Far from the public eye: how municipalities shape the education system in Israel

The "Local Democracy Index" section by Globes and "Pnima", published monthly, presents insights on local government based on the Pnima movement's index, which ranks authorities in 6 dimensions: transparency, trust, public involvement, collaboration, checks and balances, and representation. Pnima develops policy solutions for strategic core issues to strengthen Israel's resilience.

At the beginning of every school year, familiar questions return: are there enough classrooms, teachers, assistants, and funds? However, beneath the national discourse on the education budget hides a local story: how much each municipality adds from its own pocket and what it does with this responsibility.

Numbers indicate that education systems can rise and fall based on the resources available to the local authority. Budgets affect teaching hours, study tracks, and building renovations. Data reveals astronomical gaps between authorities, requiring a recalculation of funding allocation mechanisms.

A 75-fold gap between cities

The starting point is the scope of a local authority's investment in education. In the 82 cities examined in 2024, the average investment stood at about 4,282 shekels per learner. A sharp gap is hidden here: Nesher leads with almost 11,000 shekels per student, while in Rahat it is only 144 shekels — a 75-fold gap.

Dr. Ruth Meoded and Prof. Iris Ben-David Hadar from Bar-Ilan University suggest that fiscal decentralization in education actually deepens social inequality. They recommend redesigning central government budgeting formulas to account for socio-economic status and sectoral representation, compensating for resource gaps.

Mohana Fares, a member of the education team at Pnima, suggests a path for proper decentralization: "Today the system is managed in a very centralized way. We propose a transition to a shekel-based budgeting method, allowing managers flexibility in choosing responses adapted to students."

Who monitors the funds?

Money is only one side of the story. Researchers checked the quality of municipal control: education committees that are supposed to initiate, plan, and monitor execution. The check was based on 26 protocols of education committees in eight authorities (Hadera, Ashdod, Ra'anana, Haifa, Herzliya, Ness Ziona, Jerusalem, and Rahat) from May 2025 to July 2026.

How did Nesher climb to the top of the ranking?

Nesher Mayor Roi Levy explained the success: "As a leadership, we make complex decisions and save in many other places to ensure that we can provide our children's education with the highest budgets." In 2025, about a third of the city's budget (89 million shekels) was designated for education.

The check shows that the presence of office holders does not necessarily translate into real influence. In 88% of the protocols, the meeting was managed by the head of the authority or his deputy, but in six out of eight authorities, no quote from a public representative was documented. The most prominent weakness was found at the follow-up stage: almost no documentation was found that discussions were translated into decisions or advice to the city council.

Insights from Pnima:

1. The main gap does not depend on the quality of the discussion. Even substantive discussions rarely translate into official decisions.

2. Presence and voice are separate. Public representatives often appear on participant lists but are not quoted in the discussion.

3. Substantive content correlates with critical discourse. Protocols richer in content were those where questions and challenges to the professional echelon were heard.

4. The functions most absent are those the law emphasizes: planning, reporting, and execution follow-up.