A Muslim pupil today lost a High Court challenge against a ban on prayer rituals at a high-achieving school in London which was once dubbed Britain’s strictest.
The student, who cannot be named, took legal action against Michaela Community School in Brent, claiming the policy was discriminatory and ‘uniquely’ affected her faith due to its ritualised nature.
She argued the school’s stance on prayer – one of the five pillars of Islam – unlawfully breached her right to religious freedom and was ‘the kind of discrimination which makes religious minorities feel alienated from society’.
The school, founded and led by headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh, a former government social mobility tsar, argued its prayer policy was justified after it faced death and bomb threats linked to religious observance on site.
The ban was introduced in March last year after 30 students began to pray in the school’s yard, using blazers to kneel on – with the rules imposed due to concerns about a ‘culture shift’ towards ‘segregation between religious groups and intimidation within the group of Muslim pupils’, the court was told.
In a written ruling issued at the High Court in London this morning, Mr Justice Linden dismissed the pupil’s arguments against the prayer rituals ban. But the judge upheld the student’s challenge to a decision to temporarily exclude her from the school.
Ms Birbalsingh described the main ruling as a ‘victory for all schools’ while the pupil said they were ‘obviously very disappointed’ having ‘tried my best’ in bringing the case. The pupil’s mother said she was ‘profoundly dismayed by the case’s outcome’.
The school’s headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh said it was defending its ‘culture and ethos’
The pupil took legal action against Michaela Community School in Brent, North London
The judge said there was a ‘a rational connection between the aim of promoting the team ethos of the school, inclusivity, social cohesion etc and the prayer ritual policy’.
Who is ‘Britain’s strictest headteacher’ Katharine Birbalsingh?
Katharine Birbalsingh, who has been commonly described as Britain’s strictest headteacher, is no stranger to controversy.
Ms Birbalsingh, headteacher of Michaela Community School in Brent in North London, has been at the centre of a legal challenge after she decided to ban prayer rituals at the secondary school.
The high-profile school leader has attracted a lot of media attention over the years for her outspoken views on education and ‘woke’ culture.
She first grabbed the headlines at the 2010 Conservative Party conference with a damning speech on the state of England’s schools where she said standards had been ‘so dumbed down that even the teachers know it’ and the education system was broken ‘as it keeps poor children poor’.
A few weeks after her speech to delegates at the Tory conference, Ms Birbalsingh left her post as deputy headteacher of St Michael and All Angels Church of England Academy in south London.
In 2014, she founded Michaela Community School – a free school which has been dubbed the strictest in the country.
Year 7 pupils at Michaela are required to attend a behaviour ‘boot camp’ which teaches them how to walk to lessons quickly in single file, how to sit properly on a chair, and how to concentrate in class.
Students at the school get detentions if they talk in the corridor or if they forget their pencil case or ruler.
The high-achieving school, which has been rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, has been praised by a number of Tory ministers in the past for its academic success, and in 2020 Ms Birbalsingh was made a CBE.
In October 2021, Ms Birbalsingh was appointed as chairwoman of the Government’s Social Mobility Commission (SMC).
Liz Truss, who was equalities minister at the time, celebrated the headteacher for ‘expecting high standards and not indulging the soft bigotry of low expectations’.
But Ms Birbalsingh, who describes herself on social media as having ‘small c conservative values’, faced criticism for comments she made as the Government’s social mobility tsar.
In April 2022, she found herself in hot water over comments to a Government committee which implied girls do not choose to study A-level physics because they dislike ‘hard maths’.
In her inaugural speech as the SMC chairwoman, Ms Birbalsingh, an Oxford University graduate, said understanding of social mobility needed to move beyond a ‘rags to riches’, ‘Dick Whittington’ approach where there is a ‘focus on big-leap-upward mobility from the bottom to the top in one generation’.
She quit her role as the Government’s social mobility tsar in January 2023, citing the fact that she came with ‘too much baggage’ and was doing ‘more harm than good’. She added that some of her ‘controversial’ statements had put the commission in ‘jeopardy’.
