From Playground to Classroom — 10 September 2025

Question

What did the 10 September 2025 House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education hearing establish about antisemitism in K-12 schools following October 7, 2023, and what remained contested?

Context

This hearing followed the subcommittee's pattern of investigating post-October 7 antisemitism across educational institutions. The hearing focused on K-12 schools rather than universities, examining how antisemitic content enters elementary and secondary classrooms through teacher training, curriculum materials, union activities, and community organization partnerships.

Chairman Kiley convened the hearing titled "From Playground to Classroom: The Spread of Antisemitism in K-12 Schools." The hearing examined mechanisms by which anti-Israel and antisemitic materials reach K-12 students, including through schools of education, teachers' unions, ethnic studies programs, and third-party curriculum developers.

Witnesses

Nicole Neily, President and Founder, Parents Defending Education
Dr. Brandy Shufutinsky, Director, Education and National Security, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Rabbi Jill Jacobs, CEO, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights
L. Rachel Lerman, Vice Chair and Director of Appeals & Critical Motions, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law

Established — teacher education pipeline

Dr. Shufutinsky testified that state university systems train the majority of K-12 teachers. She stated that "approximately three-quarters of California's public school teachers are graduates of a University of California program." The City University of New York system "provides one-third of New York City's new teachers." In Illinois, "almost one in six teachers is a graduate of Illinois State University."

This pipeline structure is established. The proportions Shufutinsky cited are from university institutional research reports. Whether these programs systematically teach antisemitic content is contested.

Established — teacher union political activity post-October 7

Neily testified that teachers' unions conducted political activity regarding Israel-Palestine. She stated that "in July, NEA members voted to sever ties with the Anti-Defamation League at their annual meeting, only walking back the vote following widespread public outcry."

Shufutinsky testified that "the National Education Association's Representative Assembly voted to sever ties between the NEA and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization that fights antisemitism." She stated the "proposal was reversed by NEA's Executive Board, but not before it earned widespread attention."

The sequence is established: NEA Representative Assembly vote, public outcry, executive board reversal. The characterization of this activity as antisemitism versus democratic union political process is contested.

Neily provided additional examples: unions in Los Angeles and San Francisco voted on BDS resolutions in 2021. The Massachusetts Teachers Association voted on anti-Israel resolutions and hosted webinars. The Oakland Education Association hosted a "Teach-In for Gaza" following October 7.

These events occurred. Whether they constitute antisemitic activity or protected political speech is the contested question.

Established — community organization partnerships

Shufutinsky testified that San Francisco Unified School District signed a memorandum of understanding with the Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC) in July 2023 "to provide leadership development, cultural empowerment, and academic support programs directly to students."

She documented that on October 7, 2023, AROC posted on Instagram: "Palestine is rising! Gaza is rising!" Less than two weeks later, AROC published a Student Walkout for Gaza Toolkit calling on high school students to walk out on October 18, 2023.

The MoU exists. The Instagram posts exist. AROC's access to students through district partnership is established. Whether this partnership constitutes district endorsement of AROC's political positions is contested.

Lerman testified that AROC's contract is not limited to San Francisco: "This group, which is openly dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, contracts with schools in San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland to promote 'community building' and support for Arab and other students."

Established — Qatar Foundation International funding

Shufutinsky testified that Qatar Foundation International (QFI) funds Arabic language teachers and curricula in U.S. K-12 schools. She stated that QFI "is a 501(c)(3) in the United States outside of Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) regulations."

She provided specific examples: "P.S. 261 is a Brooklyn elementary school that has been getting QFI funds since at least 2019. The Arabic teacher at P.S. 261 was awarded the QFI Arabic Teacher Excellence Award for 2023 and attracted national headlines after using a map of the Middle East that labeled Israel as Palestine."

The funding relationship exists. QFI's 501(c)(3) status outside FARA is established legal structure. The characterization of this funding as foreign influence operation versus language education support is contested.

Established — specific classroom incidents

Lerman provided documented examples of anti-Jewish incidents in K-12 schools:

In Berkeley, California, "shortly after October 7, a second-grade teacher wrote in her own hand 'Stop bombing babies' and told her students to copy the phrase and others like it onto sticky notes, which were then placed outside the classroom of the school's only Jewish teacher."

In Santa Ana, California, "the school district formed a committee that included board members to create ethnic-studies courses, many of which were laced with anti-Semitic content." Discovery in litigation "revealed shocking exchanges about how to 'address the Jewish Question,' intentional scheduling of meetings on Passover to exclude Jewish participants, and disparagement of a Jewish educator as a 'f---ing baby' with a 'colonized Jewish mind.'"

