of their work and that such involvement benefits children's learning. Abdu (2014) found disappointment among South African ECEC educators due to unsatisfactory levels of parental involvement related to several factors: Physical distances between the home and ECEC centres, non-chalant attitudes among parents, parent work commitments, grandparents in the role of caregivers, single parenting and domestic violence. Teacher attitudes towards a wide range of community involvement practices in Saudi Arabia were found to be more positive towards parent education, supporting learning at home and promoting ongoing communications. Less frequently implemented practices include those that empower parents, such as collaboration, volunteering and decision-making (Albaiz and Ernest 2021). These studies indicate positive teacher attitudes towards family involvement along with a reluctance to actually engage the community in the educational process within the setting. Achieving these positive attitudes presumes that ECEC practitioners feel connected to community in their own classrooms and to the broader community as well. However, in a study of daycare managers in Israel, it was found that managers did not integrate community-building concepts with ECEC pedagogy because they lacked involvement in planning the project (Achituv and Hertzog 2020).
- What characterises educators' perceptions and opinions about their ECEC community according to its various layers in the three Israeli ecologies: Kibbutz, village and city?
- How are those perceptions and opinions exemplified in activities, the educational environment and communal connections as described by the educators?
5 Methodology
This research follows the qualitative tradition, using the phenomenological approach (Alase 2017) This genre was chosen in order to fully access attitudes of ECEC educators in an open format that provides a broad opportunity for the participants to express how they view community as a lived experience.
5.1 Research Population
The research population, selected according to the snowball method, included middle-class female educators with a minimum of 4 years experience working under institutional supervision. They worked in one of the two tiers of the Israeli ECEC system with either ages 0–3 (nursery educators NE) or 3–6 (kindergarten educators, KE). The nursery settings were affiliated with various NGOs while the kindregartens affiliated with the Ministry of Education. Twenty-four Jewish secular ECEC educators were interviewed: 12 KE's and 12 NE's. The participants were divided equally among three arenas: Kibbutz, village and city and according to the two age groups. Table 1 specifies the participant population.
| Kibbutz | Village | City | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average age | 39.5 | 38 | 36 |
| Average years of teaching experience | 18 | 8.5 | 9.25 |
5.2 Research Tool and Procedure
The semi-structured interviews, lasting between 25 and 90 min, were based on a set of open-ended questions allowing space for participants' individual verbal expressions and enabling the interviewer to improvise follow-up questions based on participant's responses (Kallio et al. 2016). The interviews were conducted using Zoom from January 2022–September 2023 and were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Committee of Oranim College of Education. Participants gave written informed consent, and their names were anonymised. The interview guide can be found in Appendix A.
5.3 Data Analysis
The three researchers each coded the same interview using Atlasti.23 by creating codes deemed relevant to the research questions. The three coding were compared, and the codes were adjusted to achieve complete agreement between the researchers. Each code was assigned a definition, also agreed upon by the researchers. Afterwards, code groups were established. A second stage of the analysis involved one research assistant, who coded the same interview using the agreed upon codes. His coding was compared to that of the researchers, and once again the researchers and the assistant discussed differences and adjusted the codes in order to achieve complete agreement. The researchers analysed the coded data to generate the research findings.
This process was based on content analysis according to the grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 2015). This process included open coding that brought to the fore the significant categories in the data, axial coding, that identified primary and secondary themes and their connection, and selective coding constructing the ‘story’ of the phenomenon under investigation.
5.4 Researchers' Positionality
Our positionality as researchers in this study is expressed in several layers. The first author was a member of a kibbutz where she raised her children. She currently lives in a rural village. She served as a kibbutz ECEC educator and later as a MOE supervisor for kibbutz, urban and village kindergartens. The second author lives in a rural village and has worked as an occupational therapist in urban ECEC settings. Her children were raised in three settings: City, village and kibbutz. Currently, both authors serve on the early childhood faculty of an education college whose ethos resonates with kibbutz education ideology and whose students come from cities, villages and kibbutzim. The third author comes from an urban background and served on the early childhood faculty of a religious education college. He currently volunteers in a kibbutz kindergarten for children whose families were displaced by the war in Gaza.
6 Findings
While research on community in ECEC has largely focused on relationships within the setting itself and on the significance of involving parents in the education of their young children, our findings reveal attitudes of Israeli ECEC educators that indicate a much broader scope. The originality of our findings in this realm led to a focus on how the educators understand family involvement as an essential component of community. We then zoom out to the topic of teachers' conceptions of community, which involves a wider perspective beyond their relationships with the families.
