Is a ban on praying in school Islamophobic?

[IvanV]

A Muslim pupil has lost a high court challenge against a ban on praying at Michaela School. An organisation calling itself the Islamic Human Rights Commission has described the judge as Islamophobic.

The Michaela school has a ban on public displays of religion, because it says it leads to conflictual situations between the pupils. This is not a general rule in British schools. But in France it is the general rule in state schools. Public displays of religion are banned in all French state schools. The school argues that the rule was flagged in advance to pupils, who knew what they were doing. Whilst this applies to all religions, it does tend to weigh more heavily on observant Muslims who have an obligation to have lunchtime prayers. It is interesting to note that about half the pupils at the school are Muslim.

I'm not terribly impressed by the head teacher's argument "it's the school rule and you knew it before you came here", frequently made by head teachers of schools with unusually strict rules, though it seems the judge was. Illegal or ill-advised school rules should not stand. Even if the student had a practical choice about where to go to school, which many do not.

So, is this Islamophobic? And what about France, where it is the universal rule for state schools, and enforced?

[headshot]

Surely there's a simple solution here.

Provide a private room, away from the prying eyes of the public, where prayers can be observed.

I wouldn't call it Islamaphobic, but I would call it intolerant.

[jimbob]

Surely there's a simple solution here.

Provide a private room, away from the prying eyes of the public, where prayers can be observed.

I wouldn't call it Islamaphobic, but I would call it intolerant.

It seems a bit more complicated than that.



There was a claim that some kids were being bullied for not demonstrating that they were sufficiently devout. (Source radio report last night).

[Tristan]

Surely there's a simple solution here.

Provide a private room, away from the prying eyes of the public, where prayers can be observed.

I wouldn't call it Islamaphobic, but I would call it intolerant.

It seems a bit more complicated than that.



There was a claim that some kids were being bullied for not demonstrating that they were sufficiently devout. (Source radio report last night).

Yes, it looks like peer-pressure was being applied for kids to start praying. The prediction of the head teacher, which the judge agreed with, was that this would continue. Judgement here: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... -Trust.pdf I don't think the school has any obligation to facilitate that in any way.

BTW, a teacher from my old school (obvs not there when I was 27 years ago!) is STILL in hiding due to religiously motivated threats after 3 years. So I'm not particularly sympathetic to religious demands being made towards schools.

[headshot]

Oh yeah, well that's a load of b.llsh.t then.

That's not people freely practicing their religion. It's fundamentalist/evangelical coercion.

So yeah, f.ck that.

[TopBadger]

I face palmed at this when I saw it on the news.

"Kid goes to a secular school and then complains they can't pray"

I couldn't believe the amount of coverage it got... everything else in the world must be going swimmingly.

[IvanV]

"Kid goes to a secular school and then complains they can't pray"

I couldn't believe the amount of coverage it got...

Having read some of the judgment, I now realise that I mischaracterised the "you knew the rules" argument, perhaps misled by what I read in news article.

TopBadger's wording rather more accurately characterises the situation and what the judge was ruling on. Which is much more reasonable. The judge cites several cases over several countries where courts found that a student voluntarily attending an avowedly secular educational institution, with rules to enforce secularism, cannot then insist that they have a religious freedom to circumvent those rules. And in fact the specific rules complained of, as they now stand, were not the rules at the time when the student joined the school, but were brought in to stem some serious problems. But it was always the case that the school was avowedly secular with measures to achieve that.

The judgment describes the broader environment of the application of rules in the school. Sounds more like a military training camp or, ironically, a religious cult, than a school to me. But that wasn't on trial.

And the complaints of Islamophobia are now sounding more like the kind of thing that come from the Christian Legal Centre.

[Al Capone Junior]

Oh God if you tried that in today's America world War five would instantly begin. Christianity would claim persecution so loud voyager 1 and 2 would hear it. At this point they expect their religious privileges to be automatically assumed to always have been law (regardless of what the constitution actually says cuz that don't matter).

Imo it's only a short matter of time before American Christians start acting something like Islamic jihadists. They just need to develop their mythology a wee bit more and kablam! But they will use more guns and fewer bombs

(I hope very much to be wrong here)

[Tristan]

Incidentally whatever this school is doing seems to be working. See the OFSTED summary below. I think this pisses off some leftists who hate the school and its Headteacher. They get the results that progressive educationists claim to want but they do it by pretty much rejecting progressive educationalist ideology.

IMG_9570.jpeg (424.97 KiB) Viewed 807 times

[Tristan]

Actually I say “incidentally” above, but I don’t think it is incidental. I think it relates to this current case. The school has an ethos, rules etc. that are set by the Headteacher and that seem to be working. I can see why a push to change that would be strongly resisted.

[IvanV]

Incidentally whatever this school is doing seems to be working. See the OFSTED summary below. I think this pisses off some leftists who hate the school and its Headteacher. They get the results that progressive educationists claim to want but they do it by pretty much rejecting progressive educationalist ideology.

It's a highly selective school, so we can't draw the conclusion that it is an effective method applied to the general population. Rather, it works well for those who are drawn to it. I would have found such an environment hell on earth.

Some people respond well to that rigid and disciplined situation, and others don't.

Probably it's perfectly OK that we have schools like this, provided there are alternatives for people it is unsuited to.

[dyqik]

These kinds of schools get good results because the kids in them are pushed hard by their parents, who are highly engaged in their education.

The school rules etc. have little to do with any differences.

[Boustrophedon]

These kinds of schools get good results because the kids in them are pushed hard by their parents, who are highly engaged in their education.

The school rules etc. have little to do with any differences.

