David Bell’s Past Criticism of Muslim Schools Returns as Antisemitism Review Draws Scrutiny

Bell’s earlier remarks put his latest review in focus

Sir David Bell’s 2005 comments about Muslim faith schools are again part of the debate surrounding his recent review of antisemitism in British schools. The remarks matter because they show how Bell has previously framed faith-based education as a question of national cohesion, while his current review has prompted disputes about its evidence and about how schools should address antisemitism.

Bell made the comments while head of Ofsted, the schools regulator in England. He called on Muslim schools to adjust their curricula so pupils would learn to respect other cultures and understand their responsibilities in British society. He also warned that religious segregation in education “must not put our coherence at risk”.

Bell argued that pupils should understand democratic institutions and other faiths. “In some of the Muslim schools that is not happening to a sufficient degree,” he said. He also called for the growth of faith schools to be monitored, saying pupils should learn about their own religion, other religions and wider British society.

“We must not allow our recognition of diversity to become apathy in the face of any challenge to our coherence as a nation,” Bell said.

His comments drew objections from people working in and representing Muslim education. Christopher Schenk, then an inspector of independent faith schools, challenged the suggestion that Muslim schools were failing to teach tolerance. Muslim headteachers, Schenk said, regarded tolerance and harmony as Islamic virtues and wanted pupils to respect other cultures.

He described school leaders who wanted to educate “the next generation of good British Muslims so that they can play a full part in the life of their country”. That response placed the dispute on a different footing: the question was not simply what schools taught, but whether Bell’s broad criticism accurately described Muslim schools.

Critics said Muslim schools were being singled out

Iqbal Sacranie, then secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said only 3 percent of Muslim children attended Muslim faith schools. He objected to Bell’s suggestion that their growth threatened national cohesion, and argued that concerns about pupils’ preparation for society applied to poorly resourced schools generally.

“We consider it highly irresponsible to suggest that the growth of Muslim faith schools poses a threat to ‘our coherence as a nation’,” Sacranie said. He also noted that state-funded Muslim schools and many independent schools were outperforming the state sector.

Dr Mohamed Mukadam, then chair of the Association of Muslim Schools, called Bell’s remarks a misconception about Islamic schools and an example of Islamophobia. He said that generalised criticism from someone in Bell’s position was difficult to accept. Mukadam also argued that Muslim school pupils were progressing to further and higher education at higher rates than pupils in state schools.

The subsequent Ofsted report examined 50 Muslim schools. It found that 18 did not meet its standards for teaching tolerance. But the same report found shortcomings in 17 of 40 evangelical Christian schools, a larger proportion. That comparison complicates any reading of the episode as a problem specific to Muslim education.

The earlier controversy has gained renewed attention because Bell led the antisemitism review published this week. The Labour government said it would encourage schools to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, following the review’s recommendation. The National Education Union’s general secretary, Daniel Kebede, criticised that recommendation, arguing that it could inhibit discussion of Gaza and that schools needed practical support to address antisemitism.

Questions over the review’s student survey

Another dispute concerns the review’s account of student experiences. It reports that almost three in five people who identify as Jewish had experienced antisemitism. That figure appeared in headlines as a claim about “three in five Jewish pupils”, although the underlying survey covered 16- to 18-year-olds and included 92 Jewish students.

The report itself cautions that this sample is small and does not represent all school and college students. Its annex also says the results do not represent the full student population in that age group, because many have not applied to university or college.

Of the 92 Jewish students, 70 answered a question about whether they had personally experienced or witnessed antisemitism. Twenty-nine said they had experienced it. That equals 41 percent of the respondents to that question, rather than 59 or 60 percent. The distinction between the survey’s wording, its sample and the wider claims made in headlines is central to the criticism of the report’s presentation.

The review calls on schools to recognise antisemitism as a distinct category of harm, and the government said it would accept the findings in full. The National Education Union’s objection to the IHRA recommendation reflects a separate concern: that the definition’s examples could make it harder to discuss Israel and Palestinian issues in classrooms.

The IHRA definition was formulated in 2004 as a non-legally binding tool for monitoring antisemitism. One example attached to it describes claiming that Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour as antisemitic. Critics say such examples can blur the boundary between antisemitism and political criticism of Israel. Kenneth Stern, the definition’s lead author, has warned against using it as a disciplinary or legal instrument, citing the risk of restricting political expression.

Bell’s affiliations and response

Bell has also been named as a member of the National Council of the Academic Study Group on Israel and the Middle East, a group that has opposed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In response, he said his report addressed antisemitism, not Israel or the Middle East. He added that although he had been named to the council, he had not done work for the group, attended its meetings or been consulted on its issues.

The review also says a rising share of Jewish children attend Jewish schools: an estimated 20 percent of school-aged Jewish children did so in the 1970s, compared with nearly 70 percent now. That finding sits alongside the report’s call for schools to address antisemitism and the broader discussion of faith-based education that Bell’s 2005 remarks revived.

Middle East Eye said it had contacted Bell for comment. The episode leaves a concrete test for the current review: whether its recommendations can help schools respond to antisemitism while its evidence is described with the limits the report itself acknowledges.