These incidents are established by witness testimony and, in Santa Ana's case, by discovery documents from resolved litigation. The Brandeis Center's resolution agreement with Santa Ana is a public document.

Established — Title VI framework

Lerman explained that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on "race, color, or national origin" in federally funded programs. She testified that federal enforcement agencies interpret "national origin" to extend to "discrimination based on shared ancestry, covering ethno-religious groups such as Jews, Sikhs, and Muslims."

She stated that Executive Order 13899 requires enforcement agencies to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism when investigating allegations. She emphasized that "criticism of the government of Israel or its policies similar to criticism leveled at any other country does not constitute anti-Semitism. But when Israel is demonized, delegitimized, or subjected to a standard different than that applied to any other country, the speaker is likely promoting anti-Semitism."

This is accurate description of current OCR policy and EO 13899. The IHRA definition's proper scope and application is contested, particularly regarding when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism.

Established — federal statistics on antisemitic incidents

Lerman testified: "Recent FBI data confirm the trend: anti-Semitic hate crimes in the United States reached a record 1,938 incidents in 2024, the highest ever recorded since the FBI began tracking this category. These crimes made up 69% of all religion-based hate crimes, despite Jews comprising only about 2% of the national population."

She sourced this to Combat Antisemitism Movement citing FBI data: "researchers recorded 6,326 anti-Semitic incidents in 2024 alone—a staggering 107.7% increase over the previous year."

These are Lerman's characterizations of CAM's report, which itself characterizes FBI data. The desk did not independently open FBI's raw data. The figures should be attributed to Lerman citing CAM, not treated as independently verified by this hearing.

Contested — whether teacher training programs teach antisemitism

Neily testified: "many of America's schools of education now instruct teachers to view the world through an oppressor-oppressed matrix in which inconvenient minorities like Jews and Asians are categorized as 'oppressors,' that 'teaching is a political act,' and that the job is to 'cultivate social justice activists and change agents.'"

She sourced this characterization to Defending Education's "CorruptED" report, not to opened syllabi from specific teacher education programs. This is Neily's organization's framing of teacher education content, not neutral documentation.

Shufutinsky provided more specific institutional claims. She testified that UCLA produces the largest number of California public school teachers: "approximately 76 percent of all public school teachers across the state receiving an education from one of its programs."

She stated that "UCLA's K-12 Ethnic Studies Certificate program is using Teaching Palestine, published by Rethinking Schools, as a resource." She characterized Teaching Palestine as presenting "prejudicial views of Israel and Jewish history."

The UCLA certificate program exists. Whether it systematically teaches antisemitic content requires opening the actual course materials and syllabi, which the hearing did not do. Characterizing Rethinking Schools materials as antisemitic is Shufutinsky's interpretation, not established fact.

Contested — whether ethnic studies curriculum is inherently antisemitic

Shufutinsky testified about California's 2021 ethnic studies legislation: "California's 2021 legislation requiring high school students to complete one ethnic studies course prior to graduation is a case in point." She stated that "organizations sharing a critical theory agenda pushed for a new required course to tell the stories of select American minorities through oppressed/oppressor narratives."

She testified that "several community organizations exploited the opportunity and began receiving six-figure contracts to develop school and/or professional development curricula that presented an anti-Jewish bias and rewritten history."

This characterization treats ethnic studies frameworks as inherently problematic. The legislative history shows California rejected early curriculum drafts specifically because they contained anti-Israel bias. The state's adopted Model Ethnic Studies Curriculum underwent revision to remove that content.

Whether the adopted curriculum contains antisemitic content, or whether "liberated" versions promoted by outside organizations systematically introduce bias, requires comparing the official adopted curriculum against the materials these organizations promote. The hearing presented advocacy characterizations, not comparative curriculum analysis.

Lerman testified: "K–12 schools have also become incubators of hostility, often under the banner of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) or 'liberated' ethnic studies, which tend to divide students into victims and oppressors."

This frames DEI and ethnic studies as vehicles for antisemitism. Rabbi Jacobs contested this framing: "The narrative demonizes diversity, equity, and inclusion by wrongly claiming that these initiatives are inherently antisemitic and anti-Israel. That is a dangerous, misleading, and blatant effort to posit institutions of liberal thought and democracy as a threat to Jews and to American civilization."

Both frames have support among Jewish community leaders. The hearing did not resolve whether DEI frameworks are protective or harmful to Jewish students.

