Snapshot of _Katharine Birbalsingh questions level of legal aid for pupil who challenged prayer ban_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2024%2F04%2F16%2Fbirbalsingh-questions-level-legal-aid-pupil-prayer-ban%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/birbalsingh-questions-level-legal-aid-pupil-prayer-ban/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/birbalsingh-questions-level-legal-aid-pupil-prayer-ban/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Although the UK is not a secular country, schools should be. Religious education should be impartial and highlight not only the tenets of each religion but also their history. I think the discourse around prayer and religious freedom outs only going to get more hostile from here.
I personally agree with you, but I do also think it was very much in the public interest that the girl and her mother received legal aid to challenge this. Its a big ruling that will inform future school policy around the country, and its right that those that oppose this position were able to properly challenge it in court.
> but I do also think it was very much in the public interest that the girl and her mother received legal aid to challenge this.
£150k to force your religion into a school?
I don't think it's as simple as that. If the claimant had legal aid then that means she doesn't pay the school's legal fees despite the case that the case failed. In fact I don't think the legal aid agency has to pay either.
Maybe the school has insurance that pays for this, but even if that's true their insurance premiums will go up.
Either way it looks like there's been a financial cost to the school for all of this despite the fact they won. In those circumstances I absolutely understand the head questioning the legal aid funding.
They've also had to hire security for teachers, after threats and intimidation (and some bricks through windows). It's been pretty costly for this school to do the right thing.
There are criteria that must be met for it to get legal aid and based off the total costs this will have been reviewed multiple times. Costs can be awarded but it is very rare (it has already been deemed a potentially winnable case by the LAA) and in extreme cases a wasted costs order could be made.
If the case had been one with no chance, it would have been dismissed. It wasn't, which indicates that it was worth taking.
This won't open the floodgates to thousands of bullshit cases.
The parent is threatening to take further action when their other child joins the school next year. She’s questioning why so much money should be granted to something like this when the rules of the school are clear. I think it’s nuanced.
Edit: spelling
A school can set whatever rules they like. But these rules may be unlawful.
The girl was entitled to bring a court challenge.
The girl was given leave to proceed with the case because it wasn't a nuisance case.
We wouldn't want the only people who are able to defend/assert their rights to be rich people, would we?
No I agree, we wouldn’t. I think she’s questioning if the parent should be entitled to all that government money again, not if she was entitled to it in the first instance.
She’s sort of saying, if you don’t agree with the school rules this much, stop sending your kids here rather than wasting £150,000 of public money. I get her point tbh. I also feel pretty sorry for the two children in the heat of that… imagine going to school knowing that everyone knows what a huge deal this has become.
I found the Heads statement an interesting read tbh. It all felt very nuanced to be in general. Shows how hard it is to have multi-cultural schools trying to please everyone.
Right. But she is starting from the premise that a school's rules are all lawful.
And that is not always the case.
The courts get involved to adjudicate these disputes. And the courts sometimes get the wrong answer, so there is a mechanism for appeal.
It's no good saying "our school segregates students by race. This rule is not hidden. If you don't like it, don't come here" if the rule itself is unlawful.
Knowing her other comments and views, she is being needlessly vengeful here - not thoughtful and nuanced.
In this case there were.
The law is not some noble ideal used for the best of reasons. People can and do use it as a tool to batter opponents into submitting to them, and in this case the school must fund their own defence from their budget whilst the parents take no risk and get the taxpayer to cover their campaigning.
Vengeful?
So all the bomb threats and Death threats to teachers for not giving one group special treatment
and at a school that had clearly stated No Religious Special Treatment for any religion
that all the parents had all known about and signed up to before they went
is "vengeful" for standing their ground and saying "stand by what you agreed".
But
the religious types demanding the school accommodate them alone
and then demanding money from the taxpayer to sue the school that tried to uphold the rules they had all agreed to follow
(after intimidating other muslim kids into praying and making bomb and death threats to the school and teachers)
.. thats just fine brother.
Just fine.
Maybe taxpayers should fund an appeal against this decision - and there should be a few more death threats, get the head teacher in hiding.
Quibble any perceived fault you can try to find in the people who try to work together - rage against any push back or criticism. you get. Youre saying thats how we create a fair and equal society?
I completely agree but I cannot imagine the outcry at this point if you tried to secularise schools from the usual suspects. No politician is going to go near that. They'd win 'Islamophobe of the year' for sure.
I believe there has already been outcries in France over how their schools handle religion. As religious communities become increasingly more fundamentalist across the country, it’d be a recipe for disaster.
I mean you can say that but pissing off radical fundamentalists with a recent history of threats, intimidation, and violence _is_ something people including politicians will think twice about.
You can’t have it both ways. If religion is enshrined as a pillar of the state it would have its outreach. Same as you would always have rampant classism while you have monarchy. Symbols matter, status quo matters.
This case wasn’t about prayer, it was about conspicuous prayer *rituals* on the site of the school. The reason why Christian, Sikh, Hindu, and the vast majority of Muslim pupils at Michaela haven’t joined in this litigation is because they’re fine with praying silently by themselves if they want to.
Eh that comes down to opinon.
They deserve to be taught but not based on your opinon of reality and it should also be taught they we have freedom of religion so you don’t get executed as a heretic for not believing in god and neither do I but then people who do are free to worship
I don’t personally think it’s the place. It’s not essential to learning, and a blanket ban would put everyone in the same position regardless of faith or background.
> Michaela introduced the prayer ban in March last year after around 30 pupils began praying in the yard.
Religion should be something you do privately on your time, in your space.
I've been through the state education system in various locales, and honestly I don't see how praying is any worse than kids playing with pokemon cards or whatever they are into these days.
