David Bell's report on antisemitism in schools and colleges. What does it say?

David Bell’s report into antisemitism in schools was always going to be controversial. This makes picking through the controversy to the what Sir David actually said or didn’t say and the reality of the situation difficult, as different groups, with their own agendas, highlight key points, often based only on a reading of the executive summary or the second hand reports of people who have read the executive summary.

The starting point of this review is that antisemitism is rising in the UK. This is statistically undeniable. CST (The Community Security Trust) reports a 21% increase in antisemitic attacks in the first half of 2026 compared to the same period in 2025. This is more than double the 2022 figure. This is likely to be the tip of an iceberg as typically hate crimes are significantly under-reported.

This reflects my personal experience and that of many of those I know. Britain currently feels a less safe place to be Jewish than at any other time in my life. The security at our synagogues and community buildings is tighter. Attacks physically and online are so common as to almost be normalised. The growth of antisemitic language on and offline is truly terrifying.

Antisemitism, like all other forms of faith and prejudice-based harm, ‘corrodes trust, damages relationships, and undermines the ethos of inclusion that education depends upon.’ It is based on misconceptions, stereotypes, or harmful narratives.

The issue is further complicated by the diverse nature of the Jewish community. While the Jewish population (just 0.5% of the total population) are concentrated in London, Manchester and Leeds, there are Jews living across the country. Their practice, presentation and community involvement is highly varied.  And the majority of Jewish children attend mainstream non-faith schools and many are the only Jew in their school.

Children and staff in schools of all sorts report experiencing (or witnessing) antisemitism including stereotypes, jokes and derogatory comments, as well as physical attacks. These are not always reported because there is a fear that they will not be acted upon or taken seriously.

The report calls for stronger and more consistent action across the system to tackle antisemitism.

Definition

Sir David’s report struggles, as he acknowledges, with the fact he is dealing with highly complex and nuanced language. Few people have a full understanding of the term antisemitism, though many have opinions on it, and it is defined differently by different people. It is often confused and conflated with anti-Zionism and impacted by anti-Israel feelings. The review heard that the term ‘antisemitism’ is not always understood as hostility or prejudice directed at Jewish people and was being dismissed as opinion or political disagreement rather than recognised as racism and prejudice. Conversely disagreements that are primarily political may become understood through the frame of antisemitism, when this isn’t the best way to understand them.

The responses to the review have included that Antisemitism should not be receiving ‘special treatment’ and should be considered as the same as any other form of prejudice or racism. The review itself is clear that there is no hierarchy of racism or prejudice; all forms should be challenged and eradicated with equal commitment. However, equal commitment does not mean identical treatment, nor does it imply that all forms of racism are understood in the same way. While it is important that similar pieces of work are done on other forms of racism and their connections, this is outside the mandate of a report on antisemitism.

Antisemitism is complex and has distinct characteristics, including:

·       Intertwined racial and religious dimensions: Antisemitism is a longstanding form of racism and religious prejudice. Jewish identity can encompass both an ethnicity and religion.

·        Conflicting beliefs: where a range of contradictory stereotypes are used to fuel hostility towards Jewish people.

·       Conspiracy thinking: centred on claims that Jews secretly organise or influence global events,

·       Shape-shifting nature: Antisemitism has adapted across time – appearing in religious, racial, and political forms – while reusing similar underlying tropes

·       Scapegoating of Jews in times of crisis

·       ‘Othering’ and dual loyalty accusations: Jews are often cast as not fully belonging to the societies they live in, with suspicions about their loyalty.

·        The State of Israel: In contemporary contexts, antisemitism can manifest through attitudes towards Israel.

The political context further undermines staff’s confidence to identify and act in response to antisemitism. As does their unfamiliarity with certain phrases, symbols, and narratives including those that are subtle or context-dependent which are used to express and spread antisemitism.

Sir David, therefore, calls for a wider adoption of the IHRA definition. While this definition is not universally accepted, and other definitions are available, having a shared starting point could, if supported by training could  improve school staff’s understanding and confidence.

Training

The review sees targeted training in various forms as vital to ensure that Jewish people experience the same level of protection, inclusion and understanding as other groups It calls for  training specifically on antisemitism for school leaders and DSLs and as part of initial teacher training. Also, for the inclusion of antisemitism as a key element in safeguarding, equalities, and anti-racism training provided to all staff.

Recognising and responding

Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026 has increased the  focus on faith and prejudice abuse and harm (paragraphs 17 and 32) identifying the impacts of prejudice and faith-based harm on children's welfare, well being, mental health, willingness to seek help and overall sense of safety, Sir David calls for this to be strengthened and specify antisemitism. He adds that antisemitism can cause harm even where there is no identifiable Jewish victim. When prejudice is normalised, it can contribute to a culture in which hatred is tolerated and undermines schools’ responsibilities to promote inclusion, equality and respect. Safeguarding concerns, possibly for the perpetrator as well as the victim, may also arise from exposure to antisemitism, through repeated incidents, online content or aspects of school or college culture, depending on the nature and impact of that exposure.