Contested — education versus punishment

Rabbi Jacobs testified: "When antisemitism is not being taken seriously enough, we need to work with institutions, whether they are school districts, universities, professional associations, or political parties, to use the tools we have to deepen understanding and bring more people into the work of fighting antisemitism."

She emphasized: "Whether in the halls of Congress or in schools, if we genuinely seek safety, inclusion, and respect for Jews, the response to these gaps in understanding must be education, not punishment."

This represents T'ruah's institutional position: work with schools and unions to improve antisemitism training rather than defund or sanction them. Jacobs testified that T'ruah "represents 2,300 rabbis and cantors across the United States and Canada" and has "trained thousands of people, including educational leaders, in how to recognize and respond to antisemitism."

Neily, Shufutinsky, and Lerman did not directly contest the value of education. However, their testimonies focused on enforcement mechanisms: federal investigations, defunding non-compliant districts, prohibiting antisemitic curriculum, and scrutinizing union political activity. The emphasis was accountability and enforcement rather than partnership and training.

The disagreement is institutional diagnosis: whether K-12 antisemitism reflects knowledge gaps requiring training, or deliberate ideological capture requiring enforcement intervention.

Contested — union role and duty of fair representation

The hearing touched on teachers' unions' role but did not examine it as directly as the September 9 union hearing. Shufutinsky and Lerman characterized union political activity as spreading antisemitism into classrooms. Jacobs characterized unions as potential partners in antisemitism training.

Neither side addressed the specific duty of fair representation questions that dominated the union hearing. This hearing focused on unions as political actors and curriculum influencers, not on unions' obligations to Jewish members.

Contested — First Amendment boundaries

Lerman testified that schools have authority to regulate teacher speech: "Public school teachers' speech rights are limited as a matter of law. They simply cannot 'deliver any message to anyone anytime they wish,' as the U.S. Supreme Court put it in Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. When public school teachers are acting as teachers, whether they are in the classroom or the schoolyard, on social media or leading students on a walk-out, they do not speak for themselves: they are government employees 'speaking on the government's behalf to convey its intended message.'"

This accurately states the legal framework for K-12 teacher speech. The application question is contested: which specific teacher activities constitute protected speech versus prohibited harassment or indoctrination.

Rabbi Jacobs emphasized First Amendment protection: "Jewish safety has always been tied to the strength of democratic institutions and the rule of law. It is America's liberal democracy, including First Amendment protections, that have allowed Jews to flourish in the United States."

She testified that T'ruah "very much opposes the codifying of any definition of antisemitism—or any other bigotry—into law. It's not at all essential to increasing the protection of Jews, and it has been a very divisive, counterproductive, and unhelpful distraction."

The tension: Lerman's framework empowers schools to restrict teacher political speech as government employees. Jacobs' framework protects political speech and warns against using antisemitism definitions to restrict it. Both claim to prioritize Jewish safety. The hearing did not resolve which approach better protects Jewish students.

Contested — foreign influence versus language education

Shufutinsky's testimony characterized QFI funding as foreign influence operation. She recommended: "Congress should mandate that certain activities be covered under FARA regulations. One of those activities should be the development of K-12 educational materials and curriculum."

The factual baseline: QFI operates as a 501(c)(3) and funds Arabic language programs in U.S. schools. QFI is the U.S. arm of Qatar Foundation, which is controlled by the Qatari royal family.

The contested question: is this foreign influence operation requiring FARA registration, or legitimate language and culture education? Shufutinsky framed it as the former. The hearing did not examine what QFI-funded teachers actually teach, or whether their curriculum materials contain anti-Israel bias beyond the single P.S. 261 map example.

Contested — scope of the problem

Neily testified: "K-12 antisemitism is now a self-perpetuating ecosystem – and pupils are paying the price." She characterized the problem as systemic: teacher education programs, union activity, community partnerships, and administrative failures create an environment where antisemitism spreads.

Lerman testified: "The crisis of anti-Semitism in K-12 schools is not confined to one district or one region, but is a widespread and growing problem that demands national attention."

Jacobs did not contest that antisemitism exists in K-12 schools. She testified: "I want to start by saying that antisemitism is real. And unfortunately, it is growing." She provided examples: "swastikas graffitied on school property, encounter classmates performing Nazi salutes, or be texted quizzes called 'Zionist or Nazi?'"

The contested question is magnitude and cause. Neily, Shufutinsky, and Lerman characterized K-12 antisemitism as widespread, ideologically driven, and requiring systemic enforcement response. Jacobs characterized it as serious but localized incidents requiring education and partnership, not wholesale institutional reform.