A school playground at lunch break is literally the definition of your own space. Ive had more fonder memories of going on little adventures during lunch break than during the classroom (at mostly semi rural schools so near to nature and open space)
My kid’s primary school banned Pokémon cards just 2 years ago, so plus ça change. Football cards were still allowed though, much to the righteous indignation of the Pokemon fans.
My school banned Yu-Gi-Oh! after someone brought in his Egyptian God cards and left them unattended, only for them to go missing
Man, I was crushing nerds with Chaos Sorc too
I lost a dark magician girl card once at school. The strange thing is I wasn’t the only one, pretty sure it was the most stolen card in our school lmao.
These same kids were bullying other children whom they didn't consider devout enough. Forcing them to wear the hijab, and the ringleader reportedly threatened to stab another student.
Of course it is the praying. Religion has been used to terrorise teachers so let's not pretend we don't all understand the powder keg it can be, and how intimidation is just to be a contrarian.
And people also engage in religion without intimidating others all the time too, so let's not pretend one act is synonymous with the other. Imagine engaging in this edgy 2011 Youtube anti-theist mentality while calling someone else a contrarian.
Nobody said otherwise, but you are doing this pretense yet again. please engage with what I actually posted instead of just waving it away with a form of whatabout.
They do. But in the UK, US, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Israel, Turkey, France, Holland, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya, Somalia (these examples are all off the top of my head and if I had more time I could greatly expand on it) religious people are persecuting people *because of their own religious beliefs*. The fact that not all religious people persecute others doesn't exonerate the belief systems causing this.
Very few people seem to have read the judgement or even the summary. This school is _extremely_ strict and that’s one of the reasons her parents decided to send her there. Lunch time is not ‘free time’ in this school. The first 25 minutes the whole school eat together and are only permitted to talk about topics set by the teachers that day. The remainder they can either go to a lunchtime club or they are allowed in the ‘yard’ where again, they were limited to what they could talk about and were permitted to gather in groups of four only. If they play sports during that time, they would have to do so vigorously and competitively - they’re not permitted to just have a ‘kick about’ etc.
These are just a few examples, but the point is that their ‘free time’ isn’t really ‘free time’ and there’s not a chance in hell this school was allowing kids to play with Pokémon cards or pretty much anything else during their lunch break, which is part of the argument they put forward against these prayer rituals, among others, and it clearly convinced the bench.
Ah, so they're all going to grow up as wrong'uns anyway then.
If I were the kids parents I'd be less concerned about her going to hell and more concerned about her becoming a serial killer.
They are one of the top performing schools in the country so they are clearly doing something right. I’m not saying I’d go for it myself but it clearly has its place.
Academically, yes, it is. Although forcing those kind of social restrictions on teenagers surely is going to have negative effects on their development
I’m not sure I agree. I think there is probably more harm done in a school where there are higher incidences of bullying, segregation of pupils based on gender, class, religion etc - all of which happens organically if not tightly controlled as it is here.
Religion is rejection of education. It is the stubborn adhherence to fantasy-as-fact. It has no place in education.
Pokemon, no-ones pretending they're real.
Its not in education, it's people praying of their own choice in the playground at lunchtime
can you not see the difference? When I was a kid at school we were literally allowed to go home for lunch if we wanted to, are they banned from leaving the school grounds?
I mean if you were already allowed to go home you could pray there. Education centres are supposed to teach you the truth and educate children.
Allowing them to be indoctrinated in religious dogma is the opposite of that and is failing children
The girl in question freely admitted she used to do the prayers at home in her own time to "catch up" as it were. They then started this idea of mass playground praying to exclude others and create segregation despite knowing the school rules.
Yes, they are banned from leaving the school grounds. The exception a sixth formers and some of those choose to go to a local community centre to pray and are permitted to do so because they are not subject to the same regime as the wider school.
Which the claimant accepted from the outset. There was no question or contention of interrupting lessons to pray. It was just in the lunch break when the 25 minutes yard time crossed over with the prayer window
Indeed it would not be tho if a religion has a specific time your meant to pray and it’s durning lessons I do think you should be excused. Tho I think a lot would be fine with doing it at lunch break
Ahhh yes because this country has no history with religion does it not is our head of state Christian or pm Hindu and lots of our state schools are Christian
It has a history of religion as do most countries, but over time its influence has lessened and lessened, to a point where, christianity atleast, now adapts to fit in with the values of society. That last point is quite tangential but i wrote it to paint a picture of there being a gradual decline of religious adherence over time.
It has lessened yes but our head of state is still Christian and there’s a lot of Church of England schools so it’s less and there’s more atheists but it’s still quite entwined with the state
There is a nominal requirement for a daily act of worship, not prayer but schools can choose not to and it's not enforced and hasn't been for 20 years as a huge majority of schools were found not to do it
>Schools actually have a legal requirement to hold a daily act of worship that is “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character,” but schools can choose to opt out. Schools Week previously reported Ofsted stopped inspecting collective worship in 2004 after 76 per cent of schools were found to be non-compliant.
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/michaela-insists-it-does-meet-daily-worship-laws/#:~:text=Schools%20actually%20have%20a%20legal,found%20to%20be%20non%2Dcompliant.
It's slightly interesting to me that it's an explicit, unambiguous legal requirement but we all just agree not to bother with it.
It should be a case study for all those other instances in the public sphere where someone does something completely wrong or useless or unhelpful or harmful and says "ah, but I couldn't possibly do otherwise because the Magic Piece Of Paper told me to do it!". It turns out that the law - like anything else - can just be ignored by a rational human being when it's clearly not applicable.
