Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 16, 2024, 11:37:13 AM
-
Not entirely sure how I feel about this. I'm worried that schools could shut down all manner of speech on this basis.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68731366
-
Not entirely sure how I feel about this. I'm worried that schools could shut down all manner of speech on this basis.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68731366
It is a completely bonkers school, but this is about religious worship on school premises and in school time - so it is effectively about freedom of religious worship, not freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech doesn't allow you to say/do whatever you want, wherever you want - there are plenty of examples where it wouldn't be appropriate to voice your opinions on a particular matter in a particular place without that in any way impacting the basic principle of freedom of speech.
There is plenty of time outside of the school day for those that wish to engage in religious worship to do so. I don't think a non-faith school should necessarily be obliged to facilitate this.
-
It is a completely bonkers school, but this is about religious worship on school premises and in school time - so it is effectively about freedom of religious worship, not freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech doesn't allow you to say/do whatever you want, wherever you want - there are plenty of examples where it wouldn't be appropriate to voice your opinions on a particular matter in a particular place without that in any way impacting the basic principle of freedom of speech.
There is plenty of time outside of the school day for those that wish to engage in religious worship to do so. I don't think a non-faith school should necessarily be obliged to facilitate this.
I'm not sure it's as easy to separate freedom of worship from freedom of speech as you are. I'm also not sure that it's as easy to separate allow from facilitate, and this feels more like not allow, rather than not facilitate.
-
I was struck by Braverman's comments on this (she was at one time the chair of governors at this school), she said that the school was run according to British values.
Hmmm.....define "British values"
I agree with NS I think this approach could be used to shut down areas of discussion that should not be shut down. For example, the moral issues surrounding migration. I'm fairly sure Braverman thinks that British values would mean "enough, no more." They aren't, however, my British values.
-
I'm not sure it's as easy to separate freedom of worship from freedom of speech as you are. I'm also not sure that it's as easy to separate allow from facilitate, and this feels more like not allow, rather than not facilitate.
But do you accept that freedom of speech doesn't give you carte blanche to say anything you want at anytime, anywhere.
And schools are full of rules that we might not think appropriate to apply to adults in different contexts, or even to children in their free time outside of school. I don't think that necessarily restricts their freedoms in any general sense, albeit if does, of course, restrict their freedom when in school.
I think we need to detach the actual issue itself from a recognition that this school is bizarre, its head not the type of person I'd appoint to that role as a school Trustee - but then I'm not Braverman!!
-
But do you accept that freedom of speech doesn't give you carte blanche to say anything you want at anytime, anywhere.
And schools are full of rules that we might not think appropriate to apply to adults in different contexts, or even to children in their free time outside of school. I don't think that necessarily restricts their freedoms in any general sense, albeit if does, of course, restrict their freedom when in school.
I think we need to detach the actual issue itself from a recognition that this school is bizarre, its head not the type of person I'd appoint to that role as a school Trustee - but then I'm not Braverman!!
Of course I'm not a free speech absolutist. I don't know anyone who is though some say they are.
Tha doesn't mean that where you and I might draw the line will be the same. Nor does it mean that I am sure where the line should be drawn in all cases. I am still uneasy about how this might apply.
And any restriction is a restriction. It doesn't become magically less simply because it's at school, or because it's kids - the restriction should be justified.
-
I was struck by Braverman's comments on this (she was at one time the chair of governors at this school), she said that the school was run according to British values.
Hmmm.....define "British values"
I agree with NS I think this approach could be used to shut down areas of discussion that should not be shut down. For example, the moral issues surrounding migration. I'm fairly sure Braverman thinks that British values would mean "enough, no more." They aren't, however, my British values.
I don't agree with Braverman's comments about 'british values' and frankly I despise the whole government push for 'british values' in schools, when most of these aren't in any way uniquely british at all.
But that seems an entirely different point to whether children have the right to engage in religious worship on school premises and during the school day. Or whether a school should have the discretion to determine its own rules on the matter, in a manner that it might for school uniform, phone use in school, the wearing of badges that have a political message etc etc.
-
Of course I'm not a free speech absolutist. I don't know anyone who is though some say they are.
