Many parents, students, and school leaders were understandably shocked to learn about the recent High Court ruling which upheld Michaela Community School’s controversial ritual prayer ban. But the judgment leaves a number of serious questions unanswered.
Will the judgment lead to prayer bans across all schools in Britain? Where does this judgment leave basic rights of religious expression? Could this judgment be challenged?
All of these questions and others need careful consideration and a co-ordinated response from the Muslim community, legal experts, and educationalists.
Michaela is unique
First of all, the High Court judgment is highly specific to the unique circumstances of Michaela School.
The judge placed great emphasis on an existing ethos rigorously promoted at the school, an ethos which seeks to achieve complete social cohesion in the student body by eliminating all religious and cultural differences.
And this is not just restricted to a ritual prayer ban but the strict micromanagement of all aspects of student behaviour, uniform, study habits, movement around the school, greetings of staff, conversation topics, dinner table etiquette, the right to grow facial hair, and even the movement of eyes during lesson (yes, you did read that correctly).
Importing French secularism into Britain?
In effect, the school successfully argued that its model of inclusion was based on an “aggressive” form of secularism (akin to a French model) that was not based on respecting difference but eliminating difference.
The judge did not comment on the morality of this approach or its effectiveness, but noted that there was clear evidence of it being part of a consistent ethos that had existed in the school since its inception.
Enter, Suella Braverman
The good news here is that Michaela is a unique school. For many, it represents a dystopia created in an inner-city area as part of a culture war.
Indeed, the school’s founding Chair of Governors was former Home Secretary Suella Braverman — a post she held until 2018.
Braverman is an enthusiastic proponent of the Rwanda Bill that compels judges to regard the country as “safe” and dis-applies sections of the Human Rights Act and international law (we will come back to the theme of a disregard for the Human Rights Act). [1]
Braverman is also an unapologetic advocate of Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and continues to meet senior political and military figures in Israel, even after the targeted assassinations of British aid workers in Gaza. [2]
Led by Britain’s toughest principal
There are no other schools in the country that can boast a Chair of Governors with such credentials; and there are no other schools in the UK that have had a documentary filmed about its headteacher called Britain’s Strictest Headmistress.
However, schools should be extremely cautious about trying to import aspects of the Michaela ruling into their own contexts.
The vast majority of schools in the UK seek to achieve social cohesion and inclusion in the student body through respecting difference and not deconstructing the religious and cultural identities of their students.
The vast majority of schools in the UK work in partnership with their parent body and have a positive relationship with their local community. They recognise that schools are microcosms of their community and are administered with the support and consent of their community.
The vast majority of schools in the UK would not see it as an existential threat to provide prayer facilities to students who want to be observant of their faith.
Logistical challenges
There were a number of unique logistical challenges that were presented in this case and accepted by the court as mitigating circumstances.
The school premises is a converted office block and there are genuine challenges in finding a suitable classroom to open up for prayer facilities, which isn’t already being used as part of the dining facilities, for lunch-time clubs, or for storing personal belongings.
This is compounded by the school’s extremely strict ethos that does not permit free movement of students around the school building.
Here, most school leaders would recognise that it is relatively straightforward with some basic planning and the hiring of relatively cheap lunch-time assistants, to have a dedicated lunch-time prayer room that would be available to students during set times within lunch.
A pragmatic solution such as this would have avoided a toxic conflict with the parent body and local community, and saved tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees, but Birbalsingh is a headteacher who thrives on controversy. She is very vocal on social media.
The Human Rights Act 1998
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the court ruling was the judge’s decision that there was no interference or breach of Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, as the student in question could apply to another school in the local area, one that has a prayer provision.
This is particularly damaging, as it sets the precedent of:
“If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.”
Not easy to select a decent school
Parents will know that, in reality, there is very little choice when it comes to selecting a good secondary school.
The admissions criteria for secondary schools are based on distance from the school, potential looked-after status, or the special educational needs (SEN) position of students, and whether the students have existing siblings at the school.
When these admissions criteria are applied, there is often very little choice as to what schools are realistically available to parents.