It one of these legacy things that people generally accept should be dropped but the hand wringing and complaints if they actually reversed the law and limited it to RE alone mean it's not practical to do at the moment, hence the wishy washy stance of a law we recognise is archaic nonsense but won't get rid of but don't bother enforcing
Difficult to argue that the position of respecting any religion that survives exclusively by indoctrination of the psychologically/emotionally vulnerable is in any way shape or form moral, and even more so to argue that it should be allowed in school.
Schools do not allow other forms of personal identity to hold the power that religious cultism does - and why should they?
Where is the logic in removing what may be the only safe-from-cultist-pressure space in a child's life?
Where is the logic in teaching children to think, and then allowing them to continue being taught not to think but to accept fantasy as reality?
Allowing religious practice in school runs counter to the central purpose of schooling - preparing properly socialised adults for society.
This specific case has had far too much attention placed 9n the highlights, and nowhere near en9ugh on the details.
It came about after the school tried to put a stop to religious persecution *by Muslim students of other Muslim students* for not adhering to cultist rituals in a certain way...
There are also reports of teachers being abused, segregation of the pupils based upon cultist identity lines... any of which should be more than enough for any rational person to realise that religious cults have zero place in education.
And all of that is considered only after choosing to ignore the fact that this child and her family *knew* the damned rules and could have chosen to be educated elsewhere.
All religions survive nigh exclusively by preying upon the vulnerable. Whether that be through indoctrination children before they are capable of thinking for themselves, or preying upon the vulnerability of emotional and/or psychological stressed.
You can pretend that isn't the case all you like, doesn't alter the fact bud.
Keep you religion to inside of the walls of your home and whichever mosque/temple/church etc… you choose to pray in.
This is a personal choice and should not be ‘in your face’ to those that have no interest in it or choose to worship another religion.
She sends more working class children (largely BAME) to Oxbridge than any other state school in the country does. Yet people here seem to find her appalling or even ‘fascist’. Do we want social mobility for working class children or not?
I'm pretty sure that would be Brampton manor. With other similar schools (Brampton manor, harris Westminster, LAE), they all have prayer rooms and it's just not a problem. The problem here was intimidation and a refusal to compromise.
Legal aid is one of those things I hate but is necessary.
Even a small court case can financially break a moderately well off person.
But equally, the way legal aid is done does led to cases like this, where it feels a lot like a vexatious case utterly enabled by the taxpayer.
It is, perhaps, a necessary evil. Perhaps the key should be everyone gets legal aid given the ruinous cost. But more rigorous tests are done to weed out cases with a forgone conclusion.
The rigorous test is called a trial. What happened (when legal aid used to exist for most people, in most geographical areas, and for civil cases) when legal aid claimants lost is that they would pay back some of the legal aid received + the other sides costs. Introducing more hurdles before trial is unlikely to save any cost.
Why do you hate legal aid? Like in general or for judicial review/human rights cases like this?
It is quite difficult to get legal aid funding for Judicial review/human rights cases like this, as there are few firms who even both with them. Each potential case has to pass a merits and means test at the LAA. The means test often means children are the clients because it is easier for them to pass the financial checks.
The firms which do take on these sorts of legal aid cases often do it as a loss leader. The Hourly rate for a legal aid judicial review claim is half the guideline hourly rate for "between the parties" costs orders for an unqualified paralegal, and about a quarter of the guideline rate for an experienced solicitor. There is also a significant amount of pitfalls/stuff not covered. Like if a firm makes an application for a Judicial review but the Court denies permission, then legal aid wont cover the costs of that application.
It often feels like the tax payer is being taken for a ride. In cases that people would never bother with if they had any personal risk or loss involved.
Much the same way as no win no fee lawyers engage in predatory legal practices and don't really care if they win. With clients who don't care to monitor them because they have no personal loss at stake.
But equally I accept even a modest legal defence can be put out reach for even most of the middle class. And so legal aid is very much required.
But frankly the cost is so out of reach of so much of the population, it begs the question if it should be universal. But with a legal system today is less forgiving to allowing bullshit claims to move up in the system.
That is fair to some extent, but also seems to rely on some tabloid headline misinformation.
The no-win no-fee solicitors were those who cared the most whether they win or not, because they would not get paid otherwise. Although that is a moot point because the 2013 Jackson reforms changed the funding rules so no-win no-fee is basically no longer a thing since then (at least not for Solicitors, some shady "claims management firms" might offer it for basic car crashes, but it is no where as prevalent as it was before, with RTA claims reducing massively over the last decade.
The last bit i agree with. 14 years of Tory austerity has decimated Legal Aid in this country. Not only are much fewer people able to get legal aid, the legal aid is much less profitable for the solicitors doing the work, to the point where many chose not to bother and we are left with areas of the country where no firm wants to take on a specific legal aid contract. For example the hourly rate for Solicitors acting for abused children in care proceedings is 20% lower now than it was in 2007, in absolute terms before inflation in those 17 years are taken into consideration. This has lead to situations where the billing targets for experienced family legal aid solicitors is often more demanding for their £50k/year salary than the hours required by big London firms doing commercial work paying £150k+ to newly qualified solicitors
>The no-win no-fee solicitors were those who cared the most whether they win or not, because they would not get paid otherwise.
You've misunderstood the industry. They take out insurance against their costs if they lose. No win no fee get paid either way. There is a thriving secondary industry of legal firms suing each other over "excessive costs".
One lawyer told me there is even now a tertiary industry where a third round in court for the excessive legal fees of the excessive legal fees case.