6.1 Family Involvement
Data on family involvement in ECEC communities focused on three major subthemes: Parents' contribution to the ECEC setting, events with parents and involvement of the extended family in the framework. Important differences were found between educators in the three arenas regarding various aspects of these phenomena, which will be highlighted below.
6.1.1 Contribution of Family Members
The educators related to different types of parental contributions. Regarding material contributions and services to the kindergartens, educators from all three arenas gave examples of such involvement. For example, ‘They brought piles of citrus fruits…. We squeezed oranges and prepared fruit salad’ (Mira. Urban, N.E). Another educator recalled a grandmother ‘who takes pictures in a professional way’ (Nati. Village, N.E). A hierarchy of inclusion was found in educators' attitudes towards parents' conducting activities in the classroom. While the urban educator built a highly structured framework for parents to enhance her own curriculum, the village and kibbutz educators relied on parents to suggest activities, indicating a system of trust in parental judgement and a belief that the parents' contributions would be worthwhile. The urban educator explained: ‘I help them think of how [to] do something in the kindergarten’ (Liat, Urban, K.E). This differs from the kibbutz educator, who used an open sign-up sheet. One outcome was a mother telling ‘a story about hot corn and then giving corn to the children’ (Dasi, Kibbutz, N.E).
In all three arenas, parents are instrumental in enhancing the kindergarten program vis a vis outside authorities. It is interesting to note that in the urban kindergarten the educators rely on parents to interface with municipalities to obtain needed services. The urban educator explained: ‘We have parents who have already called the municipality to get all kinds of things’ (Liat, Urban, K.E). In contrast, the village and kibbutz have built-in mechanisms to connect educators with the local authorities. Thus, these educators spoke only of direct services provided by the parents themselves regarding the maintenance of the setting.
6.1.2 Events With Parents
Educators from all three arenas spoke about parent participation in kindergarten events; however, their descriptions of participation and its purposes differ significantly. Urban educators indicated that the parent's role is to watch their child in an event. One educator explained: ‘I allowed this by opening the kindergarten so that parents could come in and see the activity’ (Lior, urban, N.E), thus maintaining control by ‘opening’ the kindergarten at her discretion. Another urban educator explained the purpose of parental involvement in meetings as an efficient one-way conveyance of information: ‘At the beginning of the year, there is a parent meeting… to talk about everything in a group instead of individual meetings’ (Liat, Urban, K.E).
Village and kibbutz educators go one step further by creating joint experiences for parents and children, often including parents in class performances, thereby involving educator, children and parents acting together as components of the community. One village educator described a family event in which: ‘[Parents and children shared a meal and] travelled together for an entire day, to enjoy being together’ (Raya, Village, N.E). She understood that parent participation enhances community building by enabling parents to get acquainted and enjoy each other's company. Another example relates to parents' weekly engagement of baking Sabbath bread together: ‘They speak with each other, fool around, tell stories, unhurried, and this is wonderful… to see them cooperating, creating connections’ (Nur, Village, K.E).
In a similar fashion, kibbutz educators spoke of parent involvement activities as a catalyst for connection. One educator emphasised her own connection with the parents: ‘[When parents come into the kindergarten] you are more connected to them, to the community. You are more open with them’ (Dasi, Kibbutz, N.E). Regarding class events, kibbutz educators engage parents in those events, as exemplified here: ‘[At holidays] I bring them in, like at Hanukkah, to light candles and join together with us in our activities’ (Dasi, Kibbutz, N.E).
6.1.3 Extended Family Involvement
In the Israeli societal context strong and frequent intergenerational contact between family members and especially with parents is maintained throughout the lifespan. It is common practice that even after marriage children live near their parents and visit them frequently (Mayseless and Salomon 2003). This practice probably strengthens the relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren. Educators from the three arenas conceptualise differently the importance of grandparents' involvement. The urban educators refer to these relationships as random encounters that occur when the grandparents pick up their grandchildren. One educator stated: ‘Grandmothers come once a week to pick up their grandchild. It's always: “Thank you, thank you” and they take the child’ (Ariel, Urban, N.E).
The kibbutz educators describe a different type of connection between them and the grandparents that stems from the actual presence of grandparents as members of the kibbutz community. Their presence enables the educators to initiate both routine and spontaneous meetings between the children and the grandparents. ‘[On a walk around the kibbutz], we met a grandmother who stopped in the shop and bought cookies for the children. She sat with us as the children enjoyed their treat’ (Dasi, Kibbutz, N.E).
