UK's strictest Headmistress taken to school over banning prayers in the playground

[cakeorwine]

Top London school taken to high court over prayer ban | London | The Guardian

I don't believe that schools should have a compulsory act of worship.
However - it seems that there has been a ban on prayer rituals on the premises.

"The prayer policy was introduced in March last year by the school’s founder, Katharine Birbalsingh – frequently described as Britain’s strictest headteacher – when the school found itself the target of abuse and harassment after pupils were seen praying in the school playground by passersby. About 30 students took part, some kneeling on their blazers as they were not permitted to bring in prayer mats, the court heard.
Before these events, the court heard that prayers were not expressly banned at Michaela, though it had no dedicated prayer room. The new policy had the “practical effect of only preventing Muslims from praying because their prayer by nature has a ritualised nature rather than being internal”, the court heard.
The pupil’s lawyer said it was in effect “a ban uniquely on Muslim prayer”, stopping pupils praying “at a time as required by Islam”. In contrast, it would not, she said, prevent a Christian child sitting quietly in the corner of the playground from praying"

I think it seems that prayer mats were banned - and I think it seems they were banned from kneeling on blazers.

If someone wants to pray in the playground voluntarily, then they should be able to. It's not an act of compulsory worship.

I can see why they wanted this kept quiet.

@Anisette No school has ever succeeded in applying to their local authority’s Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education to change the character of their collective worship (technically required under UK law). Michaela’s prospectus made it clear from the outset that it would not cater to individual religions. The convention has been that Head Teachers are able to make their own policies.

The school is located in a very densely populated part of London with excellent public transport. There is no need for any family to select it as one of their top choices if they fundamentally disagree with its ethos.

Tbh I don't often think litigation is driven by poor motivation but this certainly is. The result seems much more likely to harden what is matter of discretion now into something less liberal.

That would be pretty perverse, imo.

Fair enough, that was badly phrased, it's true that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is limited to disability. However, refusing a reasonable request, or withdrawing something that was previously permitted, may be discrimination if it is done without a good reason in the interests of the school and its staff and pupils. Michaela would no doubt point to the bullying that was happening, but they still have to show that it was reasonable to ban it completely in what is not a secular school, where they accommodated it previously apparently without problems, where they don't ban people of other faiths from prayer, where they proclaim that they have wonderful and effective discipline processes in place, and where other schools manage to accommodate this practice without apparent difficulty.

That's the point - people keep saying Michaela is a secular school, but it isn't. It should also be complying with the law on collective worship.

Did it make its attitude to religion clear from the outset? Did it specifically say it would not allow anyone to pray in school? Why, if that was the case, did they only impose a ban last March? The point is not so much that they are being asked to cater for particular religions, as that they are being asked not to stop individual pupils from exercising non-intrusive religious practices. As I understand it, they have accepted that they would not, for instance, stop a child who sits in the corner and sends up a quiet Christian prayer. The problem arises because of the requirement in Islam for specified prayer frequency, but it still need not be intrusive: all they need is a quiet space for 5 minutes during break times, and the only reason Michaela have given for not allowing this is that they don't want to trust pupils to come into the building on their own during breaks. No Headteacher can make a policy that breaks the law.

Whether there is "no need" for families to select the school really depends on how oversubscribed other good schools are. As I said, it may be that you would prefer another good school in the area but, because you are closer to Michaela and the preferred school is oversubscribed, you won't realistically get your preference. Frankly, parents can be quite lazy about this and may opt for schools like Michaela just because they live near so it's less hassle. There is additionally the factor that children don't necessarily agree with their parents about the ethos of the school they are placed in but, in this case, were OK to stay there because the school was previously not interfering in their practice of their religion.

The result seems much more likely to harden what is matter of discretion now into something less liberal

That would be pretty perverse, imo

Very much agree with this @bombastix, and with those not noted for liberalism a reduction might well suit

I suspect the real issue with discretion is that it can involve saying no, and that's not always welcome among the staunchly religious no matter what faith - though oddly enough they often get offended if their own diktats are challenged

Yes the issue is the end of discretion and a hardening towards either;

A) there must be provision (which, given the proportion of Muslim students in Micheala could fundamentally change the character of the school and KB's intent)

B) a rejection of the idea of s multicultural school with secularism as a purpose

C) A and B would need to be addressed as the satellite litigation of religious issues in schools would develop and the actual obligation of schools is unclear.

Which leads not to the discretionary prayer room but an actual issue for government policy which will need consideration at a much higher level. Meanwhile the overall point about a head teachers discretion is destroyed because of religion.