Tha doesn't mean that where you and I might draw the line will be the same. Nor does it mean that I am sure where the line should be drawn in all cases. I am still uneasy about how this might apply.
And any restriction is a restriction. It doesn't become magically less simply because it's at school, or because it's kids - the restriction should be justified.
But I suppose the key question is who is best placed to determine where that line should be drawn in relation to rules in school (which are by definition restrictions of one form or another) - you, me or the leadership of the school in question (senior leadership team and trustees, ideally in consultation with the wider school community). I think I'd argue the latter as they are best able to understand the individual school context.
And I think that issue was the crux of the case - not whether prayer should be banned from schools, but that schools should have the discretion to determine their own policies around this issue.
-
But I suppose the key question is who is best placed to determine where that line should be drawn in relation to rules in school (which are by definition restrictions of one form or another) - you, me or the leadership of the school in question (senior leadership team and trustees, ideally in consultation with the wider school community). I think I'd argue the latter as they are best able to understand the individual school context.
And I think that issue was the crux of the case - not whether prayer should be banned from schools, but that schools should have the discretion to determine their own policies around this issue.
Surely people who have an interest in things are not always best placed to determine questions such as freedom of speech?
-
Surely people who have an interest in things are not always best placed to determine questions such as freedom of speech?
But they are surely better placed that people who have no understanding of the specific context.
And remember we are talking about freedom of worship in a school in school time. And if we broaden this realistically the notion of free speech is already massively curtained by school rule in most schools. I doubt very much that many schools would allow pupils, for example, handing out political leaflets in school or engaging in political protest, for example - even through they'd have the right to do this outside of the school and in their own time.
-
Where I do think there are double standard is people who are all for top down blanket bans on certain things (e.g. many tories over phone use in schools) who are suddenly in favour of the school having its own discretion on this matter.
Personally I think a school should have the discretion on both matters - plenty of schools limit the use of phones through less blunt instrument mechanisms such as a blanket ban, while also recognising that there are times when phone use actually supports learning in the classroom.
So I think these decisions are best left to the school leadership, unless clearly unlawful, which the ruling has determined wasn't the case for this matter.
-
But they are surely better placed that people who have no understanding of the specific context.
And remember we are talking about freedom of worship in a school in school time. And if we broaden this realistically the notion of free speech is already massively curtained by school rule in most schools. I doubt very much that many schools would allow pupils, for example, handing out political leaflets in school or engaging in political protest, for example - even through they'd have the right to do this outside of the school and in their own time.
No, I don't think that in terms of free speech the people which are closest a situation are the best judges.
Again that there are restrictions on fre speech does not mean that any restriction is correct.
-
No, I don't think that in terms of free speech the people which are closest a situation are the best judges.
Bring in the centrally-appointed freedom of speech police!!! Isn't that exactly the approach adopted by many regimes that genuinely restrict freedom of speech.
Again that there are restrictions on fre speech does not mean that any restriction is correct.
Do you think that a school must allow any pupil to say anything they likely in school time in the school? Or do you think that it is reasonable for there to be some restrictions, including some things that they'd be perfectly free to say in the own time.
-
Bring in the centrally-appointed freedom of speech police!!! Isn't that exactly the approach adopted by many regimes that genuinely restrict freedom of speech.
Do you think that a school must allow any pupil to say anything they likely in school time in the school? Or do you think that it is reasonable for there to be some restrictions, including some things that they'd be perfectly free to say in the own time.
Saying that restrictions might not always be right isn't saying that restrictions are always wrong. Stop with the straw.
-
Saying that restrictions might not always be right isn't saying that restrictions are always wrong.
Indeed, which leads us right back the the fundamental point, where discretion to apply restrictions is reasonable, who is best placed to make those decisions.
I've made my view clear on that matter, specifically the school itself - you, on the other hand, have told us who you don't think should make the decision (the school) but are completely silent on who should make this decision if not the school.
So if not the school, then who?
-
It is a completely bonkers school, but this is about religious worship on school premises and in school time - so it is effectively about freedom of religious worship, not freedom of speech.
.............................
There is plenty of time outside of the school day for those that wish to engage in religious worship to do so. I don't think a non-faith school should necessarily be obliged to facilitate this.
