As far as public school funding, that is a red herring.
In a majority Yeshivish town (such as Lakewood, or Ramapo), the costs of an exponential birth rate should get paid by higher taxes on owners, whether those children go to public or private school (as there are additional costs such as busing and Special Ed). The problem is that the Jews refuse to pay the taxes needed to support the services that are required by their exponential birth rate (and you see it in Ramapo as well), so services that public school children (usually minorities) are used to having get cut, which is politically unacceptable once you get out of the small daled amos of your little school district. So yes, public school vs. private is a red herring. It is the members of district that is unwilling to pay, and now realizing that they (the majority) may have to lose out on services as well.
If they don’t want Jews because the Jews do things that are uniquely Jewish, that I would call anti-semitism. But even if you are too shy to call it that, call it what you want, but Jewish growth isn’t going to stop because some locals don’t like it.
I believe his point is that they are against large families, not Jews. Is being a member of the “anti-natal society” inherently anti-Semitic? How about if a Jewish retirement community opened up and didn’t allow children (as most don’t). Would they also be “anti-Semitic”?