Jewish Californians represent roughly three percent (3%) of California’s population, yet account for three-quarters (~75%) of all religion-based hate crimes. Antisemitic activity in California’s public schools shows a clear upward trajectory.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reports a 623 percent surge in antisemitic incidents in California schools over the past decade. National ADL audits reinforce the trend: the organization documented 1,162 antisemitic incidents in U.S. K-12 schools during 2023 and 860 in 2024, a 434 percent jump since 2020. California consistently ranks among the top three states in these tallies.

Even these figures likely understate the challenge. California’s DOJ acknowledges chronic under-reporting, and the state’s Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP) captured only a fraction of the incidents community groups logged during the same period, indicating that many families may never file or that complaints stall at the local level.

The data confirm that antisemitism in California schools is systemic. While AB 715 will not eliminate the problem, its clearer definitions, standardized complaint timelines, and centralized oversight are indispensable first steps toward reversing the upward trend.

---

Legislation Overview

Antisemitic incidents in California’s K-12 system continue to climb, yet the Education Code still lacks a uniform standard for prevention and timely redress. AB 715 responds by (1) expanding civil-rights definitions in §§ 212 and 212.3 to include antisemitism, (2) identifying clear classroom conditions that constitute an “antisemitic learning environment” (§§ 238–239), (3) creating an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator within the State Board of Education (§§ 33060–33062), and (4) establishing balanced-instruction safeguards and fiscal penalties for non-compliance (§§ 60049, 60050, 60151).

ICAN supports the bill because it moves state policy toward safer, more balanced classrooms. At the same time, we recognize that AB 715 is not a silver bullet. Even with passage, additional monitoring and complementary reforms will be needed to address the full spectrum of antisemitic behavior and instructional bias we have documented. The amendments outlined in this memo would sharpen the bill’s impact, but our endorsement does not hinge on their adoption.

---

Key Provisions and Community Impact

• Civil-rights clarity. By modernizing §§ 212 and 212.3, the bill places antisemitism squarely within existing anti-discrimination law, ensuring Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP) filings citing antisemitic bias are unquestionably actionable.

• Objective classroom standard. New §§ 238–239 list concrete behaviors—such as Holocaust denial, collective blame, or portraying Israel as uniquely evil—that define an “antisemitic learning environment,” giving investigators a clear benchmark.

• Instructional guardrails. Section 60049 requires any lesson on Jews, Israel, or the Israel-Palestine conflict to be accurate, balanced, and formally approved by the local board, while § 60050 applies a neutrality rule to all controversial topics.

• Enforcement with effect. Under § 60151, the Superintendent may withhold funds equal to the cost of offending materials if an LEA fails to act within sixty days, creating a real fiscal deterrent.

• Centralized expertise. The new Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator will train educators, track complaints, and guide corrective action, replacing today’s patchwork approach.

---

Suggested Improvements

Although ICAN’s current support is unconditional, the bill would benefit from several refinements:

• Strike § 60050(b) lines 7-13. The safe-harbor that allows teachers to inject personal viewpoints—however “nondiscriminatory”—destroys the neutrality standard the bill is designed to enforce. Teachers wield inherent authority; a single “personal” remark can become de-facto district policy, opening the door to partisan or ideological indoctrination that the governing board never reviewed, parents cannot anticipate, and investigators cannot police. Removing this clause is essential to keep the classroom a forum for balanced, standards-based instruction rather than a platform for individual advocacy.

• Incorporate the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Referencing a widely accepted standard will help administrators apply the law as new forms of antisemitic expression emerge.

• Accelerate and expand UCP remedies. Shorten the corrective-action window from sixty to thirty days and empower the Coordinator to issue binding directives when an LEA misses a deadline.

• Correct procedural mismatches and clarify enforcement mechanics. Revise §§ 244, 60049 and 60151 to mirror actual district practice: have the district craft one balanced, board-adopted lesson (not teacher-by-teacher supplements); leave complaint investigations and professional-development approvals with the UCP coordinator or superintendent, not the governing board; state that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction/CDE remands non-compliant cases under a firm resolution timeline and must order meaningful corrective action.

• Define “discrimination” with a uniform, student-centered test. Amend Ed. Code § 220—or add bill language—to specify that discrimination means unequal inclusion or exclusion on a protected basis. An antisemitic learning environment exists when Jewish students are not equally included, safe, or free from antisemitic bullying, ensuring investigators apply a consistent standard instead of divergent thresholds.

---

AB 715 represents a crucial step toward classrooms free from hate and misinformation. It will not single-handedly solve every problem ICAN has documented, but it establishes the legal and administrative foundation on which further progress can be built. We therefore support the passage of AB 715 and will continue to work with legislators, educators, and community partners to refine and expand these protections in future sessions.