This would appear to be the case. Certain Muslim students were laying down blazers in the school yard in order to go through their religious rituals. The parents involved were fully aware of what they signed up for when they agreed to their child/children attending the school, of which apparently 50% are Muslim anyway. The hard ruling is a good way of making the pupils involved reflect upon the asinine nature of their precious rituals. As if an all-knowing God would care.
Let's have designated areas in school break-times for pupils to study JW literature and distribute Watchtower magazines, it's only fair.
-
Indeed, which leads us right back the the fundamental point, where discretion to apply restrictions is reasonable, who is best placed to make those decisions.
I've made my view clear on that matter, specifically the school itself - you, on the other hand, have told us who you don't think should make the decision (the school) but are completely silent on who should make this decision if not the school.
So if not the school, then who?
Given you think that schools are should be subject to the law in these terms, you are not an absolutist on them making the decision. I think free speech, and its limitations need to be the place of the wider society, not specific interests.
I suspect that we both agree that a school will have some devolved power to impose more restrictions than the wider society but what is devolved is surely determined by the society not the school?
-
Given you think that schools are should be subject to the law in these terms, you are not an absolutist on them making the decision. I think free speech, and its limitations need to be the place of the wider society, not specific interests.
I suspect that we both agree that a school will have some devolved power to impose more restrictions than the wider society but what is devolved is surely determined by the society not the school?
Sure - society, via policy makers and the law may determine that certain powers are devolved to a school. But that isn't the question - the question is who actually exercises those devolved powers and makes those discretionary decisions. You are still not answering that question - 'society' has no mechanism to make specific discretionary decisions on what rules a school does or does not set. How would that work?
And where there is authority (in this case to make those discretionary decisions) there should also be accountability for those decisions. 'Society' (whatever that means) cannot be held accountable for those kind of decisions - but individual decision makers, e.g. the leadership and governance within a school can.
So rather than vague hand waving about 'society' why not answer the question I asked - here are two discretionary decisions associated with schools.
1. Should a school allow muslim prayers during the school day and on school premises - yes/no/sometime etc
2. Should the school have a strict uniform policy for its pupils.
Who should make those decisions - if not the school, then who? (Noting that there must be a sensible mechanism for the decision maker to make the decision and that the decision maker should be able to be held accountable for the decision).
-
Sure - society, via policy makers and the law may determine that certain powers are devolved to a school. But that isn't the question - the question is who actually exercises those devolved powers and makes those discretionary decisions. You are still not answering that question - 'society' has no mechanism to make specific discretionary decisions on what rules a school does or does not set. How would that work?
And where there is authority (in this case to make those discretionary decisions) there should also be accountability for those decisions. 'Society' (whatever that means) cannot be held accountable for those kind of decisions - but individual decision makers, e.g. the leadership and governance within a school can.
So rather than vague hand waving about 'society' why not answer the question I asked - here are two discretionary decisions associated with schools.
1. Should a school allow muslim prayers during the school day and on school premises - yes/no/sometime etc
2. Should the school have a strict uniform policy for its pupils.
Who should make those decisions - if not the school, then who?
I don't accept that the framing of a question on free speech can ignore how that structure is put in place. At no point have I suggested some other body other than the school for making those decisions devolved to it. The question is what should be devolved. That is wider than the specifics in this case.
-
At last a secular,British humanist school exactly as envisaged with powers to punish religious behaviour and yet there is concern and reservation.
-
At last a secular,British humanist school exactly as envisaged with powers to punish religious behaviour and yet there is concern and reservation.
Don't see any indication that it is humanist. Nor that religious behaviour is punished. There are lots of 'secular' schools. So what are you getting excited about?
-
At last a secular,British humanist school exactly as envisaged with powers to punish religious behaviour and yet there is concern and reservation.
The Michaela School isn't a humanist school Vlad - stop lying.
It is a non-faith Free School with a very strict small-c conservative ethos and highly driven academically. The head describes it as secular, although that isn't a term recognised within state education in England as non-faith schools aren't fully secular due to the anomalies of the 1944 Education Act that have not been repealed.
