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

[KTheGrey]

Apparently the mother involved wants to send her younger child to the school she finds so unsatisfactory in September. I don't think this is reasonable. I understand the logic of leaving a child at a school where they are established, but she should be expected to find a school she likes better for a younger sibling, surely.

She also intends to bring another suit, presumably tax payer funded again. I think that she should be expected to pay in full for any further suit she brings against the school. She could apply for costs if she wins.

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.

@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.

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

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

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.

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.

100%

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.

This.

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

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.

They can wear hijab etc

Every employer I have ever worked for has allowed prayer breaks and most had offices marked up as prayer rooms also. That's even with really shit employers.

I'm atheist, I have no skin in this race but for what it's worth, I think everyone, including children, should have freedom to practise their religion as long as it doesn't harm others.

My middle child’s school has no outside space at all that is theirs. They share some green space with the local university basically. Children can go out on lunch supervised by staff. Pe is the minimum amount they can get away with doing.

They don’t seem to have any issues and my daughter has no complaints. Though when the uni has fun days often the children get to go and take part such as bouncy castles 😂

@Sandwichblock Are you sure? I've never heard of state schools that manage their own admissions, regardless of being maintained or academies (perhaps grammars are different). Our junior and secondary are both academies and all admissions are managed by the local authority. I just checked Michaela's admissions policy and it too is managed by the local authority.

All schools taking in yr 7’s here do so via the Lea. Those that take from year 9 don’t have too.

Definitely. I had to do our school, it's a flipping awful job. Applications are still through the LA, but the school manages the process.

Can you tell us where you get this information from please regarding this particular family?

Gosh it's depressing that 3/4 of of MN so far think they need to face 'further consequences'.

What do you mean OP? Flaming pitchforks at dawn?

I'm atheist, I have no skin in this race but for what it's worth, I think everyone, including children, should have freedom to practise their religion as long as it doesn't harm others.

I think one of the problems was that the students who were praying in the playground were mocking other Muslim students who weren’t so strict.

I see others have already answered your post, @Soigneur, but even in schools where the LA handles admissions I've known some who've been sent elsewhere because the Headteacher wouldn't have them ... as ever what happens in theory and what can occur when people speak to each other can differ

The school made a change to their policy that they did not agree with. A court ruled that the school had the right to impose that aspect. Life now goes on as normal

Unless this leads to more of the attacks the school have already reported, @KrisAkabusi ... which would be unfortunate

@Sandwichblock ah, interesting, so the LEA is just acting as a portal but the legwork is done by the individual schools. In any case, I did check Michaela's admissions policy and it didn't say anywhere that they can reject a pupil on the grounds that their parent is known to be a PITA, which was the suggestion in the PP I was replying to.

No, the school had always had the stance. The children asked for somewhere to pray and were told no as per the school policy. In defiance they decided to pray on their blazers en masse. School said that's not on so amended the policy to ban this. Previously this wasn't needed as people obeyed the policy and didn't work around it. This is also how why we have case law and not just statute law. Sometimes things have to be added to something that's already in place but becomes too general.

I know some girls who go there y10 and 6th form (they are also muslim, wear a hijab etc) and they eye-rolled about this. Said it was an ott girl/ mum. Rules are clear and its some sort of perfornance court case after falling out with the head, not really about prayers. Typical highly diverse school most parents of various faiths happy with it.

I'm not into religion and wouldn't send my kid to a school that affiliated with religion.
If I was then I'd send them to a religious school.
Kids need to do their lessons, and then socialise/do 'religious practices' on their breaks. They can't be taken out of class to do stuff that isn't curriculum based.