The urban and village educators related to involving other members of the extended family beyond grandparents. One urban educator described her genuine interest in family members when they pick up the child as a central component of community building. ‘It's not just technical—“Here, take the child,” but we ask: “How are you?” to be interested. That's what creates a community’ (Gal, Urban, N.E). In the village, family members initiate interactions within the kindergarten: ‘Their siblings like to come help! In the summer they took turns. There are also children who no longer have siblings in kindergarten, but they really want to come’ (Nur, village, K.E).
In the kibbutz the educator routinely takes the children on walks out of the kindergarten into the community to encourage interaction between the children and the broader community: ‘We bring the children to the old age daycare for holiday ceremonies. The connection is very heartwarming. The children are exposed to values, which I strongly believe in. Not just in words—It is in doing’ (Liron, Kibbutz, K.E).
To summarise, educators from all three arenas value family involvement but in varying ways. These differences were found to vary from passive to active participation, from an instrumental informative approach to community building and from merely expressing interest in the lives of family members to integrating extended family into the kindergarten and integrating the children into the wider community.
6.2 Educators' Conceptions of Community
The educators' conceptualisation of community includes three major aspects: Characteristics of community, contribution of community to the children and the place of educators within the community. A quotation from a kibbutz educator that expresses these three aspects will open the section, followed by an analysis and parallel quotes from urban and village educators.
Every year I think about how I can increase the connections and how to encourage reciprocity—inside and outside. Someone in the community knows that the trees are being chopped down and calls me… come quickly’. For me it's community! It's clear that it's necessary to inform and it's clear that the children should be involved in what's happening! And it's impossible for them to cut down a tree or demolish a house and we won't take part as observers and partners… We'll ask questions and take pictures so that we have a record of the experience. Everything that happens we are partners… We all understand the meaning of education in the community or of a community in education… At the Independence Day celebration, we always prepare a dance. Holidays on the kibbutz, we are preparing blessings. This feeling of competence is wonderful; it raises children with confidence, with strength, with resilience. They grow up to be influential citizens (Liron, Kibbutz, K.E).
6.2.1 Cooperation and Mutuality
As seen above, the kibbutz educator characterises community as cooperation and mutuality through partnership and help. For some kibbutz educators, there exists a two-way path in which the kindergarten is involved in the community, and the community contributes to the kindergarten. Such involvement entails the kindergarten taking part in daily community events as well as ceremonies and celebrations. Sometimes, children are in the role of observers and learners, and at other times they contribute actively to a community event. Mutuality is also important to the urban and village educators; however, their conceptualisation is more general than the kibbutz educator's perspective. An urban educator described community thus: ‘Community is getting involved. When you hear community, you hear togetherness… [and] help’ (Mira, Urban, N.E). A village educator defines community using this same term adding a very brief explanation and example: ‘[Community means] mutual help, seeing the other's needs. For example, a woman gives birth, so we mobilize to send her greetings and help her’ (Raya, Village, K.E).
6.2.2 Contributions of Community
The kibbutz educator cited above stresses the contribution of community to children in a number of ways. Essentially, community members are constantly enhancing the kindergarten's educational program by informing and inviting the children to take part in events that would interest them. Furthermore, opportunities provided by the kibbutz community for the children to contribute enhance their social and emotional development, adding to their personal sense of security, thereby building their character and instilling values. The urban and village educators did not speak about communal contributions to the children, which may indicate a more circumscribed approach towards this aspect of community. Josselson (2004) notes that the job of analysing the interviews also includes a consideration of what was not said.
6.2.3 Educator as Agent
I serve the entire community, including parents, siblings, staff, uncles and aunts, and grandparents who are ever present in the kibbutz environment and see the children in the play yard. I don't hide the child. Just the opposite. When a grandmother comes near, I call her: “Your grandson is here. Come over and kiss him.”
Liron expressed her understanding of the centrality of her role as agent both for the kindergarten and the community to ensure the success of the two-way path between them. An urban educator expressed different views of her agentic role with the kindergarten and the wider community: ‘For the sake of the children's curiosity and development… we really turn [the connection with the community] into an educational process. The children learn a lot from it—both on an emotional and academic level’ (Keren, Urban, K.E). She bases her view of agency on a conception of the kindergarten as a closed unit from which she emerges from time to time to bring in representatives of the broader community for the children's benefit. This is a one-way path.