Not once has the head described the school as humanist, nor is there any suggestion of this on their website and to be humanist the school would be required to have a formal and recognised humanist foundation and ethos - it doesn't. Indeed there are no humanist states schools in England - not one, zilch, zip.
-
I don't accept that the framing of a question on free speech can ignore how that structure is put in place. At no point have I suggested some other body other than the school for making those decisions devolved to it. The question is what should be devolved. That is wider than the specifics in this case.
But this isn't about free speech is it NS. It is at best about freedom of expression (not the same thing) and realistically about freedom of religious worship.
All of those are caveated by time and place (and potentially nature), even if there is a general presumption in favour of such freedoms.
So a general presumption on favour of freedom of religious worship does not mean that anyone can engage in religious worship at any time and any place.
-
Don't see any indication that it is humanist. Nor that religious behaviour is punished. There are lots of 'secular' schools. So what are you getting excited about?
So there are no penalties whatsoever for breaking this ban? Such a penalty would not be consistent with mere secularism but would be entirely consistent with what secular humanism or even national secularism has become IMHO.
-
So there are no penalties whatsoever for breaking this ban? Such a penalty would not be consistent with mere secularism but would be entirely consistent with what secular humanism or even national secularism has become IMHO.
The school has a behaviour policy - a rather bizarre and extensive one (but that is ultimately up to them provided it doesn't break the law). If that policy does not permit religious worship on the school grounds during the school day then one might reasonably anticipate a sanction for a pupil breeching the school's policy.
But then the behaviour policy bans the following:
'Eating/drinking non-Michaela food'
In other words any food or drink consumed by the pupils must have been provided by the school - no pack lunches allowed!
And any glasses worn by pupils must be black or navy.
Failure to adhere to these rules will also result in sanction.
The school's basic ethos is one of ultra-strict conformity and their rules/behaviour policy demonstrates this. Now that isn't for me - I most certainly wouldn't want to send my children there, nor would I want to be a Trustee there. But they aren't acting unlawfully and it is for the school leadership, including Head and Trustees to determine the ethos and values for their school and to put in place policies that align with that ethos and values.
-
The Michaela School isn't a humanist school Vlad - stop lying.
It is a non-faith Free School with a very strict small-c conservative ethos and highly driven academically. The head describes it as secular, although that isn't a term recognised within state education in England as non-faith schools aren't fully secular due to the anomalies of the 1944 Education Act that have not been repealed.
Not once has the head described the school as humanist, nor is there any suggestion of this on their website and to be humanist the school would be required to have a formal and recognised humanist foundation and ethos - it doesn't. Indeed there are no humanist states schools in England - not one, zilch, zip.
I see no dissent in this case from Andrew Copsons definition of Humanism, or for that matter from any non religious on this forum.
-
I see no dissent in this case from Andrew Copsons definition of Humanism, or for that matter from any non religious on this forum.
I haven't seen dissent from the Pope, must be a an RC school.
And last time I looked both Aruntraveller and I are 'non religious'
-
So there are no penalties whatsoever for breaking this ban? Such a penalty would not be consistent with mere secularism but would be entirely consistent with what secular humanism or even national secularism has become IMHO.
If one of their pupils came in wearing a National Secular Society or HumanistsUK lapel badge or handed out literature in support of those organisations in the school playground they would also be breaking the school's policies and would likewise be sanctioned. So I don't see how you can argue your point.
The whole point of their ethos is one of conformity to Michaela values and ethos from the moment a student walks through the door until the moment they leave. That is a decision that the school has taken. Now we might think that's bonkers (I do) but it isn't necessarily unlawful and is clear to parents if they wish to apply to the school.
-
The school has a behaviour policy - a rather bizarre and extensive one (but that is ultimately up to them provided it doesn't break the law). If that policy does not permit religious worship on the school grounds during the school day then one might reasonably anticipate a sanction for a pupil breeching the school's policy.
But then the behaviour policy bans the following:
'Eating/drinking non-Michaela food'
In other words any food or drink consumed by the pupils must have been provided by the school - no pack lunches allowed!
And any glasses worn by pupils must be black or navy.
Failure to adhere to these rules will also result in sanction.
