Accelerated Gap Reduction Method – Summary *by Nissim Cohen*

Adaptive Reaction in Layered Education

A. Everyone Can!

We assume that, apart from a small percentage of exceptional cases, everyone can succeed in school and achieve impressive results. Slavin R. (1986) posits that any child who does not suffer from an organic cognitive impairment can learn and achieve significant academic success. Some children may need more support than others, different approaches, or a different pace, but in one way or another, every child is capable of succeeding in school.

These assumptions also form the foundation of the programs and schools designed by Sizer (1993), Henry-Levin (1984), and others. We believe that the cognitive abilities required for academic success in school lie within everyone’s reach.

Moreover, our approach assumes that people, including students, utilize only a small fraction of their cognitive potential.

B. Failure with Some Students, Tracking, Streaming, and the Widening of Educational Gaps

Every September, thousands of students begin first grade with excitement, motivation, and enthusiasm — shared by the children, their parents, and siblings alike. This excitement is accompanied by high expectations from the school: hopes for academic success, happiness, knowledge acquisition, self-fulfillment, cognitive potential realization, and the laying of a foundation for future success through academic achievement.

However, as is well-known, a troubling phenomenon affects a significant portion of these students and their parents. Within weeks or months, the initial dream and hope begin to fade. Some students start to struggle, encountering academic failures. These failures are often public and occur daily, becoming evident through quizzes, tests, and informal evaluations across multiple subjects. These struggles are documented in grades and written assessments, even on report cards presented to the same hopeful parents.

Despite these challenges, students who cannot yet read or write or lack basic math skills are still promoted to second, third grade, and beyond. Many continue to accumulate academic failures with varying levels of consistency. The system often labels these students as “low-achievers” or uses other similar terms. After repeated failures, these children develop a false, subjective perception that they are incapable of achieving success. This false self-image, formed over years of ongoing struggles, is reinforced with every additional failure.

This “false consciousness” of underachievement spreads within their social circles, their peers, their parents, their teachers, and the school staff, creating a symbolic and interactive process beyond the student’s control. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle: each failure intensifies the sense of helplessness and reduces motivation for both the student and their immediate support network.

As a result, these students are often placed in lower-level learning groups in middle school (sometimes informally even in elementary school). In high school, they are streamed into lower-level academic tracks with less challenging curricula, limited future relevance, and lower teacher expectations. The teaching pace is slower, further diminishing motivation.

This process causes the academic gap between “low-achievers” and “successful students” to widen until it reaches nearly unbridgeable levels without specialized, intensive intervention. Experience shows that by eighth grade, the gap between students in the lowest math group and those in the top group is equivalent to more than two academic years — and often even more — without even accounting for differences in other subjects.

C. The False Consciousness and Gaps Overlapping with Socioeconomic and Demographic Statuses

The false consciousness that traps the “underachieving” student contradicts the school’s expectations for them to fulfill their role as a student and achieve high academic results. This contradiction creates cognitive dissonance in the student, which they attempt to resolve through rationalizations, often expressed through non-conforming behavior or verbal statements such as “school isn’t necessary” or “this subject isn’t important anyway.”

This mindset can lead to hidden disengagement from school and, in some cases, overt dropout due to a cost-benefit analysis (Boudon, 1973). Such dropout is most common in lower-level academic tracks, particularly during the transition from 9th to 10th grade. These lower-level groups often become a “dropout reservoir” that systematically pushes students out of the educational framework.

In more severe cases, the student may drift toward social deviance as an illegitimate alternative to the unfulfilled academic success, seeking to achieve legitimate societal goals through non-conventional means (Merton, 1971). This phenomenon is explained by the “reaction formation” mechanism (Cohen, A., 1967), which reflects feelings of anger, alienation, and retaliation toward the system. These emotions often underpin the “negative behaviors” associated with members of the delinquent subculture (Cohen, 1963).

At the individual level, the process of accumulating failures and achievement gaps from the earliest stages of learning, followed by tracking into lower-level groups and streams (despite formal restrictions on such practices in elementary schools and 7th grade in middle schools), is discouraging and frustrating. This process has long-term negative effects on the student’s self-perception of their abilities, as well as on how others perceive their potential.

The consequences extend beyond academic performance, influencing the student’s future status and employment prospects. The lack of upward mobility to higher-level groups often results in a sense of predetermined destiny at a young age.

This discouragement is also deeply felt by the student’s parents, who often blame themselves for their child’s academic struggles.

At the societal level, it is impossible to ignore the educational gaps and the correlation between academic failure and ethnic background, as well as the overlap between school failure and socioeconomic status.

This reality results in:

1.Loss of Human Capital: In a society where human capital is one of its primary resources.

2.Harm to Social Solidarity: Contributing to division and the deepening of social rifts.

3.Erosion of the School’s Meritocratic Role: When academic success aligns with socioeconomic background, the school loses its credibility as a meritocratic institution.

4.Loss of Self-Belief Among Tens of Thousands of Students: These students lose confidence in their ability to succeed academically, suffer from diminished self-esteem, and, as a seemingly logical alternative, some turn to social deviance.