To summarise, in this section of the Educators' Conceptions of Community, gradients of meaning are found only in the first subtheme, cooperation and mutuality from empty usages of the terminology to fully thought-out programs that achieve this goal. Regarding contributions of community and role of educator as agent, a difference was found in which the kibbutz educators exemplify a more complex vision of community than that held by the urban and village educators.
7 Discussion
The research questions focused on educator perceptions and practice towards their community. Talking about their perceptions, educators melded theory and practice by giving examples and adding more abstract explanations. The discussion presents the significance of their ideas in light of educators' views in other countries and will be followed by differences between Israeli educators from three ecologies.
Regarding the practice of involving families in the program, we found that educators from all three ecologies understand that the extended family is part of the kindergarten community, including grandparents and siblings. This embrace of extended family differs from what seems to be the conception of community in other parts of the world where parent involvement alone was the focus of community for the educators (Albaiz and Ernest 2021).
A second theme provided by the educators is their concept of community which in all three ecologies emphasised mutuality between the kindergarten and the wider community by constructing a web of relationships that are deemed necessary for best practice. This commonality between the three groups of educators also stands in sharp contrast to ECEC educators' concepts of community elsewhere in the world. With few exceptions, the literature that we found and reviewed regarding these attitudes in other countries focused mainly on the classroom as community and often limited parent involvement to such activities as home enrichment. (e.g., Xiong, Her, and Yunizar 2023; Greenbank 2023; McCauley et al. 2023; White and Vossler 2023). Echoing prevailing narrow views of community found worldwide, Clark (2022) emphasises the critical role of community in her concept of slow pedagogy, framing community as the structure and relationships between children and adults within the classroom, disregarding wider circles of reference.
In seeking an explanation for this difference between conceptions of community in Israel and other parts of the world, there is considerable evidence that the ethos of togetherness and community in Israeli society is quite robust. In Israel, the individual is constantly located within social and communal frameworks, such as family, neighbourhood, army, national service, religious, traditional and communal frameworks (Biton 2023).
Another claim regarding the source of this communality in current Israeli society can be found in the societal traditions of Jewish life in the diaspora over the ages (Bartal 2007), and which are found in Israel today (Piron 2023). A second argument for this claim regarding the strength of communality can be found in Israel's ranking of number six in the Community Scale of the OECD World Happiness Report (Lin et al. 2024). The report explains that strong social networks enable emotional support along the lifespan.
Despite these factors that characterise communality in Israeli society as a whole, the current research found significant differences between educators' attitudes and practice towards community according to the three ecologies investigated: Kibbutz, village and urban. Differences found expression either in a gradient or in a division between attitudes of the three groups of educators. Both the village and kibbutz educators emphasised the importance of community beyond the walls of the kindergarten. A possible explanation for this similarity between village and kibbutz educators is the influence of the rural environment on communal structures. Nonetheless, the kibbutz educators strongly emphasised their connection to wider circles of community, while the urban educators exhibited a more circumscribed view. This gradient of educator's attitudes parallels the gradient of communality that Goroshit and Eshel (2013) found between kibbutz, village and towns. In order to explain the unique stance and practice of the kibbutz educators it is imperative to examine the philosophy of kibbutz ECEC. The kibbutzim were established in an attempt to ‘repair society’ through their communal ideology (Michaeli 2012). This utopian perspective echoes other small societies around the world (Coulthard 2024; Paul Dana 2007) as discussed in the literature review. The kibbutz philosophy of ‘repairing society’ is reflected in the physical structure of the kibbutz. Traditionally, its residential infrastructure was based on family units surrounding public buildings such as children's houses and the dining hall. This institution was a centre of everyday life and special events, a place of meeting and gathering, assembly and discussion (Ran-Shacnai 2019). Today, with changes in the social structure of the kibbutz, this basic planning has remained intact. Village infrastructures share some of these features, such as spatial openness in bucolic settings, but with no equivalence to the role of the dining hall. Urban ecologies are based on living units in large apartment buildings with little common space and communal buildings which may be located at a distance from the housing (Loboda Lichtenbaum and Rosen 2018).