Just four months later, Ms Birbalsingh made headlines again when she told the National Conservatism conference that parents should be willing to take their children out of schools if they are ‘too woke’.
Ms Birbalsingh is not afraid to speak her mind – especially on social media – and the recent events surrounding her school are no exception. In January, in a post on X, Ms Birbalsingh defended the school’s policy on prayers as she said it came amid a backdrop of violence, intimidation and racial harassment of teachers.
In the same week that the case against the school was heard in the High Court, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan hailed Ms Birbalsingh’s leadership of Michaela School as ‘incredible’ on social media.
He added: ‘The disadvantage to Muslim pupils at the school caused by the prayer ritual policy is in my view outweighed by the aims which it seeks to promote in the interests of the school community as a whole, including Muslim pupils.’
In an 83-page judgment dismissing the student’s case, Mr Justice Linden wrote: ‘It seems to me that this is a case … where the claimant at the very least impliedly accepted, when she enrolled at the school, that she would be subject to restrictions on her ability to manifest her religion.
‘She knew that the school is secular and her own evidence is that her mother wished her to go there because it was known to be strict.
‘She herself says that, long before the prayer ritual policy was introduced, she and her friends believed that prayer was not permitted at school and she therefore made up for missed prayers when she got home.’
Mr Justice Linden continued in his ruling: ‘The essential nature of the school regime is one which the claimant and her fellow pupils, or at least their parents, have chosen and, indeed, that they have chosen to remain at the school notwithstanding the prayer ritual policy (PRP).
‘Although the claimant says that she is aware of resentment of the PRP amongst some Muslim pupils, there is no evidence that this has affected enrolment or led any of them to choose to leave.
‘Nor, indeed, is there evidence of the issue being raised with the school since the PRP was introduced, other than in the context of this claim.
‘On the contrary, the evidence is that since the PRP was introduced good relations within the school community have been restored.’
He added: ‘Balancing the adverse effects of the PRP on the rights of Muslim pupils at the school with the aims of the PRP and the extent to which it is likely to achieve those aims, I have concluded that the latter outweighs the former and that the PRP is proportionate.’
Reacting to the ruling today, Ms Birbalsingh said on X: ‘A school should be free to do what is right for the pupils it serves. The court’s decision is therefore a victory for all schools.
‘Schools should not be forced by one child and her mother to change its approach simply because they have decided they don’t like something at the school.’
She also said Muslim pupils last year had been put under pressure ‘to pray, to drop out of the choir, to wear a hijab’ while teachers faced abuse and intimidation.
In the statement, Mr Birbalsingh added: ‘In 2014, 30 per cent of our intake was Muslim. It is now 50 per cent. We are oversubscribed.
‘If our families did not like the school, they would not repeatedly choose to send their children to Michaela.’
Reflecting on previous events at the school, Ms Birbalsingh said: ‘Last year, we watched our Muslim pupils put under pressure by a tiny number of others to fast, to pray, to drop out of the choir, to wear a hijab.
‘I watched one of my black teachers racially abused and intimidated, another teacher who had her personal home nearly broken into, and another with a brick thrown through her window.’
She added: ‘There is a false narrative that some try to paint about Muslims being an oppressed minority at our school. They are, in fact, the largest group.
‘Those who are most at risk are other minorities and Muslim children who are less observant.’
Rishi Sunak’s official spokesman told reporters: ‘We welcome the judgement. The Michaela Community School is an outstanding school with a history of excelling in its outcomes for all pupils, who are regularly from some of the most disadvantaged parts of London.
‘The Government has always been clear that headteachers are best placed to take decisions on what is permitted in their schools on these matters, to balance the rights of all with the ethos of the small community, including in relation to whether and how to accommodate prayer. And this judgement supports this.’
But the pupil who brought the legal challenge said in a statement provided by law firm Simpson Millar: ‘I am obviously very disappointed that the judge did not agree with me.
‘As is set out in the judgment, I do not agree that it would be too hard for the school to accommodate pupils who wished to pray in the lunch break.
