Jerusalem Court Overturns Ministry of Education Budget Cut for Special Needs Seminary

The Jerusalem District Court, sitting as an administrative court, has overturned a decision by the Ministry of Education to deduct over 715,000 shekels from the budget of the "Pri Hochma" seminary. The seminary, located in Jerusalem, is a special education high school for ultra-Orthodox girls with emotional and behavioral difficulties. Judge Eli Aberbanel ruled that the ministry failed to provide a required justification for its decision. The ministry was also ordered to pay the seminary's operating association 7,000 shekels in legal costs.

The dispute began after two inspections by the Ministry of Education's Licensing, Control, and Enforcement Administration in December 2024 and March 2025 found very low student attendance. In one 12th-grade class, no students were present, with seminary staff explaining they only arrived in the afternoon. Consequently, the ministry decided to cut the budget allocated for 14 students in two 12th-grade classes, alleging the seminary had improperly reported them.

The association operating the seminary, represented by attorney Yael Tishler, argued that the ministry's attendance check was overly technical and disregarded the institution's special education mandate. They stated that while the seminary reported students who dropped out to the education supervisor in real-time, they could not remove them from the registry until a suitable alternative was found. The association also claimed that one 12th-grade class operated in the afternoon under a personalized program to prevent dropouts, which had been verbally approved by a supervisor. Furthermore, five additional students were attending without the seminary receiving a budget for them, and the retroactive cut threatened the seminary's continued operation.

The Ministry of Education maintained its decision was professional, based on the inspections, and that the seminary did not adhere to directives. They claimed the supervisor never approved the class and had ordered its closure. The ministry also noted other deficiencies but acknowledged accepting some of the association's arguments.

Ultimately, the judge sided with the seminary, finding the ministry's reasoning insufficient. He stated the ministry did not examine each student's case individually and failed to explain what more the seminary could have done regarding absent students. The court also noted the ministry did not investigate claims of students leaving or attending, nor did it clarify how the deduction amount was calculated. Regarding the afternoon class, while the judge accepted the ministry's assertion that the supervisor did not approve it, he pointed out that the closure notice was never sent to the seminary and that the ministry ignored evidence of actual learning. The judge emphasized that the extent of the violation should influence the penalty and that the ministry had not addressed the five students attending without a budget.

Attorney Tishler commented that the ruling clarifies the ministry's obligation to thoroughly examine and address the arguments and evidence presented by institutions before making significant budget decisions, stating that a superficial hearing is insufficient and such decisions will not withstand judicial review. The Ministry of Education stated it had received the ruling and was currently studying it.