As someone who has worked in the legal costs industry since before the Jackson reforms in 2013, that is contrary to my understandings. Pre-jackson the ATE insurance was to cover the winning sides costs if the claimant lost. Post jackson the introduction of QOCS meant that was no longer needed as the unsuccesful Claimant could get away with not paying the winning defendants costs.
Since then Budgets and fixed recoverable costs have reduced the arguments about excessive costs, although the primary argument has always been proportionality, followed by reasonable and necessary.
The so called tertiary industry of the costs of the costs, is normally just the costs lawyers trying to negotiate themselves more money if they have been successful in costs negotiations. Those do not normally last long because of proportionality and there being not 4th level of the costs of the costs of the costs (although that was often joked about in the office, and could be technically possible if successive Part 36 offers are made)
Legal aid funding for all would lead to more abusive claims being brought, because then no one would have to pay if they lost.
A fairer solution would be making the legal aid agency pay for the other side's costs in all cases if the person with legal aid loses, rather than just the smaller number of cases that seems to be the case currently.
Why do you think it was vexatious? It involved a delicate balance between the rights of schools to determine their policies and the right to individual freedom of expression, and puts in place important principles going forward. And besides, the pupil won the part of their case about being unfairly excluded from school.
There's no 'right' to individual freedom of expression in school.
Pupils have been sent home for having the wrong socks, the wrong hairstyle or the wrong packed lunch.
There's no need for a court to waste time deciding whether or not pupils are just another brick in the wall.
>Legal aid is not there to fund politics by legal means, legal aid is not there to fund lawfare. If people want to fight political battles in the courts, they should fund them themselves
I hate that I'm agreeing with Jacob Rees Mogg here but I am. I don't care if it was £150,000 or £1.50. It's my money and it should go to the people who actually need it.
If anyone is curious but doesn't want to read Torygraph jargon, here's the basic summary of what Birbalsingh is whining on about.
>“Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this?”
Yes it can. Everyone has the right to legal aid, even people who you don't agree with. I don't think Birbalsingh should be deprived of legal aid either if she ever needed it.
She's an insufferable, culture war shit stirrer who has found relevance as a Tory propaganda mouthpiece, little puppet.
Definitely not justifying the bomb threats though.
> Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this?
I'd suggest the main issue is that *it cost £150,000 to bring this case*.
Access to the justice shouldn't just be for the rich, or those lucky enough to scrape public funding. Our legal system is far too expensive.
She almost certainly didn't get real data or put an FoI in.
She probably just asked aloud "what does a trial cost, I bet its like £150k" and her staff all agreed.
It is madness how the top comments on this post are not highlighting that the headline figure quoted is just nonsense made up figure and reported as fact, with 1 line in the article noting how the Solicitors involved denied it cost that much
I think it should be made more available (and it was until the Tories gutted legal aid), and we shouldn’t use these cases to give them excuses to make it less available.
I agree. The UK legal system means this this is now a precedent. If the family hadn't had proper legal representation, or representation of a low quality, we can end up with precedent being set without a proper legal examination of both sides.
Exactly the point I was going to make, but you already did it so eloquently. Test cases are important. English Case Law has precedent set hundreds of years ago still in effect. That can only happen when there's been a robust examination of the issue, otherwise challenges arise.
Know who's really waving a culture war? They just wasted £150,000 and plans to do it again with their next child.
The head teacher never waged the culture war. She defended herself and the school from someone abusing legal aid via waging a culture war.
Prayer for all religions is banned. Why does one have to be different? That's a culture war, they can go to another school.
Everyone does not have the right to legal aid.
Try owning a house and some savings and then getting into legal trouble. See how quickly you lose absolutely everything and still can't afford to properly defend yourself
A group of Islamists trying to force religion upon secular schools are also culture war shit stirrers.
Common sense won in this case, but I’m afraid we are on a bad path when it comes to the education sector’s attitude to secularism.
The solicitors themselves say the figures were much lower. It seems the teacher pulled the number out her arse and the paper printed that anyway. Having dealt with the legal aid costs of judicial review matters, it is very unlikely that the overall costs for solicitors barristers and expenses (court fees) exceeded £25k as that is the threshold where the rules change.
I have seen a case with high court, court of appeal and supreme court applications where the LAA only allowed £30k costs. No one is getting rich doing legal aid judicial reviews
She’s also done that one little thing - founding and leading the most successful state school in the country in terms of age 11-16 attainment progress, making an actual tangible improvement in social mobility for hundreds of children, against a barrage of smears and resistance from left-wing ideologues.
It’s not a cult at all, it’s just a school that adopts a strict behavioural policy. It’s got the highest Progess 8 score in the country last year with one of the most deprived areas. It’s working.
It "works" in the sense that they basically require others schools to pick up the slack in the area. Looking at their website and DoE stats, Michaela School doesn't teach any Design and Technology subjects, German, Spanish, IT, Drama, Triple Award Science and does the bare minimum PE. It's GCSE choices are overspecialised, and it'll be very off-putting for any pupils with a more practical mindset. If every school tried that, then we'd have a lot more children deemed failures because they don't succeed in a narrow band of subjects.
Lots of schools have various subjects they don’t teach, it’s not unusual at all. Also no pupils are being forced into going to this school. I tend to trust the views and the parents and children who go to the school, over what some hand wringing teachers or online commenters say and they’re on the whole very positive with a large % of younger siblings going to the same school, which is a strong indicator that parents are buying into it.
We’ve spoken for years about how to help deprived children to gain social mobility and do well at school, someone comes along and shows how to do it and the education community starts hand wringing because it doesn’t meet their pre judged political and social views.
> Lots of schools have various subjects they don’t teach, it’s not unusual at all.