There is a lot to be said for English fudge- it's wise imo. The motivations behind the case are the promotion of religious ideas from adults. I hope if it pursued to the end that KB wins. If she doesn't, then secularise schools against this as matter of public policy.

Agree with the appeal of the “English fudge”. Thank goodness schools are not ever forced to facilitate the requirement for collective worship.

Since its inception Michaela has made it clear that it would not be providing a prayer room and would therefore not be facilitating collective acts of worship. Quite obviously there is nothing they or anyone else can do about an individual silently praying. Although the police have tried with Christians praying in the vicinity of abortion clinics.

Even if this isn't true what a waste of money

Perhaps if the parents had to pay for this themselves then they wouldn't kick up such a fuss

However surely it would be sensible of the school provided a prayer room in the first place

Pretty sure a school won't be getting legal aid and as far as I know legal aid will only cough up if they think there's over a 50% chance of winning or something. Hopefully someone can clarify?

There’s no question of the school being forced by this ruling to provide a prayer room. Michaela is not getting Legal Aid to fund their defence.

II can remember when Christian culture finally faded out of most peoples lives and stopped being part of the state. We decided we wanted a different society. There is no question in my mind that the very religious, Islam or whatever should expect special provision in schools. They shouldn't. Social cohesion is a legitimate aim and religion is divisive. And I hope this mess finally means the Government legislates to make that clear after the result. You can't have individual schools and their staff sued on the public purse to satisfy very particular requirements each time; there would be no limit to what would be needed for each religion in reality.

There's a difference between a school being non-religious in nature and the school enforcing any sort of rule against religion amongst its pupils. It can't legislate over their beliefs and opinions and shouldn't try to. For example, the school shouldn't try to prevent pupils from wearing scarves or yarmulkas for religious reasons, and I gather that Michaela doesn't.

However, that also means that the school has to recognise that religions involve prayer, and I believe that Michaela conceded that they wouldn't try to prevent, say, a Christian child from praying. The oddity here is that they allow Moslem girls to wear scarves as a requirement of their religion but don't apparently accept (at least since last year) that praying a number of times a day is also a requirement of their religion which they should allow, particularly as it doesn't impinge on lessons.

I don't think this ever happened. Many of us (especially in rural areas) have no choice but to send our children to a religious school. Yes, this is a historical anomaly, but it has very real affects - such as children of one religion being prioritised over those of other religions (or none).

I was looking for a thread on this - what do we think of the verdict?

I'm shocked! Have just listened to the discussion about this on Radio 4. Girls forbidden from praying in the playground? Pupils not allowed to gather in groups of more than 4 due to "lack of space"? It sounds really heavy handed to me.

@Pocketfullofdogtreats I assume it's because it's a secular school, not a mosque/church/temple etc.

I think it is best for religion to be kept out of schools entirely. In this case, the school was expressly non religious and the court’s decision seems fair in that context.

My thoughts exactly @WarmWinterSun

Of course! But it also seems to go against the historic tolerance of free speech (and in this case, freedom of worship) that we have in this country. I can see there might be other issues ( like more 'lax' Moslem children feeling pressured to join in) but still, it seems to me to be curtailing freedoms and I feel a bit uncomfortable about this.

@Pocketfullofdogtreats But the Head Teacher would argue the pupils are all treated equally and therefore prayer should be a private matter and not distracting from the school day.

I was at a football match up north recently and there was a prayer room in the corner of the ground. At the 60 minute mark a number of stewards went off into the prefab and we're there for some time. Now I'm sure the club gave itself lots of pats on the back for being "inclusive" and engaging with the "community" what would happen if there was a pitch invasion or something? Saying you were praying isn't going to be of any comfort to the fan or player that's been beaten up.

IMO, the court's verdict was absolutely correct. Michaela is resolutely secular, so pick another school if it really matters to you.

... the Head Teacher would argue the pupils are all treated equally and therefore prayer should be a private matter and not distracting from the school day

And IMO she'd be right, but then I'm another who'd rather religion - all religion - was kept out of schools completely

Me too - right decision in my view, but there will be a long way to go via the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and no doubt the ECtHR - although maybe it will take so long that the girl/parents involved will have left the school by then.

parkrun500club according to the Headteacher's statement, this particular mum has another child she's also signed up to the school - and, incidentally, another case she's hoping to bring against them for something else she apparently doesn't like:

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

Edited to quote relevant bit:
"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"

I'm glad that the school won.