The hearing did not provide data on: how many K-12 schools have documented antisemitic incidents; what percentage of teachers use contested curriculum materials; how many students are affected; or whether incidents are concentrated in specific districts or spread nationally.

Contested — Project Esther and democratic institutions

Rabbi Jacobs testified extensively about Project Esther, the Heritage Foundation plan that she characterized as "developed without participation by Jewish organizations, without significant input by Jews, and without the insights of antisemitism scholars."

She testified: "The narrative demonizes diversity, equity, and inclusion by wrongly claiming that these initiatives are inherently antisemitic and anti-Israel. That is a dangerous, misleading, and blatant effort to posit institutions of liberal thought and democracy as a threat to Jews and to American civilization."

She referenced over 550 rabbis and cantors who signed a letter "calling for an end to the administration's cynical use of antisemitism as a wedge issue to attack democratic norms and institutions."

Neily, Shufutinsky, and Lerman did not address Project Esther directly. Their testimonies focused on documenting specific incidents and recommending enforcement mechanisms.

The disagreement sits at the level of political philosophy: whether the appropriate response to K-12 antisemitism requires strengthening existing civil rights enforcement and educational partnerships, or requires broader reform of DEI programs, ethnic studies mandates, and teachers' union political activity.

What the hearing did not establish

The hearing did not provide:

• Systematic data on the prevalence of antisemitic incidents across K-12 schools
• Comparative analysis of teacher education programs to determine which systematically teach antisemitic content
• Independent review of ethnic studies curriculum materials to distinguish antisemitic content from legitimate inclusion of Palestinian perspectives
• Data on how many teachers use union-recommended or community organization materials
• Analysis of whether students taught with contested materials demonstrate increased antisemitic attitudes
• Controlled comparison of schools with and without community organization partnerships
• Review of QFI-funded curriculum beyond the single map example
• Legal analysis of which specific teacher activities cross from protected speech into prohibited harassment

Neily, Shufutinsky, and Lerman testified about specific incidents and characterized them as part of systemic problems. Their testimonies are advocacy, not neutral documentation. The incidents they described occurred. Whether those incidents represent widespread patterns requires data the hearing did not examine.

Rabbi Jacobs provided Jewish community leadership perspective emphasizing democratic institutions and education-focused responses. Her testimony represents substantial rabbinic opinion but not unanimous Jewish community consensus.

The institutional diagnosis disagreement

The hearing featured two incompatible diagnoses:

The enforcement expansion frame (Neily, Shufutinsky, Lerman): Antisemitism in K-12 schools results from ideological capture of teacher education programs, ethnic studies mandates, teachers' union political activity, and foreign-funded curriculum. Jewish students face hostile environments because schools fail to enforce Title VI. Solution: federal investigations, funding restrictions for non-compliant districts, FARA registration for foreign-funded curriculum, prohibition of antisemitic materials, and scrutiny of union political activity.

The education and partnership frame (Jacobs): Antisemitism in K-12 schools reflects gaps in understanding of Jewish history, identity, and contemporary antisemitism. Some schools fail to respond appropriately to incidents. Solution: invest in antisemitism training for teachers and administrators, partner with Jewish community organizations, strengthen existing civil rights processes, and resist using antisemitism to justify broader attacks on public education or democratic institutions.

The Republican majority framed the hearing as exposing systematic antisemitism in K-12 schools requiring enforcement intervention. Jacobs framed current policy responses as "subordinating the goal of Jewish safety to another political program" including "defunding public education, weakening labor unions, and cracking down on immigrants."

The hearing did not resolve which diagnosis better characterizes the problem or which set of remedies would most effectively protect Jewish students.

Both frames have evidence

The enforcement frame has:

• Documented incidents of anti-Jewish harassment in specific schools
• Evidence of union political activity including BDS resolutions and anti-ADL votes
• Examples of community organizations with anti-Israel positions having school district contracts
• Data showing concentration of teacher training in university systems that have faced antisemitism allegations
• Legal framework (Title VI, EO 13899) supporting federal enforcement

The education and partnership frame has:

• Testimony from 2,300-rabbi organization that antisemitism training and partnership work
• Evidence that T'ruah and similar organizations successfully train schools and community partners
• Historical pattern showing Jewish safety depends on strong democratic institutions and First Amendment protections
• Concern that enforcement-focused responses are used to justify attacks on public education and unions
• Warning that current approaches isolate Jews and invite scapegoating

The hearing occurred in a political context where Republicans seek to restrict ethnic studies programs and limit teachers' union political activity. Democrats emphasize that public education and labor rights are essential to democratic society. Both sides presented evidence supporting their institutional diagnoses. Neither side's evidence definitively refutes the other's framing.