Forcing a pupil to disenroll
Perhaps the more pressing question we should be asking is,
“Why should any student be forced out of any school — particularly one that is supposed to have a comprehensive intake, and be funded by the taxpayer — based on their adherence to their faith?”
If the obligations of the Human Rights Act can be sidestepped by stating there are, in theory, other alternatives, then the legislation has no enforceability.
Besides, there will always be alternative schools, GP surgeries, hospitals, libraries, and all manner of public amenities. Does that mean they, too, can dis-apply aspects of the Human Rights Act by pointing to more inclusive alternatives?
Running theme around human rights
The theme of dis-applying aspects of the Human Rights Act seems to be a troubling one that revolves around the Michaela ethos.
The track-record of the founding Chair of Governors has already been discussed. And the former Education Secretary and Secretary of State for Justice, Michael Gove, has been a key ally of Michaela since inception. [3]
He is also a passionate advocate of replacing the Human Rights Act. [4]
A sceptic might argue that, considering Michaela’s track record in attracting controversy and its self-proclaimed position at the centre of a culture war regarding the future of education, a court case of this nature is precisely what the school and its founders had been seeking. [5]
A question of identity
There is a deeply troubling message that is given to any student who is forced out of a British institution based on a personal adherence to their chosen faith.
At no point did the student or their mother demand that prayer be incorporated into the school timetable, or even that classrooms be made available to them. They simply sought to perform their prayers in the available space in the school playground, in their own social time during lunch.
The foldable pocket prayer mats that students were using were described by teachers at Michaela as “contraband” — a term usually reserved for smuggled illegal goods.
There is a level of hyperbole that Birbalsingh herself engaged in throughout the High Court case; the judge referenced how key witnesses showed:
“…little acknowledgment of the perspective of those with whom they disagreed.” [6]
That might be understood from the perspective of a child who feels aggrieved, but is a damning indictment against a headmistress who is supposed to be leading a school in a religiously and ethnically diverse inner-city area.
In addition, her appearance in podcasts and courting of media attention during the case was distasteful and divisive. [7]
Social mobility and “White Normativity”
Birbalsingh resigned as the Chair of the government’s Social Mobility Commission (SMC) after little more than a year, and those who have followed her discourse will know that she places great emphasis on her unique school ethos being a vehicle for social mobility and self-improvement. [8]
Investigate further, and it becomes apparent that her perspective on social mobility has very little to do with challenging structural racism and the genuine barriers young people face in society.
In 2019, a tweet by Birbalsingh stated,
“If a child says [the] teacher is being racist, back the teacher.
“Whatever the child says, back the teacher. If you don’t, you are letting the child down & allowing them to play you for a fool.” [9]
This is an incredible comment for someone who was chairing the country’s Social Mobility Commission.
But Birbalsingh’s outlook on social mobility is very much a model of assimilation into power structures. Her myriad links to rightwing think-tanks and politicians reinforce a model of class mobility that translates into re-categorisation into “White Normativity”.
Exam results
The school boasts impressive Progress 8 scores (which measure the level of progress a secondary school student makes across eight subjects compared to national expectations) but let’s take a closer look at the reliability of this measure in the context of Michaela School.
Birbalsingh’s outspoken views on social media and the courting of the rightwing press leaves a family considering this school in no doubt about the political leanings of the headmistress and the militant enforcement of the school ethos.
Supporting children with challenging behaviour
The court ruling forensically examined the suspensions and internal isolations handed out by Michaela School to the claimant — another feature of the school’s discipline policy.
For any family that is considering this school and has children that exhibit challenging behaviours, or genuinely values religious or cultural expression, there will inevitably be a level of self-deselection.
Therefore, those who are left applying to the school are families that totally buy into the militant ethos, the aggressive secularism, the assimilation into “White Normativity”, and the small-c conservatism.
In effect, you have selection taking place in an ostensibly non-selective, comprehensive school. This has to be borne in mind, when comparing exam results with other genuinely comprehensive schools.