The school's basic ethos is one of ultra-strict conformity and their rules/behaviour policy demonstrates this. Now that isn't for me - I most certainly wouldn't want to send my children there, nor would I want to be a Trustee there. But they aren't acting unlawfully and it is for the school leadership, including Head and Trustees to determine the ethos and values for their school and to put in place policies that align with that ethos and values.
I can understand a ban on non school food but a ban on prayer merely seems to fulfil the aims of the secular humanist.
-
So there are no penalties whatsoever for breaking this ban? Such a penalty would not be consistent with mere secularism but would be entirely consistent with what secular humanism or even national secularism has become IMHO.
See Prof D's post about humanism being banned as well. What in the name of Liz Truss, are you talking about with 'national secularism' here?
-
I haven't seen dissent from the Pope, must be a an RC school.
And last time I looked both Aruntraveller and I are 'non religious'
May I ask how you dissent from the Copson definition?
-
I see no dissent in this case from Andrew Copsons definition of Humanism, or for that matter from any non religious on this forum.
Actually I think their basic ethos is far, far from a standard humanist approach.
This school's basic ethos is about valuing conformity and traditions over individuality. Doesn't seem very humanistic to me, which focusses on the dignity of the individual.
-
I see there's support for this on the front page of the Daily Mail. I do wonder what the reaction would be if it had been a Christian child and parent had brought the case.
-
May I ask how you dissent from the Copson definition?
I was pointing out that the dissent on here has been from Aruntraveller and myself so your statement that you hadn't seen any dissent on this case from the non religious was wrong.
-
I was pointing out that the dissent on here has been from Aruntraveller and myself so your statement that you hadn't seen any dissent on this case from the non religious was wrong.
I'm still not clear how and where you dissent from Copson's definition of Humanism although I stand corrected in that you dissent from the school's approach.
-
Actually I think their basic ethos is far, far from a standard humanist approach.
This school's basic ethos is about valuing conformity and traditions over individuality. Doesn't seem very humanistic to me, which focusses on the dignity of the individual.
Good argument.
-
I'm still not clear how and where you dissent from Copson's definition of Humanism although I stand corrected in that you dissent from the school's approach.
I don't see what Copson's definition of humanism has to do with anything. Do you mean do I dissent from it because I think he's wrong about what humanism is? Or dissent from it because I am not a humanist? I don't really care about the first, and I'm not a humanist. Although as previously established I may be a Humeanist.
-
I was pointing out that the dissent on here has been from Aruntraveller and myself so your statement that you hadn't seen any dissent on this case from the non religious was wrong.
And my basic argument isn't about whether I support the decision itself - it is about whether I think that the school should have discretion, within the law, to determine their own ethos and policies.
So I do not agree with whole swathes of their ethos and their behavioural policy and in my role as a School Trustee I'd never support implementing anything like them in my school in a million years. But I do support the notion that it is for the school to make these decisions, provided they are lawful.
-
And my basic argument isn't about whether I support the decision itself - it is about whether I think that the school should have discretion, within the law, to determine their own ethos and policies.
So I do not agree with whole swathes of their ethos and their behavioural policy and in my role as a School Trustee I'd never support implementing anything like them in my school in a million years. But I do support the notion that it is for the school to make these decisions, provided they are lawful.
And my basic question is about whether it should be lawful.
-
And my basic question is about whether it should be lawful.
The courts have determined that it is lawful - but being lawful doesn't mean that all schools must ban worship. All it means is that schools have discretion. It is also lawful to allow worship.
The way in which you prevent discretionary decision-making by schools is to require something via statutory edict - a 'must' rather than a 'should' in school governance terms.
NS - do you think that schools 'must' be required, by law, to allow all pupils to engage in religious worship on school premises during the school day. If so, that seems to be exceptionally centralising and doesn't really fit with the notion of freedom. If not then we are back into the world of discretionary decision making - if not required by law, someone will need to make the decision as to whether pupils 'should' or 'should not' be allowed to engage in religious worship on school premises during the school day.
And regardless, for most schools this will be a more nuanced decision again - for example not allowing it during certain times (e.g. during lesson times) but permitting it at other times, and perhaps requiring the activity to take place in certain designated places in the school (e.g. not allow worshipping pupils to disrupt other activities that pupils are engaging in during break time).