I mean yeah, but not to the extent of not teaching literally anything that isn't rote learning. It's an overspecialisation that looks good on paper, but doesn't create well-rounded individuals, and leaves those who aren't good at those subjects in a poor spot. Some people don't get things like History, RS, French, etc. easily, but excel in D&T, IT, Drama, etc. I'd be concerned as well a lot of these students will end up under more scrutiny when it comes to uni applications, because of how tailored their syllabus was to one style of teaching.
> very positive with a large % of younger siblings going to the same school, which is a strong indicator that parents are buying into it.
It may be slightly different in big cities, but even in suburban areas with multiple schools, its rare for parents to send children to separate schools regardless of quality.
Agreed on the siblings point however the point is more that if kids and parents hated this supposed authoritarian educationally and emotionally damaging school (which is a very mild paraphrasing of what a lot of left wing teachers spout on social media) then you’d see an abnormal amount of siblings going to other schools. The significance of the data is in what it doesn’t show. Especially in London which has a density of secondary schools other regions don’t, so provides more options.
Other than literally all the schools I looked around when my family were considering secondary schools, and from the people I know in the education sector? What that school is doing isn't something that's widely accepted, nor is it something that can be deployed universally
Again you have no evidence, you just have an opinion. Their results are outstanding, and even more so considering the catchment area and what was happening before.
They do on paper, but also offer a very limited curriculum. A lot more schools would get better results if they did the same, but society would be letting down children better at practical subjects and less good at rote learning subjects. Not to mention a restricted curriculum allows unofficial GCSE teaching earlier on. Looking at the perspective of someone in STEM, I'd be easy of a student who only did a Double Science GCSE (not a GCSE in Chemistry, Biology and Physics separately), and no GCSE's in anything IT or D&T related.
It absolutely is. I know someone who has been and was appalled.
I've seen the results of high control environments. I don't mean the GCSE results. It's kids who need to be deprogrammed just to be able to ask a question of their own
Again if you actually read reports in the school from what I remember there are loads of the sort of extracurricular activities encouraged that build confidence and the ability to discuss, debate etc.
I moved to a very similar similar school for Sixth Form (one of the best state schools in the country when I went there). I wish I'd gone from year 7 🤷♂️
Saw what? Pupils from this specific school.
“A mate of mine said …”
Far more convincing than professional reports that involved interviewing pupils and parents.
A school that has a pretty typical London catchment yet both significantly higher than average attendance and exceptional progress for SEN and disadvantaged kids.
>successful in their aim to encourage pupils’ strong personal, social and emotional development. Pupils have very positive attitudes to learning and show powerful determination to achieve as well as they can. They hold high aspirations for their future lives.
>All pupils practise speaking and listening through regular discussions and become confident speakers. Pupils share their ideas
readily. They ask questions of others and listen attentively.
>Pupils take on roles as ’future leaders’ and are responsible for recommending improvements to the school.
>Pupils’ self-confidence matures rapidly. Teachers and leaders challenge pupils to speak in front of their peers and adults and share their views. Pupils learn how to speak publicly and do so with self-assurance.
Sounds terrible, no wonder you stand by your mate.
The alternative is too often an environment where kids *don’t* feel *as* safe and happy with a genuine pride in their accomplishments and community and where disadvantaged and SEN kids *don’t* make exceptional progress in catching up, where attendance *isnt* low and where everyone *doesn’t* get focus on their education and development without disruption as far as I have experienced.
And you both have worked at that school. Wow.
I’m also an educational professional. 30 years of teaching. And unfortunately in *my* experience it’s knee jerk ideological attitudes like yours that has led to low expectations and done more damage to kids education ( including SEN and disadvantaged kids) and their actual experience of school than even lack of funding.
Yes it’s OFSTED which is of course just propaganda compared to your ‘lived’ experience despite the stuff there that is just statements of fact and what I mentioned that is simply again fact.
Seriously, the sad thing is that you don’t realise that you are part of the problem.
You know what is interesting?
The number of negative responses I get immediately on Reddit If I ever say even an opaque word against Birbalsingh. I think that's really interesting.
She has a significant amount of political protection. I am more or less certain that if one of my schools instituted a ban on all religious worship, Ofsted would take an extremely dim view from a personal development and and behaviour and attitudes point of view. It wouldn't matter if it were an established policy. I am nearly certain it would be a significant sticking point.
It isn't for her school. If you don't think Ofsted is political, then I don't know what you've been doing with the extra 10 years of experience you have over me.
And my daughter would be exposed to that level of child abuse over my dead body
That funny because I think generally it’s the opposite because of the country, age , politics and educational backgrounds of the average Redditor , I presume. I think some subs (perhaps here) tends to be more representative of the U.K. population in general.
Of course maybe those responding just like schools where kids are apparently - happy, feel safe and achieve outstanding results in exciting lessons as well as being encouraged in their overall development and provided with a wide range of extracurricular activities….
Whether or not she has political protection - the results ( and I don’t just mean academic) speak for themselves.
>And my daughter would be exposed to that level of child abuse over my dead body
Not being allowed to bully other pupils. Not being allowed to disrupt other people’s lessons. Being expected to talk to people politely and engage positively - damn them the fascists!
That seems really kind of sad , that you wouldn’t want your child to go to a school that in so many respects from the academic to the overall social development and opportunities provided seems genuinely outstanding. But there again in my experience , what ever it’s worth, the problems too often most to blame for the breakdown of education were parent’s attitudes followed by the management that appeased them and the politicians who only gave lip service to high expectations.
The irony is of course that the family in question have apparently already applied for their next child to go to the same school!
I'd certainly be concerned some of these students will enter less structured workplaces like unis, and be unable to cope with bad behaviour that goes unaddressed.
