Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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in England as non-faith schools aren't fully secular due to the anomalies of the 1944 Education Act that have not been repealed.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.

[Nearly Sane]

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'

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

  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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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).

[jeremyp]

  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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.