Recent developments surrounding the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill have understandably caused concern within parts of the Jewish community, particularly among those connected to yeshivah education.
In recent days, however, a clearer picture has begun to emerge — not least through the intervention of the Bishop of Manchester, who has been closely engaged in discussions with ministers and civil servants.
His involvement has helped clarify a crucial point: that yeshivot are not schools in the conventional sense, and should not be regulated as if they were.
That intervention is itself noteworthy. Based on Bury New Road in Salford, at the heart of one of the UK’s largest Jewish communities, the Bishop has longstanding relationships with local rabbonim and communal leaders. Through forums such as the Greater Manchester Faith and Community Leaders’ Forum, he has developed a close familiarity with the character and ethos of yeshivah education.
For many families, yeshivah education is not merely an alternative educational model. It is a deeply held way of transmitting values, discipline and identity across generations. At its core lies an intensive commitment to Torah study – “vehagita bo yomam valayla” (“and you shall meditate upon it [Torah] day and night”) – a tradition sustained for centuries. The study of Torah – encompassing Chumash, Mishnah, Talmud and the vast corpus of commentaries and halachic works – shapes not only knowledge, but character and communal belonging. Its distinctiveness is not a deficiency to be corrected, but the very reason families seek it out.
At the same time, it should be recognised that within the Torah community, there exists a range of legitimate educational models. Some institutions, following the tradition of Torah im derech eretz, integrate provision for general studies alongside Limudei Kodesh (the study of Jewish sacred texts). Others — including the yeshivah ketanah framework — pursue a different, equally rooted pathway, in which the formative years are devoted more exclusively to Torah study. These are not competing claims to authenticity, but distinct expressions of a shared commitment to Torah life. Any regulatory framework must therefore be sensitive to this diversity, rather than assuming a single model as normative.
The most immediate clarification is that yeshivot will not be designated as “schools” under the new legislation. This removes a central concern: that they might be brought wholesale within the regulatory framework designed for mainstream educational institutions, including the imposition of the National Curriculum and independent school standards.
Instead, the Government is proposing a new category — “Independent Educational Bodies” — under which settings such as yeshivot would fall. The detail of how this category will be regulated has yet to be determined and is expected to be developed through consultation.
At first glance, this may appear to be a concession. In reality, it is better understood as a recognition of a longstanding position.
Under-16 yeshivah education has not operated as part of the statutory school system. It has historically existed within the framework of elective home education, under which parents retain primary responsibility for their children’s education. That framework has never required adherence to the National Curriculum and has long accommodated a wide range of educational approaches, including those rooted in intensive religious study.
What the Bill sought to do was introduce greater structure into this space — particularly through registration and oversight — without fully resolving how settings such as yeshivot should be classified. Recent discussions have, in effect, required Government to confront that question more directly.
The emerging approach — treating yeshivot as a distinct category rather than as schools — is therefore not a matter of special pleading, but of appropriate classification.
At the same time, this is not the end of the process. It marks the beginning of a new phase.
Over the coming months, key issues will need to be addressed, including the number of hours children spend in yeshivah settings, the nature of safeguarding arrangements, the relationship between yeshivah attendance and home education, and questions surrounding relationships and sex education.
These are not peripheral matters. They go to the heart of how yeshivot function — not as conventional schools, but as part of a broader educational and communal framework in which formal study, family responsibility and community life are closely intertwined.
For that reason, any regulatory approach that simply imports the assumptions of the school system is unlikely to be either effective or appropriate.
The opportunity now lies in the consultation process. If approached constructively, it offers the possibility of developing a framework that both addresses legitimate safeguarding concerns and respects the distinctive character of yeshivah education.
What has been achieved so far is not a final settlement.
It is the establishment of the right framework — within which the real work must now begin.
Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag is a UK representative of the Coalition for Jewish Values and a communal rabbi based in Manchester
To get more from community, click here to sign up for our free community newsletter.