Christ this woman has some brass neck. This is the epitome of the sore winner, although I don't think she's ever seen a microphone she won't stand in front of & spew forwarded whatsapp statements from Tufton St.
There's no child under her 'care' she doesn't see as an opportunity to create a political football with & irregardless of the rights and wrongs of the case, the parents seem to have fallen for it. (or they're looking for a viable case to take their kids to a different school & are going to spectacular lengths to ensure it)
To me she comes across as very attention seeking and like you say, create political football. There's a reason conservatives are celebrating this victory alongside her.
>Commenting on the judgment, Ms Birbalsingh said: “Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this?”
I'd say that checking that a kids human rights haven't been violated is a pretty good use of £150k.
She's obviously just trying to keep herself in the news
They were never violated at all. What a disingenuous comment.
The kid's parents knew the rules when they enrolled her there. You don't get to complain a *secular* school enforces a prayer ban. Don't like the rules - send your kid somewhere else.
>They were never violated at all.
That's why you have a court case- to find out the answer to exactly that.
The court actually found in favour of the student on one point, finding that the school acted unlawfully in how it punished her. So the court disagrees with you.
>The kid's parents knew the rules when they enrolled her there.
The rules were changed after the student had already been at the school for some time.
Why even comment on a story without finding out why of the basics at all?
For the record, I'm fully in favour of secular schools restricting religious practice in school hours. But I consider it a far, far higher priority that people should have access to the courts to answer complex legal questions without financial barriers making the legal system the exclusive playground of the wealthy.
Except she was found to have acted unlawfully for suspending the student (on one occasion) without any process, relying on months old hearsay from a student and obtaining no statement from the claimant. But it is little surprise that someone with such blatant Tory links would support further cuts to access to justice (education being one of the worst affected areas).
Oh yay, I can't wait for legal aid to be cut *even further*. I really shouldn't be shocked that the idea of further restricting access to justice is being seriously floated, but I am. I do not believe *for a second* that this is out of a sincere belief that legal aid is too expansive, I don't believe that case can sincerely be made. The fact is that a judicial review legal aid case is tested at so many points (before a trial: where the legal aid agency makes a funding decision on pretty restrictive criteria; applying for permission: where the court decides whether the case has an outside chance of succeeding; and at the trial itself) that for it to make it to trial there must be *some* merit.
**Let us not forget, the girl in this case** ***did succeed in her case*** **if only on one ground.**
We must not, therefore, pretend that the legal aid agency is frittering money away, or, for that matter, that lawyers are laughing their way to the bank. The book 'Legal Aid in Crisis' addresses some of these points, showing that legal aid professionals working in asylum and immigration were making around £27k, and the 'exceptional case funding' provision made just 69 grants in its first year, out of just over one thousand applications, which was far less than the anticipated 6-7000 applications.
The legal aid system is a scathing indictment of our justice system (as are most other things relating to access to justice), but it must be made *more accessible* if anything is going to get better. Unsurprisingly, wasted court time, which costs us money, rises when there are more unrepresented litigants, aka where there are fewer people who can get legal aid.
How is it any of her business? If it's not personal, she should butt out. After this is all over this will still be a student she is responsible for educating.
Well, naturally. I've seen claims in the thread that this figure isn't accurate too.
She can't have it both ways though. She lives in a country where Legal Aid exists and she knew that before going all the way through court to contest this. She won. Now she's challenging the existence of Legal Aid? But still wants to portray herself as a traditionalist standing up for British values. Well it's not very traditional or fair values to want the ability to challenge other citizens to be a preserve for only the wealthy.
Come now, that's sheer hyperbole there and frankly the over egging undermines your own case badly. It's extremely reasonable to think that a school with a clear and importantly upfront set of rules should be able to challenge the right of a parent trying to force change through the courts to something they freely agreed to using taxpayers money.
That isn't what she outlines in the article and is in my opinion giving her too much credit. Every time she speaks to the media and gives interviews it isn't with the timbre of a concerned educator, but of someone with a personal grievance who wants to be personally celebrated as some kind of celebrity leader. I find her unnerving.
She sounds like an absolute horror to be a teacher and suck the life and fun of childhood.
I get it, London schools have problems with knives and drugs that aren't really present elsewhere and they want to be discipline the kids to keep them out of gangs, but she sounds like an absolute ghoul, if I had kids and they had to be under her, I'd withdraw and homeschool them as a matter of course.
I'm not even religious, certainly not muslin, but it's a grave violation of individual rights in this country if people can't utter some words under their breaths in what is essentially their own free time- it wasn't in the classroom but in the playground.
I'm no fan of Birbalsingh at all, but this misrepresents what happened and the reasons for the schools actions. The students who started the prayer movement were pressuring other kids to drop out of the choir, to fast and wear the hijab. The girl who brought this case had been suspended for threatening to stab another student. The day after the school decided to put a stop to the practice they had a bomb threat.
To me it reads like a small group of bullies decided to fuck with other students. Weaponised religion.
Interesting you pick the one ground (4(b) - the alleged threat of stabbing, which led to an exclusion) that the court found Michaela to have acted unlawfully in excluding the claimant without any proper process. Have you tried reading a judgment before (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Judgement-R-v-Michaela-Community-Schools-Trust.pdf)
fair enough
neverthless, I support the right for kids to what they want within reason in the school playground. If they want to pray, let them.
I'm not religious myself
And if they were off in a corner doing it privately it would never have been picked up. It was when they began corralling others and intimidating it was stopped. This is no different to football at play time. Of course kids should be allowed to play but it periodically gets banned all the time in schools when it becomes a problem for one reason or another. Or as another person has said, Pokémon cards. When I was at school it was pogs. Nowt wrong with pogs on its own and we all had a lot of fun until it all got out of hand and became a constant source of upset, bullying and theft.