What Title VI requires and doesn't require

Lerman's testimony established the legal framework: Title VI prohibits federally funded schools from permitting students or staff to create hostile environments based on shared ancestry. Schools must take prompt and effective steps to end harassment, eliminate hostile environments, and prevent recurrence.

Schools have multiple response tools that don't restrict speech: communicate opposition to antisemitism, provide counseling and support, establish welcoming campus climate, and ensure students of all backgrounds are included.

What remains contested: which specific teacher activities or curriculum materials create hostile environments requiring intervention versus which constitute protected political speech and age-appropriate education about Middle East conflict.

The IHRA definition provides guidance: criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any other country is not antisemitism. Demonizing, delegitimizing, or applying double standards to Israel likely is antisemitism. But applying this framework to specific classroom materials and teacher activities requires case-by-case analysis the hearing did not conduct.

The definition question

The hearing touched but did not resolve: what constitutes antisemitism versus protected political speech about Israeli government policy?

Lerman testified that when "anger about Israeli government policy spills over into harassment or violence directed at Jews in the United States, or any other country, that's antisemitism."

This principle is clear. The application question is contested: do union cease-fire resolutions, ethnic studies materials criticizing Israeli policy, or AROC's October 7 Instagram post constitute antisemitism, protected political speech, or something in between?

The hearing presented competing frames but did not examine specific materials to evaluate these questions. Neily's characterization that teacher education programs categorize Jews as "oppressors" is her interpretation of critical theory frameworks, not neutral description. Shufutinsky's characterization of Teaching Palestine as antisemitic is based on advocacy organization analysis, not independent review.

The definitional disagreement extends to community organizations. AROC's October 7 post stating "Palestine is rising! Gaza is rising!" can be read as celebrating Hamas violence or as expressing Palestinian resistance. AROC's MoU with SFUSD to provide "cultural empowerment" can be read as legitimate cultural education or as providing antisemitic organization access to students.

Rabbi Jacobs testified that "American Jews feel a kinship and responsibility for other Jews across the world, including the half of the Jewish people who live in Israel. And the vast majority of Jews see their concern for Israel and Israelis — including the hostages taken by Hamas — as an expression of their Judaism and Jewish identity."

This explains why many Jews experience anti-Israel activity as antisemitism. It does not resolve whether all criticism of Israeli policy constitutes harassment of American Jews based on shared ancestry.

Voice

This analysis presents the 10 September 2025 House hearing's established record versus its contested institutional questions. The hearing documented specific mechanisms by which contested materials reach K-12 students: university teacher education programs, union political activity and recommended resources, community organization partnerships, and foreign-funded Arabic language programs.

Whether these mechanisms constitute systematic antisemitism requiring enforcement intervention or isolated problems requiring education and partnership was not resolved. Both interpretations have support in the hearing record.

The hearing established that antisemitic incidents occur in K-12 schools. Jewish students have been harassed, teachers have introduced contested materials, and unions have conducted political activity regarding Israel. How widespread these problems are, whether they reflect ideological capture or knowledge gaps, and what remedies would most effectively protect Jewish students while preserving democratic institutions and free inquiry remained contested.

Readers seeking evidence that K-12 schools are systematically failing Jewish students will find sworn testimony and documented examples supporting that conclusion. Readers seeking evidence that current enforcement approaches subordinate Jewish safety to attacks on public education and democratic institutions will also find support. The hearing record accommodates both readings.

What the hearing established: Jewish students at specific K-12 schools have experienced antisemitic harassment. Teachers' unions have conducted political activity including BDS resolutions and votes to sever ADL ties. Community organizations with anti-Israel positions have contracts to provide services in schools. University teacher education programs train most K-12 teachers. Foreign-funded language programs operate in U.S. schools. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on shared ancestry.

What the hearing cannot establish from this evidence: whether the appropriate response requires federal enforcement expansion, curriculum restrictions, and union activity limits, or whether it requires increased investment in antisemitism education, stronger community partnerships, and protection of democratic institutions. That question sits at the level of political philosophy about how best to protect minority groups in a pluralistic democracy. The September 10 hearing produced evidence both sides will cite. It did not produce a dispositive factual record resolving the underlying institutional disagreement.

Sources

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. "From Playground to Classroom: The Spread of Antisemitism in K-12 Schools." Hearing held 10 September 2025. Witness written statements available via House Republicans Education and Labor Committee uploads.