The review is clear that antisemitic harm is often unreported and not always recognised, recorded and addressed when it is. It is often seen as an isolated or low-level incident. The cumulative impact of such incidents is not seen or understood. The response, where there is one, tends to be through disciplinary or behaviour processes rather than viewed through a safeguarding lens.

The review also highlights the risks of online content and school staff’s difficulties in responding appropriately. The review calls for updated guidance related to behaviour and bullying  on and offline to include identifying, preventing and responding to antisemitism and other forms of hatred and prejudice, including improved support for and focus on the victims of abuse. This in turn should lead to schools and colleges updating their safeguarding, online safety, anti-bullying and behaviour policies so their steps to identify, prevent and respond to antisemitic and other forms of abuse, harassment and intimidation are established with accessible systems for reporting, recording and monitoring antisemitic incidents, including peer and anonymous reporting and a use of a specific category when recording incidents. This needs to be supported by staff training.

The review calls for a review of the Prevent advice for schools to provide clarity and support decision making on when antisemitism, and other themes relevant to extremist narratives, may be indicators of radicalisation risk.

School culture and prevention

Strong and visible leadership, underpinned by a culture of standing up against all forms of racism, including antisemitism, is a critical component of effective prevention in schools. This means a culture grounded in respect, inclusion and high expectations reduces the likelihood that antisemitism is dismissed as ‘banter’ or goes unchallenged. This requires robust systems and policies, including around the PSED and Equality Act.

Teachers’ Standards

The review believes that responsibility to confront and act on antisemitism needs to be included in the Teachers’ Standards. Though there have been minor updates in terminology, the Teachers’ Standards have not been updated since 2012. They are in need of review to reflect the changing online world, the use of AI as well as the increased and changed use of prejudiced-based abuse, including antisemitism, Islamophobia and misogyny. This needs to be part of a wider piece of work.

However, the review recognises teachers’ need for greater support  to navigate political expression, political impartiality and discussions relating to the State of Israel, Palestine and antisemitism. Professionals sometimes lack  confidence in addressing controversial issues which can lead to the avoidance of important conversations.

It also highlights the importance of school staff maintaining political impartiality and the provision of support for staff facing antisemitism from pupils, parents or colleagues. The review suggest support at DfE level to ensure that this is universally available.

Curriculum

Tackling antisemitism (and any other form of prejudice) requires a proactive approach and curriculum. Teaching of and about Judaism needs to go beyond just Holocaust education. This should only be a small part of children’s learning about Jews and Judaism. Where Jewish people are encountered primarily in the context of the Holocaust, antisemitism or historical persecution, pupils may develop a narrow and incomplete understanding of Jewish identity. The curriculum  needs a more rounded approach covering Jewish identity, culture and contemporary experiences across subjects, such as RE, citizenship, online education and media literacy. Where possible, this should include engagement with Jewish communities to challenge stereotypes and strengthen inclusion. The review calls for new resources to support this, including within media literacy and online safety and RE.

It is also important that teaching about Judaism represents the diversity and complexity of the Jewish community in the UK and does not present it as a single homogenous group. Jewish people are no more homogenous than Muslim’s or Christians.

While the study of the Holocaust should remain a compulsory element of the curriculum, the review calls for how it is delivered to be reviewed with the introduction of non-statutory guidance and a call for all schools to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. I am not sure that latter would be appropriate for all primary schools.

Other issues

The review highlights specific issues relating to

·       colleges and post-16 education.

·       the security of Jewish schools and on transport routes to them

·       the impact of antisemitic abuse directed at Jewish staff and their need for support and robust action, including from their unions.

·       The review call for Antisemitism and schools’ work in this area to be reviewed by OFSTED.

Controversies

This whole area is complex, but there have been specific concerns raised about the review including:

·       The small and largely self-selecting nature of the contributors responding to the consultation: To some extent this is true of all government reviews. Those who are particularly interested or have a view on the issue respond, others do not, particularly at the end of the school year when it is one of multiple government consultations.  However, evidence of antisemitism shared by the respondents reflects the evidence from other  groups, studies and reports. This  should not be disregarded or used as an excuse to dismiss the review.

·       A focus on one form of racism is demeaning and dismissing of other forms of racism or prejudice. Equally, this can be seen as an opportunity to develop good practice to tackle all forms of prejudice.

All children (and staff) need to feel safe. This is supported by all children, including Jewish children learning about each other so that they can see each other as human and learn that they have more in common than that divides them. Challenging antisemitism challenges all form of faith and prejudice-based harm. It is not about diminishing, dismissing or ignoring  the experiences of other religious or ethnic groups in the UK or Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank or the Occupied territories. In fact, a strong stand against antisemitism should act to support all these groups and more. There is much in David Bell’s review that would support this and needs consideration to improve the lives of all our children. However, none of it is yet formal government policy.