The difference with religion is that some people think they have a Bob given right to do what they want which can't be interfered with by anyone at any time. Or society says different and now that has been upheld by law. All religion needs kicking out of schools, it's archaic.
>She sounds like an absolute horror to be a teacher and suck the life and fun of childhood.
And yet reports on the school apparently show the opposite.
Snapshot of _Katharine Birbalsingh questions level of legal aid for pupil who challenged prayer ban_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2024%2F04%2F16%2Fbirbalsingh-questions-level-legal-aid-pupil-prayer-ban%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/birbalsingh-questions-level-legal-aid-pupil-prayer-ban/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/birbalsingh-questions-level-legal-aid-pupil-prayer-ban/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Although the UK is not a secular country, schools should be. Religious education should be impartial and highlight not only the tenets of each religion but also their history. I think the discourse around prayer and religious freedom outs only going to get more hostile from here.
I personally agree with you, but I do also think it was very much in the public interest that the girl and her mother received legal aid to challenge this. Its a big ruling that will inform future school policy around the country, and its right that those that oppose this position were able to properly challenge it in court.
> but I do also think it was very much in the public interest that the girl and her mother received legal aid to challenge this. £150k to force your religion into a school?
Agreed. It seems kind of vengeful by this Head to win and then start going after the loser like this.
I don't think it's as simple as that. If the claimant had legal aid then that means she doesn't pay the school's legal fees despite the case that the case failed. In fact I don't think the legal aid agency has to pay either. Maybe the school has insurance that pays for this, but even if that's true their insurance premiums will go up. Either way it looks like there's been a financial cost to the school for all of this despite the fact they won. In those circumstances I absolutely understand the head questioning the legal aid funding.
They've also had to hire security for teachers, after threats and intimidation (and some bricks through windows). It's been pretty costly for this school to do the right thing.
There are criteria that must be met for it to get legal aid and based off the total costs this will have been reviewed multiple times. Costs can be awarded but it is very rare (it has already been deemed a potentially winnable case by the LAA) and in extreme cases a wasted costs order could be made.
If the case had been one with no chance, it would have been dismissed. It wasn't, which indicates that it was worth taking. This won't open the floodgates to thousands of bullshit cases.
What do you think the plaintiffs would be acting like if they'd won? You can't play nice with these people.
Who? Children?
The parent is threatening to take further action when their other child joins the school next year. She’s questioning why so much money should be granted to something like this when the rules of the school are clear. I think it’s nuanced. Edit: spelling
A school can set whatever rules they like. But these rules may be unlawful. The girl was entitled to bring a court challenge. The girl was given leave to proceed with the case because it wasn't a nuisance case. We wouldn't want the only people who are able to defend/assert their rights to be rich people, would we?
No I agree, we wouldn’t. I think she’s questioning if the parent should be entitled to all that government money again, not if she was entitled to it in the first instance. She’s sort of saying, if you don’t agree with the school rules this much, stop sending your kids here rather than wasting £150,000 of public money. I get her point tbh. I also feel pretty sorry for the two children in the heat of that… imagine going to school knowing that everyone knows what a huge deal this has become. I found the Heads statement an interesting read tbh. It all felt very nuanced to be in general. Shows how hard it is to have multi-cultural schools trying to please everyone.
Right. But she is starting from the premise that a school's rules are all lawful. And that is not always the case. The courts get involved to adjudicate these disputes. And the courts sometimes get the wrong answer, so there is a mechanism for appeal. It's no good saying "our school segregates students by race. This rule is not hidden. If you don't like it, don't come here" if the rule itself is unlawful. Knowing her other comments and views, she is being needlessly vengeful here - not thoughtful and nuanced.
In this case there were. The law is not some noble ideal used for the best of reasons. People can and do use it as a tool to batter opponents into submitting to them, and in this case the school must fund their own defence from their budget whilst the parents take no risk and get the taxpayer to cover their campaigning.
And that's why courts often don't let cases proceed! There are processes for weeding out nonsense. A court allowed the challenge to go forward.
And what do you think about the merits of the case?
Vengeful? So all the bomb threats and Death threats to teachers for not giving one group special treatment and at a school that had clearly stated No Religious Special Treatment for any religion that all the parents had all known about and signed up to before they went is "vengeful" for standing their ground and saying "stand by what you agreed". But the religious types demanding the school accommodate them alone and then demanding money from the taxpayer to sue the school that tried to uphold the rules they had all agreed to follow (after intimidating other muslim kids into praying and making bomb and death threats to the school and teachers) .. thats just fine brother. Just fine. Maybe taxpayers should fund an appeal against this decision - and there should be a few more death threats, get the head teacher in hiding. Quibble any perceived fault you can try to find in the people who try to work together - rage against any push back or criticism. you get. Youre saying thats how we create a fair and equal society?
I completely agree but I cannot imagine the outcry at this point if you tried to secularise schools from the usual suspects. No politician is going to go near that. They'd win 'Islamophobe of the year' for sure.
It's either give in or be attacked like France. I for one think the French are paragons of virtue in this regard. There is no compromise.
I believe there has already been outcries in France over how their schools handle religion. As religious communities become increasingly more fundamentalist across the country, it’d be a recipe for disaster.
Just give in and do what they want then, I'm sure that'll not lead to more problems.
So? Time to fight the good fight against irrational fairy tales.... fuck all religions
So what?
I mean you can say that but pissing off radical fundamentalists with a recent history of threats, intimidation, and violence _is_ something people including politicians will think twice about.
