To think that the mother/daughter duo who took Michaela to court should face some natural consequences?

Do you not like Muslims?

It is shocking to me that parents would agree to a particular school philosophy to get their child admitted, and then rescind that acceptance and try to bully the school into changing the policy.

This. The point was she wasn't exercising her religious freedom in isolation, she was intimidating other children. There have also been threats against teachers.

ALL UK schools should be secular.
There’s no need for any school (aside from teaching the basic religious Ed) to be involved in religions. I’m including ALL religions in this opinion.

There’s absolutely no reason why parents who wish to bring up their children within religion, cannot support that to take place at home or place of worship. Schools do not need to be places for worship.

For faiths who pray multiple times a day, parents are still allowed in the UK to remove their children from school over the lunch time break. Therefore prayers can take place, before school, lunch times, after school and evening.

. If a prayer space is provided for one faith, then a similar space must be provided for each of the other faiths

It wouldn't always be a physical space. We can refer to space meaning capacity to understand or compromise.

The way to deal with any challenge is to investigate what the core issues are & seek a mediated outcome.

That doesn't sanction bullying or aggression. Or mean creating an unworkable environment.

It's deeply sad that there's no openness to consider alternative perspectives

They are not banning difference. They are tolerant of people from all religions but have set up a school where no religion has any part in how it works. If that does not suit people then they should not choose the school- there are plenty of schools that allow religious practices on site.

Thanks

There are many reasons why there is no (open) religious observance. The bullying aspect, mentioned above, for one. And this wasn't just among the children - it was adopted by parents who threatened staff and pupils of the school.

The separation of the children by religious faith, for another - Mrs Birbalsingh wants them to see each other as human beings and individuals - not as "Muslims", "Jews", Christians", "Hindus", "Buddhists", "Atheists" etc - that is where sectarianism starts, and it invariably leads to discrimination and intolerance.

Plus there is the practical aspect. If a prayer space is provided for one faith, then a similar space must be provided for each of the other faiths. Schools are absolutely strapped for space - there is no room.

A devout person of any faith is capable of praying silently, and alone. If they want to truly connect with their God, they will do so in the peace of their hearts and minds.

The ethos and rules of the school are made clear and pupils are expected to adhere to them. That is how the school gets such good results. That is why parents want their children to get a place there.

It just takes ONE child to disrupt an entire lesson - or indeed, an entire school.

The head is inspirational

I couldn't disagree more. For sure, there's a well-run, organised school community. And I formerly was impressed by her philosophy.

But ruling children in such constrained ways, no critical thinking skills fostered, does not prepare them for the teal world & is singularly joyless.

I can see why it's appealing, given the challenges facing the UK education system. I'm very glad we don't take similar approaches in Ireland.

It’s not a recent rule change, the school has always been secular. the recent change is students praying in the playground, against the ethos of the school, read this statement before judging.

@EarringsandLipstick the school is very clear about their secular policy. They asked all parents to sign up to the ethos before starting at the school.

The school ask everyone to compromise and even If they wanted to introduce a prayer room there were major practicalities such as availability of rooms for all the children and faiths. I am very glad the ruling allows the school to continue with their philosophy. The head is inspirational

Tolerance is the opposite of banning prayer. Preventing people from praying and enforcing secular behaviour is not tolerance.

It is also exclusive not inclusive.

You can't respect diversity by banning difference.

I think that question is a reasonable one to ask in a court - in a secular school do I have the right to do x y z.

There are rights a child has in every school, rights they only have in some schools and rights they have in no school - it is good to understand this in more detail.

Prayer does not have to be public and/or performative to be sincere.

Absolutely. And that kind of discussion is ideally what should have happened - a balancing of multiple needs.

For some faiths, a quick silent prayer may suffice. Potentially for a Muslim, it may not, in terms of how prayer is carried out.

It's shocking to me that Michaela was not interested in any accommodation (notwithstanding I appreciate there were broader issues around possible intimidation and coercion which is unacceptable).

I thought (the rule was introduced) was that they started harassing Muslim children who weren't joining in with the prayers?

Yes and no

The lack of prayer facilities/insistence on secularism had always been there, but according to the judgment this had never presented a problem until the claimant and friends spoke to a visitor who happened to be the Head of an Islamic faith school, who stuck his oar in to suggest they pray outside

Apparently this was the point when they started to do just that, which spread to a larger group over the week and resulted in intimidation, racism, bomb scares, bricks through windows and the claimant's threats to stab other pupils - and understandably horrified, this is when the Head/Governors banned in-school prayer rituals altogether

If that's what you want though, don't choose a secular school. There are lots of choices in society- I am so sick of people who try to force their choices on people/places who are clear about their position- if you don't like it, don't go there, don't mix with people who upset you. Difference is good. We don't all need to be the same. There is a difference between not being the same as others and not tolerating difference.

They’re being inclusive by deliberately offending those of faith

Nonsense.

The school contains pupils of many faiths, and of none. Children who want to pray can do so silently, in their heads, as many people do day in, day out.

Prayer does not have to be public and/or performative to be sincere.

@Emotionalsupportviper

But how is that respectful or inclusive, to argue about timings, and suggest praying can be done later, rather than finding a middle ground?

I'm not talking about the ruling per se; in law, it is correct, and in practice too, valid points are being made.

But the idea that because a school is secular, it cannot accommodate religious observance, is ridiculous. Secularity should refer to the school-organised events or initiatives, and teaching, not to banning individual choice around observance.

No, of course I don’t, but you’re presenting it as though it’s a deliberate choice. They’re being inclusive by deliberately offending those of faith.

tolerating others does not mean not removing the ability to pray.

I posted a link upthread where a Muslim community leader said that these prayer times were not compulsory 0 the children could pray later in the evening at home.

If the set times were compulsory, why would a parent pick a school which didn't allow them?

I went to a secular secondary school where the head teacher was Jewish and the Muslim pupils were given a room to pray in at lunchtime and during lessons. I find it hard to imagine that school wouldn't support that. This was in the 90's though so things may have changed. Also I have always lived where there is no real choice of secondary school and the majority of pupils go to their catchment school. The school in the article seems a bit odd in all sorts of ways. Thankfully in that area there seems to be choices about which school to send your child to.

@KTheGrey

Compromise?? Katharine Birbalsingh doesn't compromise ..,

I had read that, too - that a group of Muslim children had begun praying during the lunch hour, but not content with praying themselves, they began bullying other, less "devout" children who wanted to spend their free time in other ways. When teachers had stopped this bullying behaviour may have been when he threats etc started.

I would encourage everyone to read the judgement PP posted. It’s very enlightening about the context and why Michaela school banned prayer

Agree once again, and as the thread's gone on it's become increasingly clear who's read it and who hasn't

For a start it clarifies why the bullying/violence wasn't irrelevant/a separate issue at all ...

There is no prayer room-in line with Michaela's equal treatment of religion, inclusive not divisive secular policy.
Thus Muslims began praying in the playground, leading to the school receiving vile threats from lobby groups & fanatics believing the Muslims were singled out, an 'oppressed group'.
Muslims are 50% - & increasing - of the pupils.
It's good to have the judgement support this ethos against divisive idpol, & the mother should let someone else have a turn with the legal aid & concentrate on some closer to home parenting.
Michaela is an important school, it demonstrates the positivity of setting boundaries & believing children can-do, instead of lowest common denominator pandering.