The government has accepted all 27 recommendations of Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools. But its commitment to political impartiality raises an important question: will the same standards apply to the teaching of Israel within state-funded Jewish faith schools?
On 21 October, the British government accepted all 27 recommendations of Sir David Bell’s independent review into antisemitism in schools and colleges across England.
The findings were deeply troubling. Jewish pupils reported experiencing antisemitic abuse, harassment and discrimination, while the review identified serious shortcomings in how educational institutions recognise and respond to anti-Jewish prejudice.
The government’s response was unequivocal. Education Secretary Lucy Powell promised stronger safeguarding measures, improved reporting, better training and clearer guidance on political impartiality.
These commitments are necessary to address the experiences described in the review.
But one of the recommendations has implications that extend beyond the original investigation.
If political impartiality is to be strengthened across England’s education system, what does that mean for schools that actively encourage pupils to identify with the modern State of Israel?
And, more specifically, what does it mean for the teaching of Kodesh in Britain’s state-funded Jewish schools?
A Standard for Every School
The government’s response leaves little doubt about the intended breadth of its approach.
The Department for Education has confirmed that schools must not promote partisan political views and that pupils should encounter a balanced presentation of opposing viewpoints when political issues are raised.
Importantly, the existing guidance on political impartiality already applies to academies, maintained schools and independent schools.
Faith schools are not exempt.
That means a state-funded Jewish school is subject to political-impartiality requirements just as a state-funded Muslim, Christian or non-religious school is.
This distinction matters because religious education and political advocacy are not interchangeable.
A Jewish school teaching the Torah, Hebrew, Jewish history or the religious significance of the Land of Israel is exercising its legitimate educational and religious functions.
But the modern State of Israel is also a political entity, with a government, military, borders, foreign policy and involvement in deeply contested international disputes.
Teaching children about that state is one thing.
Encouraging them to adopt particular political positions in its support is another.
Where Does Kodesh End and Politics Begin?
Kodesh, the Hebrew term commonly used for sacred Jewish studies, forms an important part of the education offered by many Jewish faith schools.
It can encompass religious texts, Jewish law, prayer, traditions, Hebrew and Jewish identity.
For many Jewish families, the relationship between Judaism and Israel is also an important aspect of that identity.
There is nothing inherently improper about teaching that connection.
But some Jewish educational organisations explicitly describe their work in terms of cultivating a love of the modern State of Israel.
An article published by Prizmah, the Jewish educational organisation, entitled Keeping Israel at the Heart: The Challenge of Zionist Education in UK Jewish Schools, discusses the place of Zionist education within British Jewish schooling.
The article describes educational approaches intended to strengthen pupils’ emotional relationships with Israel, including through encounters with Israelis and engagement with Israeli national identity.
Such activities are not automatically unlawful or politically partisan.
Nevertheless, they raise a question that becomes particularly relevant following the Bell Review.
At what point does teaching children about their religious and cultural connections to Israel become encouraging political identification with a foreign state?
It is a distinction that deserves careful examination, not least because the answer should be consistent across all faith schools.
The Question of Foreign Influence
Consider a hypothetical state-funded Muslim school that invited representatives of a foreign government to encourage pupils to develop a lasting emotional attachment to that state.
There would be legitimate questions about the programme’s content, its funding, the independence of its teaching materials and whether political positions were being presented as religious obligations.
Those same questions can reasonably be asked of programmes connected to Israel.
That does not mean every visiting Israeli educator represents the Israeli government, nor that every expression of affection for Israel constitutes political advocacy.
It means the standards used to assess educational programmes should not depend on which country or religion is involved.
Where schools work with foreign embassies, government-supported educational initiatives or international political organisations, transparency is important.
Who provides the teaching materials?
Who selects the visiting educators?
What are pupils encouraged to believe about the foreign state’s political institutions and policies?
Are contested political questions presented as matters for independent examination, or are pupils encouraged towards a predetermined conclusion?
These are questions about educational accountability, not the religious identity of pupils or teachers.
What the Bell Review Actually Changes
The government has accepted Bell’s recommendations, including strengthening guidance on political impartiality, particularly in relation to sensitive geopolitical questions.
That acceptance does not mean every recommendation has already become a new legal requirement.
Existing duties remain in force, while the government has established an implementation group and commissioned Bell to review progress after one year.
There has been no announced requirement for Jewish schools to abandon Kodesh teaching, cease celebrating Israeli cultural occasions or remove all Israeli national symbols.
Indeed, Bell’s review did not recommend a blanket ban on political symbols or flags.
The issue is therefore not whether Jewish religious education must end. It plainly need not.
The question is how strengthened political-impartiality guidance will distinguish religious instruction, cultural education and political advocacy.
For example, a lesson explaining why Israel holds religious and historical significance for Jewish people would be different from one instructing children that a particular Israeli government’s actions must be supported.
Similarly, celebrating Israeli Independence Day does not automatically breach political-impartiality rules. But teaching the political controversies surrounding Israel’s creation as though only one legitimate interpretation exists would raise questions about balanced treatment.
These distinctions should be addressed through the substance of lessons, rather than assumptions based on the religion of the school.
Protecting Jewish Pupils and Political Impartiality Are Not Opposing Goals
The Bell Review identified serious antisemitism affecting Jewish pupils and staff.
Its recommendations deserve to be assessed in that context.
Children should not face abuse, intimidation or discrimination because they are Jewish, because they have family in Israel or because they express cultural or religious connections to the country.
Nor should Jewish children be expected to answer personally for the actions of Israel’s government.
The government’s response explicitly recognises that criticism of Israeli government policies is not, in itself, antisemitic.
That distinction is essential.
It must remain possible to criticise the Israeli government, examine Zionism as a political movement and debate the Israeli–Palestinian conflict without attributing collective responsibility to Jewish people.
Equally, protecting Jewish pupils from antisemitism does not require schools to promote any particular Israeli government or its policies.
Both principles can operate together.
Indeed, political impartiality should help create classrooms in which pupils can examine difficult questions without being pressured into adopting their teachers’ political views.
An Opportunity for the Department for Education
The government’s adoption of the Bell Review creates an opportunity to clarify an area of educational policy that deserves greater transparency.
If schools are to receive strengthened guidance on political impartiality, the Department for Education should explain how that guidance applies to religious-studies programmes, foreign-state educational partnerships and extracurricular activities.
The clarification should be universal.
It should apply to Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian, Pakistani, Russian, American and other foreign political interests alike.
It should also recognise that cultural heritage and political loyalty are different things.
British children can have family connections, religious attachments and emotional relationships with countries around the world while remaining fully entitled to form their own political opinions.
The purpose of impartial education should not be to dictate which countries children may love.
It should be to ensure that schools do not dictate which governments or political causes they must support.
The Unanswered Question
Sir David Bell’s review was commissioned to address antisemitism, not to investigate Zionist education in Jewish schools.
It would therefore be misleading to suggest that Bell identified Kodesh teaching as a problem.
Nevertheless, the government’s response has reaffirmed a principle that applies across the education system.
Political impartiality cannot be selective.
If a state-funded school encourages pupils to adopt contested political positions supporting a foreign government, the content should be examined against the same standards regardless of the school’s religious affiliation.
The Department for Education now has an opportunity to make that distinction explicit.
Will its strengthened guidance apply equally to political content within Kodesh programmes and every other form of religious or cultural education?
And will the government ensure that the standards it expects schools to uphold are applied consistently, transparently and without exception?
Those questions do not undermine the Bell Review’s purpose.
They follow directly from the government’s commitment to political impartiality.
If the standard is intended for every school, it must be applied to every school.
Leave a Reply