Adalah to Education Ministry: Refusal to Recognize New School Established by Parents of 150 Arab Students is Illegal
On 22 September 2004, Adalah wrote to the Director of the Ministry of Education (MOE), Ronit Tirosh, asking her to annul a closure order issued against the Arab Democratic School in Yaffa, and to grant a license for the school. The Union for the Protection of Arab Affairs in Jaffa and the school's Parents' Committee approached Adalah after the MOE issued a closure order against the school.
The Arab Democratic School in Yaffa was opened at the beginning of the current academic year, with an enrollment of approximately 150 students. The school was opened hurriedly because the students' families, the teachers and the school principal were dissatisfied with the performance of the Orthodox School in Jaffa, the dismissal of the school's principal, Ms. Mary Qutbi, the subsequent resignation of several teachers, and the withdrawal of children from the school by their parents.
The school principal, teachers and students' parents, together with the Union for the Protection of Arab Affairs in Jaffa decided to open an alternative school, to be administered according to human rights and democratic principles, in addition to the MOE's curriculum. It was intended for the school's Parents' Committee to be a partner in the school's decision-making processes and management.
On 12 September 2004, the Union for the Protection of Arab Affairs in Jaffa and the school principal, Ms. Qutbi, applied to the MOE for a license for the school. The application set forth the reasons behind and circumstances surrounding the opening of the school. The request also gave details of the school curriculum, the teaching staff and principal, as well as the number of students and classes in the school.
In the letter, Adalah Attorney Gadeer Nicola argued that the closure order issued according to the School Supervision Law – 1969, on the basis that the school had no license, violates the parents' and students' constitutional rights to personal autonomy and freedom to choose in education.
Further, Adalah argued that the main purpose of the law is to ensure that schools operate according to the conditions stipulated by the law, in order to safeguard the right of students to obtain an appropriate education. The information provided in the application for a license for the school fulfilled this purpose and conformed to all of the criteria for obtaining a school license, as stipulated in the law. Therefore, the fact that the school failed to obtain a license before opening should not prevent the students from attending school and realizing their basic right to education.
Adalah additionally cited previous decisions delivered by various courts which confirm that, provided a school meets all relevant legal criteria, its closure for a technicality, such as the lack of a license, violates the rights of the students and their parents to select the educational institution in which they wish to learn, as well as their rights to personal autonomy and freedom to choose in education. Adalah further contended that the closure order denied the families the chance to present their standpoint as they were denied the right to a prior hearing, and that it infringes the students' basic right to education, since they are now without any educational framework.