‘The school is very well run and generally very good at managing everything. The school doesn’t wish to allow pupils to pray, has chosen a different path and the judge has found in their favour.
Michaela Community School was targeted with death threats and abuse, the court was told
‘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.
What are the unique practices at ‘Britain’s strictest school’?
Lunchtime poetry chanting, national anthem singing, restrictions on socialising, silent corridors and constant supervision form part of the ‘unique ethos’ of a school dubbed Britain’s strictest, a judge was told.
The high-achieving Michaela Community School in Brent, Morth London, hit the headlines after a Muslim pupil brought a High Court challenge against its allegedly discriminatory ban on prayer rituals.
The school defended against the claim, arguing it had the discretion to adopt the stance amid death and bomb threats linked to religious observance on site. A ruling was issued today in favour of the school.
Details of Michaela’s practices and its ‘ultra-strict enforcement’ of behaviour rules were revealed by lawyers during the hearing of the student’s legal challenge. They include:
– ‘Family lunch’, poetry chanting and singing the national anthem
At lunchtime, children cannot choose where they sit in the school’s halls but are allocated to tables of six depending on their year and form.
The first stand behind their chairs and chant poetry from memory and a teacher sets a mandatory topic of conversation for pupils to discuss. The aim is to ‘develop the skill of conversing at a meal table’.
Children also have set roles, such as collecting food or cleaning tables. Only vegetarian food is served to avoid division on racial or religious lines.
Students also have to sing the national anthem twice a week.
– The Michaela ‘full stop’
Pupils must end every interaction with teachers with ‘Sir’ or ‘Miss’.
– ‘Tracking’ in lessons and ‘constant supervision’
Under the tracking system, pupils ‘must pay constant attention’ to the teacher during lessons. There is no time in during classes where children may socialise with others.
Teachers are specifically placed on corridors, staircases and at the door of the toilet to supervise children during breaks.
– Silence in corridors
Students move around the school’s narrow corridors in single file and in silence and can only acknowledge staff.
– The ‘Rule of four, no more’
Groups of more than four pupils are not allowed, including when in the school yard.
The aim is to prevent social exclusion, with the school claiming that ‘bullying is virtually unheard of’.
Efforts to ‘aggressively promote integration’ include teachers actively intervening in school yard conversations and games to ensure pupils do not feel left out.
– A strict uniform policy
There is a mandatory blazer, tie, and navy-blue bag carrying the school’s logo. Jewellery and make-up are banned and hairstyles must be ‘appropriate’.
All of the children have identical transparent plastic cases to carry their things in and a branded water bottle. Certain religious dress is allowed, such as headscarves.
Only certain items can be carried by students, with all others banned. Phones seen or heard are confiscated until the end of half term.
According to the pupil’s lawyers, students are not allowed to wear coats, even in winter when they have to go outside in the cold.
‘Being involved in this case has not been easy for me … The teachers are very good here and I hope to do the best that I can. I am also grateful for the understanding that my non-Muslim friends at school have shown as to the issues that affect us.’
The pupil’s mother said she was ‘profoundly dismayed by the case’s outcome’.
In a comment also issued by Simpson Millar, she said: ‘The case was rooted in the understanding that prayer isn’t just a desirable act for us – it’s an essential element that shapes our lives as Muslims.
‘In our faith, prayer holds undeniable importance, guiding us through each challenge with strength and faith.’
She added: ‘My daughter’s impassioned stance compelled me to support her and I stand firm in that decision.
‘Her courage in pursuing this matter fills me with pride and I’m confident she’s gained invaluable lessons from the experience.’
Dan Rosenberg, a lawyer at law firm Simpson Millar who represented the pupil, said the judge had noted the case raised ‘issues of genuine public interest in circumstances where the school’s approach has come into conflict with the religious perspective of an important section of society’.
He added: ‘Obviously, the result was not a result that our client wanted but given the strength of her feelings, she did not feel it was right to merely accept the situation without seeking to challenge it.
‘I respect our client’s mother for supporting her in this.’
However, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan said: ‘I have always been clear that headteachers are best placed to make decisions in their school.
