The state on Thursday submitted an updated response to the High Court of Justice in a petition challenging government funding of party-affiliated ultra-Orthodox school networks, acknowledging that key data on core-curriculum compliance and oversight mechanisms remains incomplete and contested within the government itself.
The filing, submitted following a January hearing, reflects an ongoing dispute between the Attorney-General’s Office and the Education Ministry over how compliance with mandatory core studies is measured, verified, and enforced in the two main haredi education networks affiliated with Shas and United Torah Judaism.
The petition was filed by Hiddush – Freedom of Religion and Equality, which argues that the state continues to transfer full funding to the networks despite longstanding deficiencies in supervision, reporting, and enforcement of core curriculum requirements.
At the January hearing, the High Court ordered the state to submit all documents in its possession relating to core-curriculum instruction in the networks, including the criteria used for determining eligibility for full funding, the scope of inspections, participation in national assessment tools, and the sanctions framework for noncompliance.
In Thursday’s update, the state said that while materials had been submitted, the factual picture remained incomplete.
According to the filing, the Education Ministry has yet to provide full clarifications and supporting documentation on several core issues, including how institutional compliance is calculated and how data provided by schools is cross-checked.
A-G Office instructed Education Ministry to complete missing information
The Attorney-General’s Office said it had instructed the ministry to complete the missing information and warned that existing data could not yet support definitive conclusions about compliance or justify continued funding practices without further verification.
The response also reveals sharp internal disagreement over how to present the information to the court.
The Education Ministry objected to portions of the filing, arguing that the submission went beyond the court’s request for factual data and instead reflected the Attorney-General’s legal position regarding the deficiencies of the current oversight framework.
Education Minister Yoav Kisch maintained that his ministry had prepared a comprehensive factual report addressing the court’s questions and criticized what he described as the inclusion of policy judgments.
As part of that dispute, the ministry requested that certain materials - including an analysis prepared by the Finance Ministry’s Budgets Department - not be included in the filing. That request was rejected by the State Attorney’s Office, acting with the approval of the deputy attorney-general.
Kisch subsequently renewed a request for separate legal representation, arguing that the Education Ministry’s position could not be adequately reflected under the current arrangement. The court has previously rejected similar requests.
Among the materials attached to the filing is an analysis by the Finance Ministry examining teacher qualification data in hundreds of institutions within the networks.
The document highlights significant gaps between reported compliance and the proportion of teachers who meet qualification criteria in core subjects, particularly in boys’ schools.
However, the state stopped short of drawing operative conclusions from the data, noting that the information is partial, does not cover all institutions, and requires further clarification from the Education Ministry before it can serve as a basis for enforcement or budgetary decisions.
The Attorney-General’s Office reiterated in the filing that full funding cannot rest solely on institutional declarations and that effective supervision requires reliable data, qualified instructors, external measurement tools, and enforceable sanctions.
The High Court has not yet issued further instructions. A response from the Independent Education Center - one of the two networks at the heart of the petition - is expected in the coming days.
The case is one of several pending before the High Court of Justice that address the structure, oversight, and funding of ultra-Orthodox education, as the court continues to press the state for a clearer accounting of how legal requirements are implemented in practice.