Gaming the system
The new Ofsted framework was introduced to ensure schools offer a broad and balanced curriculum and meet the requirements of the National Curriculum across all subjects, whilst not neglecting the creative subjects.
Thousands of schools up and down the country have worked tirelessly to rewrite their schemes of learning and ensure they meet the requirements of the most demanding iteration yet of the Ofsted inspection criteria.
Serious concerns during inspection
While the Michaela Ofsted inspection reports give a glowing assessment, a recent Freedom of Information request reveals serious concerns which were raised during an inspection but never made it to the final summary report.
The school heavily focuses on Maths, Science, English, and History. On its curriculum, it does not have the national curriculum subjects of computing, design and technology, and music (there is a limited music offer in Years 7 and 8).
Moreover, 25 per cent of the 100 parents who responded to the pre-inspection survey stated that the Michaela School does not offer a good range of subjects.
School leaders up and down the country will recognise that this is a “red line” for Ofsted.
Perhaps the most concerning of all is that Michaela School does not offer separate sciences (worth 3 GCSEs), offering only the mandatory Double Science (worth 2 GCSEs).
For a highly aspirant school with a militantly strict discipline ethos, the only conceivable reason to offer such a narrow curriculum would be to inflate GCSE results.
Ritual prayer
Ritual prayer is one of the five pillars of Islam that must be observed by every Muslim who has reached the age of puberty.
These five daily prayers must be performed within fixed time periods. [10]
This presents a challenge for observant Muslims during the winter months, particularly for the midday prayer (Duhr) and afternoon prayer (‘Asr) which fall in the school timetable.
The concept of qada
This concept is a principle for exceptional circumstances where a prayer could genuinely not be performed in its allocated time and is made up later.
In the court hearing, the claimant and an expert witness gave a scenario where qada is applicable as the following: a surgeon who is in the middle of an operation and cannot be expected to stop for ritual prayer.
It is inexpensive to solve this issue
The ritual prayer itself takes between 5-10 minutes and requires a ritual washing (wudū) before the prayer. This ablution can be performed in any typical toilet facility.
In summary, a school can employ a very low-cost, low-maintenance solution to enabling students who wish to perform the ritual prayer, by allocating for an allocated time a classroom or school hall during a lunch-break.
Usually, there will be some Muslim staff in the school who also need to perform their prayers and can double up as free supervision staff. Where there are no Muslim staff who need to perform their prayers, lunch-time supervision staff can be allocated to manage the prayer time at a very low cost.
Final reflections
Michaela School is an early product of the “free schools” movement with a unique approach to ethos, discipline, and even curriculum. The High Court ruling on the ritual prayer ban should not be extended to other schools.
Faith continues to play an important role in schools in this country: Religion Education (RE) is a core subject which must be taught; schools are obliged to offer collective worship; and the RE curriculum for local authorities is set by a permanent body known as the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE).
The imposition of an aggressive secular model in schools which seeks to eliminate all expressions of faith is alien to this country.
An important choice is required
The students and parents at Michaela have an important decision to make. There are values that are more important than GCSE grades and are supposed to be protected by legislation. Where the law fails to protect their rights and their children’s rights, parents do need to show that, collectively, they still have a voice.
Schools ultimately exist to serve the parent body and the local community and not the other way round. Parents and students should absolutely not be forced out of a school. Rather, they have the power to raise complaints, speak with a collective voice to the local authority, and engage in direct action.
Indeed, parental voices were heard when they stated their discontent in the pre-inspection Ofsted survey, and their voices were also heard during the High Court proceedings.
Can this ruling be appealed?
The grounds for appeal seem to be very limited and it would not be a surprise if parents cannot afford further court action.
And there really is a wider responsibility in the community to support parents when they take on such causes.
By standing up for themselves in court, the family have demonstrated that the authority of school leaders is not absolute. The family have shown that the dignity of a child is worth fighting for, and their right of religious expression is important enough to mobilise the entire community.
Source: Islam21c
Notes
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rwanda-bill-migrants-uk-sunak-court-b2530480.html
[2] https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1775556851452752119
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LtJMWilTMc
[10] al-Qur’ān, 4:103