‘Michaela is an outstanding school and I hope this judgment gives all school leaders the confidence to make the right decisions for their pupils.’
And secular campaigners said the ruling serves as a reminder that claims of religious freedom ‘do not trump all other considerations’.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, said: ‘Given the disruption experienced by the school, a ruling that the ban on prayer rituals was lawful is welcome.
‘It also serves as a useful reminder that claims of religious freedom do not trump all other considerations. If a school wishes to uphold a secular ethos, it should be entitled to do so.
‘Schools should be environments where everyone feels welcomed and valued, but that doesn’t mean students have untrammelled religious freedom.
‘Where the manifestation of religion is deemed divisive or disruptive, a balance must be struck. We’re pleased the school’s actions have been vindicated.’
Another organisation said the Government should develop national guidance on religious practices in schools to address building ‘resentment’ in the system.
Andrew Copson, chief executive of the Humanists UK charity, said: ‘In the absence of national guidance on religious practices in schools and of a serious national discussion about existing laws, cases like this will continue to be brought. Schools shouldn’t be left alone to deal with this.
‘Today’s High Court judgment requires serious thinking from the Government about how to protect the child’s freedom of religion or belief while also making sure our education system is fair and inclusive to all.
‘We believe a first step should be to resolve the wider issue of mandatory collective worship in schools and replace it with an inclusive form of assembly that makes all pupils feel welcomed, while making reasonable accommodations for those who want to privately pray or worship where it doesn’t infringe the rights and freedoms of others.
‘Without such holistic attention, resentment will continue to build within our school system.’
In January, lawyers for the pupil told the judge at a hearing that the ‘prayer ban’ unlawfully breached her right to religious freedom, adding that it made her feel ‘like somebody saying they don’t feel like I properly belong here’.
The court was told the pupil, referred to only as TTT, was making a ‘modest’ request to be allowed to pray for around five minutes at lunch time, on dates when faith rules required it, but not during lessons.
The student also challenged allegedly unfair decisions to temporarily suspend her from school.
Mr Justice Linden dismissed the pupil’s arguments against the prayer rituals ban at the school
The school’s lawyers claimed its prayer policy was ‘justified’ and ‘proportionate’ after it faced death and bomb threats linked to religious observance on site.
They added that the governors and headteacher at the school of some 700 pupils, about half of whom are Muslim, had ‘a margin of latitude, discretion or judgment’ over its policies.
During a two-day hearing, the school’s founder and headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh said on social media that it was defending its ‘culture and ethos’ along with decisions to ‘maintain a successful and stable learning environment where children of all races and religions can thrive’.
Posting on X, she said the school decided ‘to stop prayer rituals when some pupils started them, against a backdrop of events including violence, intimidation and appalling racial harassment of our teachers’.
The court was told that Ms Birbalsingh, a former government social mobility tsar, first introduced the policy in March last year, with it being backed by the governing body in May – allegedly ‘on the basis of misinformation and errors’.
In March 2023, up to 30 students began praying in the school’s yard, using blazers to kneel on.
Lawyers for the school said students seen praying outside contributed to a ‘concerted campaign’ on social media over the school’s approach to religion, with there also being a since-removed online petition attracting thousands of signatures.
The court heard the school was targeted with death threats, abuse, ‘false’ allegations of Islamophobia, and a ‘bomb hoax’.
Reversing the school’s ’emergency’ ban would again expose it to ‘an unacceptable risk of threats’, its lawyers said, adding that it avoided ‘the logistical disruption and detriments to other school activities’.
The court was told ‘Muslim children were observed to be applying peer pressure to other Muslim children to act in certain ways’, with the school claiming that allowing prayer rituals risked ‘undermining inclusion and social cohesion between pupils’.
Following the hearing, Ms Birbalsingh told The Sunday Times the legal process was ‘taking a massive toll’ and argued the school should ‘be allowed to be secular’.
She told the paper that the school will ‘definitely appeal if we lose’, adding: ‘I will not divide children according to race and religion; it will not happen under my watch.’