Realistically the law (or 'society') can only provide, at best, a high level framework (unless it provides a blanket ban or a blanket requirement) - it simply cannot deal with the complex and nuanced decision making required to put a basic principle into practical action on the ground.
-
Which has been determined by the courts.
The way in which you prevent discretionary decision-making by schools is to require something via statutory edict - a 'must' rather than a 'should' in school governance terms.
NS - do you think that schools 'must' be required, by law, to allow all pupils to engage in religious worship on school premises during the school day. If so, that seems to be exceptionally centralising and doesn't really fit with the notion of freedom. If not then we are back into the world of discretionary decision making - if not required by law, someone will need to make the decision as to whether pupils 'should' or 'should not' be allowed to engage in religious worship on school premises during the school day.
And regardless, for most schools this will be a more nuanced decision again - for example not allowing it during certain times (e.g. during lesson times) but permitting it at other times, and perhaps requiring the activity to take place in certain designated places in the school (e.g. not allow worshipping pupils to disrupt other activities that pupils are engaging in during break time).
Realistically the law (or 'society') can only provide, at best, a high level framework (unless it provides a blanket ban or a blanket requirement) - it simply cannot deal with the complex and nuanced decision making required to put a basic principle into practical action on the ground.
That something is lawful doesn't mean it should be lawful so citing the court decision doesn't address that issue.
I'm not sure about what the best solution would be but in terms of freedom of expression/speech you already have it centralised in terms of what is lawful. You just happen to agree where the line is currently drawn, while I'm worried that this may put too much power in the hands of the school at the cost to the individual.
-
That something is lawful doesn't mean it should be lawful so citing the court decision doesn't address that issue.
True and I'd changed my post to make that clear before you'd replied.
-
I'm not sure about what the best solution would be but in terms of freedom of expression/speech you already have it centralised in terms of what is lawful. You just happen to agree where the line is currently drawn, while I'm worried that this may put too much power in the hands of the school at the cost to the individual.
I don't agree - a centralised approach would remove discretion by either dictating that schools:
Must allow pupils to engage in religious worship on school premises during the school day or;
Must not allow pupils to engage in religious worship on school premises during the school day
Discretion allows the line to be drawn in different places - therefore the line isn't drawn in a specific place, but can be shifted (albeit must remain lawful) under the authority of the school (the decision maker) which will also be responsible for their decision.
-
I don't agree - a centralised approach would remove discretion by either dictating that schools:
Must allow pupils to engage in religious worship on school premises during the school day or;
Must not allow pupils to engage in religious worship on school premises during the school day
Discretion allows the line to be drawn in different places - therefore the line isn't drawn in a specific place, but can be shifted (albeit must remain lawful) under the authority of the school (the decision maker) which will also be responsible for their decision.
You already accept a centralised approach by accepting that it is determined by what is lawful. The discussion is about how that is best drawn up.
-
You already accept a centralised approach by accepting that it is determined by what is lawful. The discussion is about how that is best drawn up.
What a very strange comment.
I can understand how declaring that something is unlawful restricts the freedoms of individuals or organisations to take decisions themselves. But how does declaring something to be lawful? To declare something as lawful doesn't suggest it is compulsory - it allows the freedom of individuals or organisations to make their own choices in a decentralised manner.
If a centralised government declares alcohol to be unlawful, then it takes away freedoms - for example for an individual to chose whether to drink or not. But if drinking is not unlawful, then that doesn't mean that everyone must drink, nor that some individuals and organisations can chose not to allow people to drink within the spaces they have control over (unless a centralised government declares it unlawful to prevent people drinking, which would similarly remove freedoms).
The starting point from a freedom perspective would be where nothing was unlawful (theoretical libertarianism), but if course in the real world compromises need to be made where there may be conflicting freedoms (e.g. the freedom to smoke where and when someone likes vs the freedom to work in a smoke-free environment).
-
That something is lawful doesn't mean it should be lawful so citing the court decision doesn't address that issue.