D. The Main Explanations for Academic Failure

According to research findings (see J.K. Herne, 1990), the reasons for academic failure (which often manifest in school dropout) are not primarily cognitive. Rather, they are rooted in sociological, cultural, psychosocial, systemic, and organizational factors. Broadly, these reasons can be divided into two main categories:

1.  Independent internal school-related variables – such as: the structure of the school – tracking and grouping that lead to labeling and hence the “Golem Effect”, shallow, irrelevant curricula lacking a challenging, future-oriented perspective, low expectations that suppress the cognitive potential present in students and lead to instrumental “failures”. Among the internal school-related causes, one can also mention the phenomenon of “anonymity”, as pointed out by Sizer and others..

2. Independent external school-related variables – Reasons that schools often consider beyond their control, such as the influence of the residential environment, lack of support from significant others, absence of positive role models, emotional factors related to the student’s personality or life circumstances, and similar factors. The impact of such variables tends to be more significant in elementary schools, where, in principle, structural tracking mechanisms like ability grouping and academic streams are not typically implemented.

We believe that this situation is not a “destiny” and that it is both a moral, civic, and social duty to change it through joint and ongoing efforts.

Educational gaps begin in elementary school and intensify in middle and high school, and it seems that the best approach is through prevention and continuous gap reduction starting from elementary school.

We believe and assume that every child is capable of learning and succeeding in school!

E. This Situation Is Not Destiny, and It Can Be Changed

In order to reduce educational gaps and provide teaching staff with tools and strategies to address them, the Tafnit program was established in 2001 (Hebrew year 5761) by the Ministry of Education and the Rashi Foundation. The program pools and reallocates resources differently, based on the premise that “everyone can succeed” and using the accelerated learning method developed by Nissim Cohen. This method incorporates principles such as determination, outcome-oriented thinking, measurable and time-bound academic goals, breaking routines, flexible learning times, personalized monitoring, external evaluation, parental involvement, and holistic motivational processes, among others.

As part of a broader strategic initiative by the Rashi Foundation and in response to the anticipated growth of the Tafnit programs in secondary schools, the foundation’s leadership decided to formalize the program’s activities by establishing a new affiliate organization: The Yecholot Association, founded by the Rashi Foundation. The new association was officially registered with the Registrar of Non-Profit Organizations and began its operations accordingly.

ו.The Accelerated Gap Reduction Method (Summary) – The Adaptive Response

As stated, in order to achieve academic success (according to universal standards) for students whom the school has failed and who are at risk of dropping out — many of whom are indifferent to their situation — it is clear that the approach to working with these students must differ from the methods previously employed by the school, which ultimately led to their failure.

Additionally, we assume that:

1. Shattering the False Consciousness.

First and foremost, it is essential to break and completely overturn the “false consciousness” that traps the student — as well as their parents, teachers, school administration, peer group, and the student group to which they belong — into believing they are incapable of achieving impressive academic results.

Changing this “false consciousness” can likely be achieved by implementing renewed, intensive learning processes (preferably in core subjects often perceived as “difficult,” such as mathematics). These processes should lead these students to a series of academic successes and high achievements, measured against universal standards (e.g., matriculation exams and standardized tests) within relatively short time frames.

This requires a significant effort from the students, alongside the development of an internal “locus of control” and engaging in a dialogue that helps the student understand the direct relationship between effort and success..

2. Addressing Internal School-Related Variables

The course of action must provide a continuous, holistic response to the internal school-related variables that explain academic failure. This means that curricula should be deliberately challenging, relevant, and designed to promote upward mobility within the school’s formal and informal structure (e.g., tracking and academic streams). This process requires full and genuine support from the school administration and the teaching staff.

3. Addressing External School-Related Variables.

The course of action must provide a continuous, holistic response to the external school-related variables that contribute to academic failure. This involves a dedicated mentor (coordinator) who builds a deep emotional connection with the student, serving as a relatable figure and a significant other who becomes the go-to person for any issue or concern. The entire teaching team should maintain a broad, supportive relationship with the student, rather than a narrowly task-specific one. High expectations should be set and consistently communicated. The focus should be on a relatively small number of core subjects, taught to a smaller group of students to allow for individualized attention. Parents must be informed, involved, and actively engaged in the process, fully understanding and agreeing to the goals and methods. The learning process should be structured as a group activity, fostering a supportive, social learning community. This group dynamic should positively counteract the influence of peer groups that may promote norms opposing the learning process, all while maintaining full respect and acceptance of the student’s cultural background.

4. Accelerated Learning Processes

Due to the significant educational gaps these students have accumulated, the renewed learning process, aimed at challenging, relevant, and growth-oriented goals, requires the reduction of large learning gaps that span several academic years. Therefore, the only viable way to close this gap appears to be through accelerated learning.

The accelerated learning processes will be built on two main pillars:
One – Implementing motivational processes before and during learning by the entire teaching team (while applying the principles mentioned in the previous sections).
Two –Focusing on a relatively small number of subjects and dedicating an increased number of learning hours to these subjects (including evening sessions and intensive learning marathons).

Implementing the method typically differs from the regular practices used in the school and requires adaptation.