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

I do find it mind blowing that the school controls their break to this extent, but it obviously gets them the results they're aiming for.

Given the horrendous behaviour going on in many schools I’d be surprised if more didn’t start going down this road.

How has tax payers money been used? You can't get Legal Aid in practically all situations, even the most serious.

This.

I'm religious, but this headteacher sounds phenomenal. If my faith didn't have its own schools, I'd be sending them to hers in a heartbeat.

100%

Also academies manage their own admissions, in many Boroughs there are very few schools where admissions are still managed by the LA I.e. there aren't many maintained schools left, especially at secondary.

From that Spectator article:

Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this? The judge is clear that the child’s statements were not written by her alone. Indeed this mum intends to send her second child to Michaela, starting in September. At the same time, this mum has sent a letter to our lawyers suggesting that she may take us to court yet again over another issue at the school she doesn’t like, presumably once again at the taxpayer’s expense.

Yes, it is absolutely right that taxpayer money should be used to challenge things. Otherwise only rich people can go to court.

Useful link below which answers your question, OP - the relevant bit is "An employer is under no obligation to automatically give staff time off for religious holidays or festivals, time to pray or a place to pray. However, it should consider requests carefully and sympathetically, be reasonable and flexible where possible, and discuss the request and explore any concerns with the employee. Refusing a request without a good business reason could amount to discrimination. An employee, in making a request, should be reasonable, flexible and sympathetic too in taking into account the demands of their job and the needs of the organisation employing them"

https://www.acas.org.uk/sites/default/files/inline-files/religion-belief-discrimination-guide.pdf

This is a free school, I think that makes a difference?

@Puzzledandpissedoff non-selective school admissions aren't at the whim of the headmistress. They are administered by the local council (Brent in this case). Heads neither know, nor have any control, over who has been offered a place.

Those who think this was correct application of the law (which I'm sure it is), would the same apply if it were a maintained school or an academy? I.e. parents had less choice about sending their child there?

I do find it mind blowing that the school controls their break to this extent, but it obviously gets them the results they're aiming for.

Since they are unhappy with the school. I'm amazed they want to send the younger child there. As the head teacher said, by applying to the school, they signed up for the schools ethos. I remember my parents being told similar when they applied for my Catholic school.

I'm an atheist and am against faith schools. However, I do not see any reason why a student should not be allowed to pray during break or lunch time on school grounds, whether it is a secular school or not. As long as a student is in an area where they are allowed to be, during non-lesson time, why shouldn't they be allowed to engage in any activity they like which does no harm to others?

I teach in a secular, very culturally diverse girls' grammar school, which is very supportive of students' cultures, including their religion. We have a prayer and reflection room, which anyone can use, but which is mostly used by our Muslim girls during Ramadan.

If there was already a policy in place when this child joined the school, specifically stating that prayer was not allowed on school grounds, then the family are being unreasonable. If not, then they are justified. I am not a fan of the Michaela School's methods, or Birbalsingh's attitude.

No I think they were fine to challenge this as they were doing what they believe is right from the point of view of their religion.

But I also believe the court made the right decision.

For those asking about the "other case being brought", the Headteacher's statement is below - the paywall can be ignored if you just scroll down to see the script in a smaller space

Frankly I'm surprised that she admitted the second child at all after this, but doubtless there'd have been yet another case brought if she'd refused

And I only wish we could get rid of all religious observance in schools and leave it as a private choice where it belongs

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-michaela-court-ruling-is-a-victory-for-all-schools/

There are no sports facilities or playing fields, and barely a playground. Birbalsingh seems to think that sport is a bourgeois indulgence and the school appears to do only the bare minimum required PE. A lunchtime kick about, or pickup game of rounders is definitely not on the cards.

A lot of behaviour issues everywhere would be improved if no one ever was allowed to congregate in groups of more than 4 however it would just be completely fucking shit.

They introduced the new policy in an "emergency" situation after intimidating behaviour.

Michaela School: Reversing prayer ban would expose school to risk, High Court hears www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68013174

"Mr Coppel said that during March 2023 "Muslim children were observed to be applying peer pressure to other Muslim children to act in certain ways".

One student who had never previously worn a headscarf was "pressured into wearing one", while a Muslim pupil dropped out of the school's choir as she was told it was "haram", or forbidden, the court heard."

It sounds like the rule was introduced to protect students from each other.

www.theguardian.com/education/2024/apr/16/london-school-katharine-birbalsingh-prayer-rituals-ban-not-unlawful-high-court

"Birbalsingh warned against a false narrative about Muslims being an oppressed minority at Michaela. “They are, in fact, the largest group. Those who are most at risk are other minorities and Muslim children who are less observant. If parents do not like what Michaela is, they do not need to send their children to us."

I am very pleased with the court’s ruling, it is the right one. I believe in a total separation between church and state. There should be no state funded religious schools at all.

I am also fine with the younger child attending the school, she shouldn’t be punished for the actions of the litigious mother (nobody believes this was all driven by the daughter)

I also think we should be like France and have no religion at all at school . The whole faith school Academy thing has done terrible damage to our state education system. As a lifelong Labour voter and teacher of 40 years I can see that Tony Blair has alot to answer for . I am glad that the schools principles have been upheld in court.

Actually I think the school should be proud of their pupil here. She had the strength of conviction to pursue her cause through a mature method, rather than just stamping her foot and going "its not fair".

They weren't asking for prayer breaks. They wanted to pray in their break.

A lot of behaviour issues in other schools would be improved if not allowed to congregate in groups of more than 4

But they weren't asking for a prayer room, just to be allowed to pray in the playground during their lunch break.