The Petition (H)
On 6 June 2005, in response to a petition filed by Adalah to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General acknowledged that the Ministry of Education (MOE) has discriminated against schools in seven government-planned Palestinian Bedouin towns in the Naqab in the appointment of educational psychologists for students. In its response, the state also informed the Court that the MOE had committed to increasing the number of positions from the beginning of the new school year in fall 2005 from 30% to 50% of the positions it is required to provide, to rise to 80% within two years, so as to become equal to the current rate (80%) provided to Jewish schools in the Naqab. The state also obligated itself to pursue a policy of affirmative action in education over the long term for the Arab Bedouin towns in the Naqab.
The MOE’s commitment follows the issuance of a precedent-setting judgment on a similar petition submitted by Adalah to the Supreme Court, demanding the equitable allocation of counselor positions for students at risk of dropping out between Arab and Jewish towns in the Naqab (H.C. 6671/03, Munjid Abu Ghanem, et. al. v. Ministry of Education, et. al.). In this case, the Court decided, on 24 January 2005, that the gap in education between Arab Bedouin and Jewish students in the Naqab necessitates a policy of affirmative action. The state’s response referred to the Court’s previous decision, recognizing the need for affirmative action to create parity between the allocation rates of psychologist positions between Arab Bedouin and Jewish schools in the Naqab. The Supreme Court will dismiss the petition in light of the state’s commitment, and the Minister of Education will pay legal expenses in the amount of NIS 5000.
Adalah Attorney Morad El-Sana filed the petition in May 2004 on behalf of five individuals – parents of children in the towns of Lagiyya and Rahat – the Follow-up Committee on Arab Education, the National Union of Arab Parents, the Naqab Culture Association, the Regional Council for the Unrecognized Villages in the Naqab, and in Adalah’s own name. The petitioners demanded that the Court order the state to provide the necessary number of psychologists in Rahat, Lagiyya, Kessife, 'Ara’arah, Shgeb-Asalam (Segev Shalom), Hura, and Tel el-Sebe (Tel Sheva), in accordance with the MOE’s own set criteria. The petitioners further demanded that the Court instruct the MOE and the Ministry of Social Affairs, the respondents in the case, to apply equal rules in the allocation of educational psychologist positions between Jewish and Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel in the Naqab.
Primarily, MOE-appointed educational psychologists are responsible for identifying, diagnosing and treating students with learning and developmental disabilities; providing suitable educational frameworks for students with special needs; giving consultation to teachers, principals, and other educators in dealing with the educational, emotional and behavioral difficulties of students; and providing consultation at the community level.
Adalah argued that the MOE designates far fewer of the required number of positions to the seven towns, and discriminates against them in comparison with neighboring Jewish towns, stating that the MOE had designated only 30% of the required positions (15 out of 49 positions) in the seven Bedouin towns, compared with 80% of the required positions (21 out of 27 positions) in the Jewish schools in the Naqab at the time of the filing of the petition. As was contended in the petition, this inequality perpetuates the low level of educational attainment among Arab Bedouin children in the Naqab and blocks additional educational opportunities to them.
Adalah argued that attending to the special needs and mental wellbeing of students through the provision of educational psychologists’ services is an institutional responsibility under the Special Education Law – 1998. The MOE’s failure to do so impedes and prevents the students’ regular course of study and harms the petitioners’ right to equal educational opportunities, since their children are unable to fulfill their basic right to education. Moreover, the MOE’s discriminatory implementation of its own set criteria violates the rule of law, argued Adalah.
The right to education, Adalah further maintained, is a constitutional right, a part of the right to dignity, especially when it relates to barring students from basic educational services and infringes the minimal conditions necessary for cultural existence – impinging upon the right to education in this case reaches the degree of damaging the personal dignity and freedom of the individual, as set forth in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty – 1992.
H.C. 4177/04, Yusef Abu-Abied, et. al. v. The Ministry of Education, et. al.