Tel Aviv District Court Issues Injunction Preventing Closure of Arab Democratic School Pending Delivery of Final Decision on Adalah's Petition
On 21 December 2004, the Tel Aviv District Court issued an injunction on a petition filed by Adalah in October 2004, preventing the closure of the Yaffa Arab Democratic School by the Ministry of Education (MOE). The petition was submitted in the name of the League for the Arabs of Jaffa, the principal of the school, and eleven family members of students from the school against the MOE. The MOE explained the closure order on the fact that the Yaffa Arab Democratic School had not obtained a school license. The Court ordered that the closure order should not be implemented pending a final decision on the petition.
The League for the Arabs of Jaffa established the school at the start of the current school year, in order to immediately provide an alternative educational environment for 158 students, many of whom had previously been studying in the Orthodox School in Jaffa. Because of a lack of time, the founders of the school were not able to obtain a license from the MOE before the opening of the school. For that reason alone – the lack of a school license – the MOE issued the closure order against the school.
At the end of the last school year, the management team of the Orthodox School in Jaffa decided to dismiss the school's principal, Ms. Mary Qutbi, and made further changes in the school, including bringing back traditional, church-based teaching, making Greek a compulsory language in the school, accepting students to the school on a selective basis, and ending the status of the parents' committee in the school. The teaching staff and the families of the students in the school resented these changes, particularly after all attempts by the parents' committee to change and cancel the management team's decisions ended in failure.
This situation left the parents' committee with no choice but to seek an alternative educational framework for the students. Therefore, the committee, with the assistance of the League for the Arabs of Jaffa, set up the Yaffa Arab Democratic School, a few days before the start of the current school year. On 13 September 2004, the school's founders applied for a license from the MOE. Due to time restrictions, they were not able to begin the procedures for obtaining a school license, as required under the School Supervision Law – 1969, and instead submitted the application after the start of the school year. The MOE issued its closure order on 31 August 2004, in accordance with Article 32 of the School Supervision Law.
In the motion for an injunction, Adalah Attorney Gadeer Nicola argued that the school meets all of the requirements regarding safety and teaching procedures and presented the MOE with documents to prove this. Adalah further contended that the teaching staff of the Yaffa Arab Democratic School is the same staff which previously taught at the Orthodox School, and that in the sessions held with the MOE's inspector, the latter had expressed his positive impression about teaching standards at the school, and about the school's special character.
Following the MOE's rejection of the school's license application, Adalah filed an appeal to the Appeals Committee within the MOE, in accordance with the law. The appeal is still pending.
Adalah argued in the motion for injunction that the balance of convenience clearly lies with the interests of the students: not issuing an injunction would cause great damage to the students, since they will have lost their educational framework before the delivery of a final decision on the petition. Conversely, issuing an injunction would not cause damage to the MOE, because the school will be closed in case of the petition being dismissed. Adalah further stated that the MOE's decision is illegal and, if not annulled, will violate the right of freedom to choose in education of 158 students and their families, in addition to the students' right to education. In response to the motion for injunction, the MOE claimed that opening the school without a license is sufficient cause for closing it, and that the petitioners' license application was refused because they had submitted it late. The MOE stated that there is no pedagogical justification for opening an additional school in Jaffa, since there are already four primary schools serving the Arab population in the city, in which the students can register. The MOE claimed that there is no reason for the Court to intervene in the issue of the closure order. In his decision, Judge Uzi Fogelman wrote that, given the circumstances, the balance of convenience leans in favor of the petitioners, and that, "Several months have passed since the beginning of the school year, and if the matter were to remain as it is, and the school were to be closed, the matter would inflict damage on the students and infringe their right to obtain what they have requested in case of the petition being accepted."
Judge Fogelman added that the "policy" of the MOE in applying Article 32 of the School Supervision Law cannot be applied blindly, and that, "Here there are special and extraordinary circumstances, which lead to the opening of the school before obtaining a license. The opening of a school in these circumstances is not a result of disregarding the law."
Case No. 1334/2004, League for the Arabs in Jaffa, et. al. v. Ministry of Education (Tel Aviv District Court).
Request for Injunction No. 20848/2004, League for the Arabs in Jaffa, et. al. v. Ministry of Education (Tel Aviv District Court).
