Abstract
In this chapter, we propose a response plan mainly for the strategic risks, while addressing also the operational and external risks. Thirteen courses of action are proposed: Five courses of actions are internal to the education system; eight courses of actions involve cooperation with stakeholders from other sectors in Israel. Data was gathered in focus groups in which stakeholders of STEM education participated. The discussion on the focus groups concentrated on how to reduce the impact of the strategic risks. Among them, a cross-sectoral cooperation has been largely suggested, discussed, and analyzed. Accordingly, we present frameworks related to forms of cross-sectoral collaboration in general and in STEM education in particular.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Risk factors from the teachers category were classified into two types of risks:
-
Risk factors which describe operational weaknesses, such as, teachers training and professional promotion, were classified as operational risks;
-
risk factors, which describe the perception of the teaching profession status, were classified as strategic risks.
-
- 2.
See Sect. 2.4 the risk response strategies.
- 3.
In the recategorization process conducted in Phase C, the risk factors were disconnected from the risk categories identified at Phase A. For example, Category 2 “Teachers - opportunities, training and social status,” identified in Phase A, composes of both external risks and strategic risks. Thus, Risk factor 9: “STEM teachers’ salary is low relative to alternatives jobs in the industry,” is associated in the recategorization to the external risk “Teachers' salary”, and Risk factor 8: “The teaching profession is not appreciated by the public,” is associated in the recategorization to the external risk “Public image of technology education.”
- 4.
The severity of the operational, strategic, and external risks (as types of risks) was calculated by converting their weights (Table 6.1) to a 1–3 scale. For example, the weight of the strategic risks was converted from 4 to 12 range (4—if all risks were rated 1; 12—if all risks rated 3) to 1–3 range: (9.42/12) × 3 = 2.35. Similarly, the severity of the external and operational risks was converted from 3–9 range to 1–3 values range to (8.6/9) × 3 = 2.87 and (5.36/9) × 3 = 1.78, respectively.
- 5.
The thicker an arrow is, the bigger the number of courses of action suggested to deal with the risk the arrow points to is.
- 6.
The severity is expressed both by the height on the severity axis and the rhombus size. We decided to reflect the severity level of a risk in two ways in order also to visualize the comparative relations between the 10 risks.
- 7.
The response plan for the strategic risk “The social status of the teaching profession in the Israeli society” is presented first, though its severity is lower than the severity of Strategic risks 2 and 3, since it was largely addressed by the research participants, and accordingly, the highest suggestions for coping with it were proposed by the research participants. The ways of dealing with the strategic risk “Public image of technology education” are presented before the ways which deal with the strategic risk “Negative perceptions regarding science subjects” because the number of risk factors associated with risk factor 2 is higher than the number of risk factors associated with risk factor 3 (5 and 3 respectively).
- 8.
The program website: http://www.mada.org.il/culture/twist, http://www.the-twist-project.eu/en/.
- 9.
The program website: http://most.gov.il/ScienceAndCommunity/futurescientist/Pages/default.aspx.
- 10.
The program website: http://www.movilot-latechnion.com/about_u/.
- 11.
Ideal philanthropy is an altruistic approach that focuses on the contribution to social needs that are not provided by the government.
- 12.
Shitufim website: http://www.sheatufim.org.il/.
References
Ben Israel, Y & Kuns, N. (2013). Risk management according to Ben Gurion’s approach, Maarachot (Systems) 452, 32–37 (Hebrew).
Coston, J. M. (1998). A model and typology of government-NGO relationships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27(3), 358–382.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction, Journal of Happiness Studies 9(1), 1–11.
European commission. (2013). Key Data on Teachers and School Leaders in Europe. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/151EN.pdf.
Hanhijoki, I., Katajisto, J., Kimari, M., & Savioja, H. (2012). Education, training and demand for labour in Finland by 2025. http://www.oph.fi/download/144754_Education_training_and_demand_for_labour_in_Finland_by_2025_2.pdf.
Hillson, D. (2001). Effective strategies for exploiting opportunities. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Project Management Institute Seminars & Symposium (PMI 2001), Nashville US, 5–7.
IRM (2002). Risk Management Standard. The Institute of Risk Management (IRM), The Association of Insurance and Risk Managers (AIRMIC) and the National Forum for Risk Management in the Public Sector (ALARM). https://www.theirm.org/media/886059/ARMS_2002_IRM.pdf.
Johnston, E. W., Hicks, D., Nan, N., & Auer, J. C. (2011). Managing the inclusion process in collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(4), 699–721.
Michaeli, N. (2010). Privatization processes in the Israeli education system. MASA – A portal on teaching and teacher training. http://portal.macam.ac.il/ArticlePage.aspx?id=3221.
Mikes, A. & Kaplan, R. S. (2014). Towards a contingency theory of enterprise risk management. Harvard Business School.
Ministry of Education (2012). Preparing the Future Leadership in Science and Technology, http://cms.education.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E0B8F780-137D-4785-969D-208790D983E6/124762/av16022011.pdf.
OECD. (2015). Education at a Glance 2015 OECD Indicators. http://meyda.education.gov.il/files/MinhalCalcala/EAG2015.pdf.
O’Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going?. The American Review of Public Administration, 0275074012445780.
Oplatka, Y. (2007). The Foundations of Education Administration: Leadership and Management in the Educational Organization, Pardes Publications (Hebrew).
Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish Lessons, the series of school reform.
Schiffer, V., Berkovitz, Y., Bar-Yehuda, S., & Almog-Bareket, G. (2010). The Involvement of Third Sector Organizations in the Education system – White Paper, Van-Leer Institute, Jerusalem (Hebrew). http://www.vanleer.org.il/sites/files/product-pdf/73-sFileRedir.pdf.
Tamir, Y. (2015). Who’s Afraid of Equality? On Education and Society in Israel, Yediot Achronot, Hemed Books.
Weissblei, I. (2013). National Councils of Education – A Comparison Review, The Knesset Center for Research and Information, Jerusalem. http://www.knesset.gov.il/MMM/data/pdf/m03263.pdf (Hebrew).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zahav, A.E., Hazzan, O. (2017). Phase C: Risk Response. In: Risk Management of Education Systems. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51984-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51984-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-51983-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-51984-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)