This report centers on a recent survey, designed by Blueprint Institute and conducted by YouGov, aimed at measuring the prevalence and types of antisemitism manifesting within Australian public schools. It is important to note that a rise in antisemitism— or indeed the vilification or dehumanisation of any minority group—have been shown to be leading indicators of democratic backsliding, and deteriorating levels of social cohesion. These are issues of critical importance to all Australians, regardless of race, background, or religion. We have chosen to focus our analysis on public schools for pragmatic reasons, however there is evidence to suggest that unacceptably high levels of antisemitism also exist within independent
schools.

The design of this paper and poll was finalised prior to the Hamas attacks of October 7th, however fieldwork for the poll itself was conducted throughout November 2023, during the aftermath of the attack, and the ongoing substantial loss of life in the Middle East.

Our poll, consisting of a nationally representative sample of 510 employees in the Australian public school workforce, has uncovered widespread reports  antisemitism in Australian primary and secondary schools. 61 of 510—or 12%—of educators said that they had witnessed, but had not been a direct victim of antisemitism. 103 respondents—or 20%—reported they had been informed by others of antisemitic incidents. One percent (five educators) indicated that they had been a direct victim of antisemitism. Our survey also asked about the frequency of antisemitic incidents, and our results suggest an average of approximately 75,000 incidents per year in government schools across the country.

Our research indicates that there are a multitude of factors which may be influencing the levels of antisemitism in public schools, including— conflating the political with the personal, apathy towards antisemitism amongst some members of the teaching workforce, cultural factors, poor pedagogical approaches to teaching the Holocaust, and the influence of social media in spreading and normalising antisemitic content.

Designing an effective set of interventions that reduces antisemitic incidents in public schools necessitates state and territory government action in schools and federal government action on social media. We recommend,

1. State education departments and schools analyse existing data—including incident reports and larger scale student surveys than the one we have been able to undertake—to identify geographic hotspots—areas with high rates of reported antisemitic behaviour. The results of this analysis will then allow the relevant state body to stage its response, focusing on the most urgent needs, and addressing the potentially idiosyncratic drivers behind local antisemitic incidents.

2. Once an understanding of the most urgent needs and their contributing factors has been developed, we recommend the deployment of evidence-based interventions designed to reduce antisemitism—examples of which include updates to existing anti- racism frameworks, specialised professional development courses to identify and address contemporary manifestations of antisemitism, reforms to improve Holocaust  education and pedagogy and targeted racial and religious anti-bullying campaigns. While senior leaders must ultimately be held accountable for reducing antisemitism in schools, we advocate for a bottom-up approach that empowers individual schools and the communities they serve to decide which interventions best suit their unique
circumstances.

3. The federal government should prioritise the continued tracking and prevention of inflammatory international and domestic disinformation campaigns, particularly given that recent technological advances continue to lower the cost of creating and disseminating convincing disinformation at scale.

We conduct rigorous analysis focused on improving outcomes for educators and students. We find evidence based solutions to ensure that every Australian child is given the best chance to succeed.

Over the last decade, fees at independent schools have risen by over 50% nationwide, 54% in major cities, and in some instances up to 80%—far outstripping both inflation and wage growth, and creating an affordability crisis for families across Australia. The lack of transparency around non-government school expenditure presently means that funds raised from school fees are often used on significant expenses that neither parents nor government are aware of. This feeds into the uncontrolled year-on-year fee increases.

The taxpayer spends $18 billion per year on funding private schools under the guise of providing ‘educational choice’ to families. But this justification becomes indefensible when that choice is removed unless families take on credit card debt or remortgage their homes to pay for school.

– Blueprint CEO David Cross.

The non-government school sector is not a free market. These schools are not ‘private’ in the truest sense of the word. Any entity that receives such vast quantities of public funds has a responsibility to publicly demonstrate it provides benefit to a broad subsection of society.

Our analysis finds:

• Independent school fees rose by 50% nationwide over the decade ending in 2020, exceeding both inflation (22%) and wage growth (29%). 
• In Sydney and Melbourne, independent school fees increased by 54% from 2010–2019/20. 
• Independent schools are maintaining their enrolment share versus the government and Catholic systems because parents are putting themselves under increasing financial strain to pay for fees.
• One in three parents (32%) with children at non-government schools have resorted to taking on credit card debt, redrawing the mortgage on their home, turning to extended family for help, or seeking loans elsewhere in order to close the gap between stagnating wages and escalating fees.
• Fifteen percent of families are using credit cards in particular to pay for school fees.
• Flush with cash, independent schools are increasingly focused on spending money raised from school fees on projects with no educational purpose, such as superfluous capital works, sporting equipment, and overseas travel. 
• There has been a disproportionate increase in executive salaries at independent schools—with some principals at large, capital-city schools now earning well over $600,000.

In the interest of preserving educational choice, this Blueprint short paper proposes a transparency mechanism to ensure that non-government schools are fiscally responsible, and justify their fee increases to the public (and to parents) in order to receive continued public funding.

To put downward pressure on fee increases and stop exorbitant spending, Blueprint proposes the creation of a statutorily independent ‘Non-government School Transparency Advisory Committee’ by each state government. If schools wish to raise their fees beyond Blueprint’s proposed ‘affordability marker’ (10% above the cumulative rise in WPI or CPI (whichever is greater), indexed to 2010), they must apply to their relevant Committee and justify their proposed fee increases in order to continue to receive public funding.

The very existence of these Committees would result in extensive self regulation. Non-government schools will be more reluctant to spend money earned from fees on superfluous capital works, exorbitant executive salaries, travel, and luxury items if they know they have to publicly defend said expenses to the Committee and fee-paying parents.

This report is the first of our 'short papers' designed to spur public policy debate by proposing policies and reform ideas.