Precedent: Court in 'educational' decision

Immanuel affair #2? An appeal filed against the decision of the Appeals Committee of the Ministry of Education (District Orthodox) that a recognized but informal school should accept a student who was not accepted - was rejected.

In a precedential ruling given today (Tuesday) by the Administrative Court in Jerusalem, Judge David Mintz ruled in a petition filed by the school 'Lamerhav' in Petah Tikva, which was represented by attorney Amnon De Hartuch and Roy Guy-Green, the state was represented by Attorney Uri Sirota of the district attorney office and the student's parents were represted by the lawyers Yoav Lalum and Reuven Biton of the Lalum-Biton CO office. The petition requested that the decision of the Appeals Committee to force the school to accept the student.

The court in its judgment actually ratified the Appeals Committee's authority of the Ministry of Education, headed by the district director Meir Shimoni and its power to intervene and force the acceptance of a student on a school although it appeared to be a private school. The court prohibited the existence of external tests - even when they are held inside the school. The court stated that an internal test can be done by the school only in the following subjects: general knowledge, Judaism, Hebrew, English and Mathematics only. "When it is clear to all that a 'pedagogical examination' of a classifying institute, which examines, among other things, concentration, effective management of time and speed of data processing' and 'ability of analytical thinking, does not meet the conditions set by the Ministry of Education".

The court ordered the petitioner to pay legal costs of the student's parents NIS 20,000.

The ruling:
In the judgment, the judge ruled that it was made clear long ago that a recognized by unofficial school - even though it is a "private" institution in many ways - was authorized under the law of education, to give compulsory education to students, and thus plays a role which has a clear public character. Respectively, the Court recognized the authority of the Ministry of Education to formulate policy in educational institutions of various types - even when it comes to educational institutions which are recognized but unofficial.

As to the involvement of the Minister of Education "behind the scenes" in the appeals committee procedure, which was able to tilt the content of the decision. "Since the degree of the alleged involvement of the minister of education, remained not fully explained, if at all, in any process of accepting the student to the school, I do not find it necessary to address it. Also, there is a basis of the respondents' claim that all that the education minister did was to transfer references directly to the competent authorities for their treatment".

Concealing the terms and reasons for not accepting a student is not a technical issue but an essential one. "A candidate does not have to collect pieces of information regarding the rules about going to the institution, and about the reasons for rejection, and also does not have to woo the answers orally."

The court upheld the decision of the Appeals Committee which determined that "there was not a sufficient basis... the claims relating to the student's behavioral, spiritual aspect." Especially when the parents have made it clear to the committee that they accept the rules of the school.

The court ruling remarked to Ministry of Education on the number of failures in its procedures.

The Court emphasized the fact that this petition is an exceptional one. "It's hard to find a petition which was submitted by an institutional body - which is also an educational institution - against a young student who wishes to be under its auspices. The representative of the petitioner pointed out at the start of the second hearing regarding the petition.... that this is not a "personal" discussion of the student, but an "institutional statement of principle."

The Court concludes its ruling by stating the following principle: "It was better that an educational institution would be wise enough not to run its "wars of principle"- justified or unjustified, as they may be - on the backs of young students. Even though there were defects in the said conduct of the appeal committee in this regard, and the respondents' attention is drawn to the power and scope of these - the court can not give a hand, in the circumstances set out, to a further offense against the student."

'בחדרי' גם ברשתות החברתיות - הצטרפו!