Problem is that most people do not have your discernment to see it that way and Katharine Birbalsingh is in no hurry to correct them. It is just too easy to see the success as a result of the rules and lazy educators and jumpers upon bandwagons, (is there a neat German word for that?*) rather than refine their craft choose to ape her rules instead.

*Trittbrettfahrer perhaps?

[Tristan]

Incidentally whatever this school is doing seems to be working. See the OFSTED summary below. I think this pisses off some leftists who hate the school and its Headteacher. They get the results that progressive educationists claim to want but they do it by pretty much rejecting progressive educationalist ideology.

It's a highly selective school, so we can't draw the conclusion that it is an effective method applied to the general population. Rather, it works well for those who are drawn to it. I would have found such an environment hell on earth.

Some people respond well to that rigid and disciplined situation, and others don't.

Probably it's perfectly OK that we have schools like this, provided there are alternatives for people it is unsuited to.

It’s not a selective school. Kids are assigned to it by the LEA as with other state schools.

[IvanV]

It’s not a selective school. Kids are assigned to it by the LEA as with other state schools.

Which implies the entrance criterion would be primarily catchment based. Quis habitat entrat, to parody the motto of St Cakes. It's described in the news as "much over-subscribed". Well, maybe many people apply from out of catchment in a triumph of hope over experience.

If the school population is largely there because of where they live and not by any real choice, then I do have a problem with their authoritarian methods, however effective they are for those who survive them.

[El Pollo Diablo]

Brent is a fairly well-populated area. Obviously it's a long time since my parents applied for me to go to secondary school, but iirc you get to specify which schools are your favourites. If the school has good results it'll have a lot of parents wanting to send their kids there.

The school is a free school, which I had thought were meant to be supplementary to whatever was there before - is that right? Presumably there are other academies or grammars or secondaries or whatever the f.ck the system has thrown up.

[Gfamily]

It’s not a selective school. Kids are assigned to it by the LEA as with other state schools.

As it's a Free School, there isn't a role for the LEA in assigning pupils to the school*. Parents apply to the school, and if there are fewer than 120 applications for the Year 7 entry, they all get accepted.
If more than 120 applicants, then those living within 5 miles will be randomly given admission*
The year 7 intake will be from families whose parents think that the Michaela approach to education is suitable for their children. So the parents will be the ones who are selective.

* the random allocation will use the LEA's software, but that's not the same as saying that the LEA has any active role in determining which pupils go to the school.
https://michaela.education/wp-content/u ... signed.pdf

[IvanV]

The catchment-based methods of LEA assignment mean that - especially in these days where there is practically no spare capacity in schools in areas such as London - you would go to the school you are in catchment for. Where we live, for example, (he writes with the knowledge of having a secondary-age child) if you fail to get into a selective school, you have no practical choice but go to the school you are in catchment for.

But that does not apply here. Michaela is not a strict catchment-based school. There is an alternative catchment-based school available for people who either do not apply to Michaela, or apply and fail in the lottery. So in effect it is a selective school, but the selection is a lottery.

So what I said still applies. The school will, in practice, be selectively applied to by pupils whose parents think that such a style out teaching will be good for their children. And for those who may not survive such an authoritarian style of teaching, an alternative local school is available.

[Rich Scopie]

These kinds of schools get good results because the kids in them are pushed hard by their parents, who are highly engaged in their education.

The school rules etc. have little to do with any differences.

Problem is that most people do not have your discernment to see it that way and Katharine Birbalsingh is in no hurry to correct them. It is just too easy to see the success as a result of the rules and lazy educators and jumpers upon bandwagons, (is there a neat German word for that?*) rather than refine their craft choose to ape her rules instead.

*Trittbrettfahrer perhaps?

Yes.

Ergebnisderregelnundfaulerpädagogenundmitläufer

My wonderful modern languages teacher taught me all kinds of weird vocabulary.

Cheers,

R.

[Tristan]

Oh come on this is hardly a school picking the best and brightest through exam and interview, or with parents clambering to buy a house in a leafy suburb catchment area to get in. Children are assigned it by lottery, with apparently only 30% requesting it as first choice. It’s in one of the most deprived parts of London and has a higher number of free school meals than other schools in the area. To claim it is selective in the normal use of that word in relation to schools is a stretch.

[Gfamily]

. Children are assigned it by lottery, with apparently only 30% requesting it as first choice. It’s in one of the most deprived parts of London and has a higher number of free school meals than other schools in the area. To claim it is selective in the normal use of that word in relation to schools is a stretch.

How odd, the Telegraph says it's very much oversubscribed

The school is oversubscribed, with parents fighting for places because of its academic success and approach to discipline

Who to believe?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... 0exception.

[Tristan]

The headteacher claims the 30% rate. I guess the two things could be true given the lottery system. Just because more request it than they have spaces doesn’t mean only 1st choice pupils get those spaces.

Anyway, it’s no more selective than any other state school. They are not choosing their pupils.

[Gfamily]

The headteacher claims the 30% rate. I guess the two things could be true given the lottery system. Just because more request it than they have spaces doesn’t mean only 1st choice pupils get those spaces.

Anyway, it’s no more selective than any other state school. They are not choosing their pupils.

Tricky isn't it
On the one hand you have a media outlet that's supportive of the school saying how much parents in the area want their kids to go there

And on the other, you have the 'Headlining Headteacher' that claims the 30% rate, but we don't know what that means.

There appears to be three 'Outstanding' rated secondary schools in Brent^[1] - so it's perfectly possible that ambitious parents would have selected the most local first, then the other two as 2nd/3rd choices - so your implication that 'Michaela takes the great unwashed' is definitely unsupported.

Maybe you're not implying that; but if not, you really ought to try harder NOT to imply that.

[Tristan]

I’ve not implied they take the great unwashed. I’m countering the claim that’s it’s a selective school though. It just isn’t.