The kibbutz philosophy also found expression in various aspects of its ECEC pedagogy. The ‘kindergarten as whole life’ approach, established by a leading ECEC kibbutz educator Malkah Haas, elaborated children's significant experiences in connection to community. She proposed a holistic approach that includes the entire communal environment. The kindergarten and its immediate surroundings are interconnected with reciprocal relations (Achituv 2024; Hoshen Manzura and Achituv 2023). According to Golden (2024) this stands in contrast to current educational discourses that place the child in the centre. Tal (2024) recognises a mechanism by which this strong connection between the children and the community is constructed. She identifies an active process, ‘guided participation’ (Rogoff 2003), in which children participate and internalise cultural practices of their community. She claims that kibbutz educators enable this process by encouraging close contact with all aspects of the community in the daily life of the kindergarten. As mentioned in the literature review, Lahav and Shner (2024) go one step further, suggesting that the kindergartens were viewed as a microcosm of the larger community. Their function was to prepare children for future life as adult members of the kibbutz community (Plotnik and Eshel 2008). Furthermore, the rural nature of the kibbutz and the villages place the kindergarten directly in contact with the community, a connection not found in the city (Lahav and Shner 2024).
8 Strengths and Limitations
Relying on Bronfenbrenner's ecological approach (Bronfenbrenner 1979), this research has revealed particular relationships between communality as it exists in different ecologies, and how ECEC educators translate this into daily practice. This groundbreaking research comparing ECEC educators' attitudes and practice regarding community in three ecologies in Israel provides a basis for further examination of communality in ECEC settings around the world. The study is limited by its lack of sensitivity to the wide array of urban ecologies, and this should be addressed in future research by categorising different types of urban settings. Furthermore, our methodology relied on self-reported data rather than observation. By observing the quality of practice in these settings, more could be learned about the effects of different levels of communality as expressed by the educators. In addition, a comparative study of ECEC educators' attitudes towards community in kibbutz and small utopian closed societies could add insight regarding the role of community in ECEC.
9 Conclusions
ECEC is deeply influenced by the community ethos embedded within the larger societal structure. The unique Israeli approach to community involvement in ECEC which was found in this research demonstrates how deeply cultural and societal values can shape educational practices. There is potential benefit to expand the scope of who should be involved in a child's education to include not only parents but also extended family and the wider community. The strong sense of community in Israeli society appears to have positive implications for educational practices. Fostering social cohesion could have broader benefits as claimed by previous research that connect community with the developing resilience (Goroshit and Eshel 2013). Centrality of community underscores the importance of developing educational models that are sensitive to local cultural contexts rather than applying one-size-fits-all global standards.
The research findings revealed the uniqueness of community aspects in kibbutz education. Michaeli (2012) identified social pedagogy as a hallmark of kibbutz education, in which the educational endeavour positively influences social reality. Tal (2024) suggested that the kibbutz ECEC approach could be productively adapted in urban kindergartens, an idea that builds on existing strengths for the benefit of the entire Israeli ECEC system. This could be accomplished by highlighting the value of community in preservice education. In addition, in-service professional development for ECEC educators could explore the advantages of strengthening connections with the surrounding community. Both of these endeavours should take advantage of the knowledge and skills of educators from all three arenas.
On a different level, we suggest that ECEC policy-makers around the world consider the benefits of strengthening ties with local communities for improving the quality of their programs. Such strategies would need to consider residential infrastructures as they exist locally. Policy-makers can draw inspiration not only from the examples found in this article but also from communal models in their own societies.
The wartime situation in Israel that broke out in October 2023 has given voice to a strong communal endeavour to provide solutions for the various needs of a traumatised population, bringing home the crucial importance of community as a foundation for building resilience among young children both in peace and war. Further research is indicated which would explore how ECEC educators experience and cope with war related trauma in the context of their various communities in the face of war related trauma. As the OECD Happiness Report suggested (Lin et al. 2024), our well-being as social creatures depends both on contact with others and the quality of our interpersonal relationships.
Acknowledgements
The authors were supported by the MOFET Institute Grant for Applied Research in Education.
Ethics Statement
Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Committee of Oranim College of Education. Participants gave written informed consent, and their names were anonymised.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Endnotes
Appendix A: Interview Guide
- Tell me about your professional development as an EC educator.
- Tell me about the community in which you work.
- What is community in your view?
- What expressions of community are found in your setting? Beyond the walls of your class? Tell a story that reflects this community.
- What advantages do you see in the communal structure of your setting?
- What challenges does the communal structure pose for the EC educator?
- What recommendations would you make for a new EC educator in your setting regarding her interface with the community?
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