I'm not sure about what the best solution would be but in terms of freedom of expression/speech you already have it centralised in terms of what is lawful. You just happen to agree where the line is currently drawn, while I'm worried that this may put too much power in the hands of the school at the cost to the individual.
The individuals in this case are children. Children necessarily have fewer rights than adults.
-
The individuals in this case are children. Children necessarily have fewer rights than adults.
True - and also don't forget that schools are considered to be in loco parentis during the time when children are in attendance at the school.
-
The pupil said "Even though I lost, I still feel that I did the right thing in seeking to challenge the ban. I tried my best, and was true to myself and my religion."
Interestingly, the head teacher seems to be questioning whether these kind of cases should get any Legal Aid funding, even though Legal Aid is not unlimited amounts. That is a tricky one as that means only wealthy people or cases where the public is prepared to crowd-fund would be heard - not sure what would be the right balance there.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Press-Summary-R-v-Michaela-Community-Schools-Trust.pdf
High Court decision Ground 2 - the school's prayer ritual policy (PRP) was a detriment to Muslim students for the purposes of the Equality Act and put Muslims students at a particular disadvantage and had an indirectly discriminatory effect but the court held it was "a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of the school".
Therefore, given it may be possible to take the issue to court for an independent assessment of whether the school's policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, I think the outcome seems to be the result of a mostly transparent process, as much as it can be.
I don't think much more can be expected of the system than what was done. The matter was tested in court and the pupil lost. The "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" is an important and necessary safeguard/ exception in my view.
The court found for the Claimant (the pupil) on Ground 4 (b) i.e. the headteacher had acted unfairly relating to the procedure followed in excluding the pupil for a fixed number of days for comments she allegedly made, without first giving the pupil the opportunity to present her version of events.
-
The pupil said "Even though I lost, I still feel that I did the right thing in seeking to challenge the ban. I tried my best, and was true to myself and my religion."
Interestingly, the head teacher seems to be questioning whether these kind of cases should get any Legal Aid funding, even though Legal Aid is not unlimited amounts. That is a tricky one as that means only wealthy people or cases where the public is prepared to crowd-fund would be heard - not sure what would be the right balance there.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Press-Summary-R-v-Michaela-Community-Schools-Trust.pdf
High Court decision Ground 2 - the school's prayer ritual policy (PRP) was a detriment to Muslim students for the purposes of the Equality Act and put Muslims students at a particular disadvantage and had an indirectly discriminatory effect but the court held it was "a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of the school".
Therefore, given it may be possible to take the issue to court for an independent assessment of whether the school's policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, I think the outcome seems to be the result of a mostly transparent process, as much as it can be.
I don't think much more can be expected of the system than what was done. The matter was tested in court and the pupil lost. The "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" is an important and necessary safeguard/ exception in my view.
On the issue of costs, this was raised in an editorial in The Times yesterday and in letters in that paper today. Now as a general principle I think there needs to be a mechanism where people with limited resource can bring legal actions. But I do wonder whether this leapfrogged over expected processes.
I would have thought this should have been raised firstly as a formal complaint to the school, which is required to have a complaints procedure which aligns with statutory requirements. Only once the complaints process within the school (which will be required by law to have three hierarchical stages) had been exhausted should any appeal to the courts have seemed reasonable. To jump straight to a court case (if that is what happened) seems to be avoiding due process and could, arguably, be considered vexatious.
Courts will normally expect that alternative routes for redress have been exhausted before considering a case in the courts.
The court found for the Claimant (the pupil) on Ground 4 (b) i.e. the headteacher had acted unfairly relating to the procedure followed in excluding the pupil for a fixed number of days for comments she allegedly made, without first giving the pupil the opportunity to present her version of events.
That's true, but this issue has no real bearing on the main judgement. To be honest I'm not surprised that the school may not have followed due process in its decision making on fixed term suspensions, given that it seems to have an incredibly draconian behavioural/suspension/exclusions policy so is probably dealing with fixed term suspensions left, right and centre.
A school should certainly allow a student the opportunity to present their side of the story before a suspension is agreed, unless the student needs to be suspended immediately on safety grounds (e.g. for violent conduct), but even then they should be given the opportunity to provide their version of events at the earliest reasonable opportunity.