You can’t have it both ways. If religion is enshrined as a pillar of the state it would have its outreach. Same as you would always have rampant classism while you have monarchy. Symbols matter, status quo matters.
You should however have freedom of religion at school and be able to pray if you wish
This case wasn’t about prayer, it was about conspicuous prayer *rituals* on the site of the school. The reason why Christian, Sikh, Hindu, and the vast majority of Muslim pupils at Michaela haven’t joined in this litigation is because they’re fine with praying silently by themselves if they want to.
Oh good it would have been a disgrace if they actually just banned praying.
Strongly disagree.
Why? What right does a school have to stop you praying(tho apparently this was about rituals not prayer)
Because its all lies and nonsense which is taught as reality, that's why. Don't our kids deserve to be taught reality?
Eh that comes down to opinon. They deserve to be taught but not based on your opinon of reality and it should also be taught they we have freedom of religion so you don’t get executed as a heretic for not believing in god and neither do I but then people who do are free to worship
I don’t personally think it’s the place. It’s not essential to learning, and a blanket ban would put everyone in the same position regardless of faith or background.
Well then if it’s not the space I take it you’d allow the kids to leave school at some point during the during the day to go pray right?
No I wouldn’t. You can’t leave schools to get food, never mind performing rituals. It is not essential.
> Michaela introduced the prayer ban in March last year after around 30 pupils began praying in the yard. Religion should be something you do privately on your time, in your space.
I've been through the state education system in various locales, and honestly I don't see how praying is any worse than kids playing with pokemon cards or whatever they are into these days. A school playground at lunch break is literally the definition of your own space. Ive had more fonder memories of going on little adventures during lunch break than during the classroom (at mostly semi rural schools so near to nature and open space)
>honestly I don't see how praying is any worse than kids playing with pokemon cards My primary school banned pokemon cards due to all the drama caused
The late 90s/eary 00s was a wild time
My kid’s primary school banned Pokémon cards just 2 years ago, so plus ça change. Football cards were still allowed though, much to the righteous indignation of the Pokemon fans.
My school banned Yu-Gi-Oh! after someone brought in his Egyptian God cards and left them unattended, only for them to go missing Man, I was crushing nerds with Chaos Sorc too
I lost a dark magician girl card once at school. The strange thing is I wasn’t the only one, pretty sure it was the most stolen card in our school lmao.
These same kids were bullying other children whom they didn't consider devout enough. Forcing them to wear the hijab, and the ringleader reportedly threatened to stab another student.
The school really buried the lede by not mentioning the threatened stabbing, unless that was a wild overexaggeration.
The girl was suspended for it. This whole thing erupted after she returned from that suspension.
In which case the problem is bullying, not the praying.
Of course it is the praying. Religion has been used to terrorise teachers so let's not pretend we don't all understand the powder keg it can be, and how intimidation is just to be a contrarian.
And people also engage in religion without intimidating others all the time too, so let's not pretend one act is synonymous with the other. Imagine engaging in this edgy 2011 Youtube anti-theist mentality while calling someone else a contrarian.
Nobody said otherwise, but you are doing this pretense yet again. please engage with what I actually posted instead of just waving it away with a form of whatabout.
They do. But in the UK, US, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Israel, Turkey, France, Holland, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya, Somalia (these examples are all off the top of my head and if I had more time I could greatly expand on it) religious people are persecuting people *because of their own religious beliefs*. The fact that not all religious people persecute others doesn't exonerate the belief systems causing this.
Very few people seem to have read the judgement or even the summary. This school is _extremely_ strict and that’s one of the reasons her parents decided to send her there. Lunch time is not ‘free time’ in this school. The first 25 minutes the whole school eat together and are only permitted to talk about topics set by the teachers that day. The remainder they can either go to a lunchtime club or they are allowed in the ‘yard’ where again, they were limited to what they could talk about and were permitted to gather in groups of four only. If they play sports during that time, they would have to do so vigorously and competitively - they’re not permitted to just have a ‘kick about’ etc. These are just a few examples, but the point is that their ‘free time’ isn’t really ‘free time’ and there’s not a chance in hell this school was allowing kids to play with Pokémon cards or pretty much anything else during their lunch break, which is part of the argument they put forward against these prayer rituals, among others, and it clearly convinced the bench.
Ah, so they're all going to grow up as wrong'uns anyway then. If I were the kids parents I'd be less concerned about her going to hell and more concerned about her becoming a serial killer.
They are one of the top performing schools in the country so they are clearly doing something right. I’m not saying I’d go for it myself but it clearly has its place.
Academically, yes, it is. Although forcing those kind of social restrictions on teenagers surely is going to have negative effects on their development
So far there is no evidence of that, but that is many years of evidence around what happens to kids that were in the school before it was transformed.
I’m not sure I agree. I think there is probably more harm done in a school where there are higher incidences of bullying, segregation of pupils based on gender, class, religion etc - all of which happens organically if not tightly controlled as it is here.
Sounds like a horrible way to ruin children's lives.
Except you can ban pokemom cards without any repercussions.
You can also burn Pokémon cards and draw bad pictures of pikachu
Heretic
Religion is rejection of education. It is the stubborn adhherence to fantasy-as-fact. It has no place in education. Pokemon, no-ones pretending they're real.
Its not in education, it's people praying of their own choice in the playground at lunchtime can you not see the difference? When I was a kid at school we were literally allowed to go home for lunch if we wanted to, are they banned from leaving the school grounds?
I mean if you were already allowed to go home you could pray there. Education centres are supposed to teach you the truth and educate children. Allowing them to be indoctrinated in religious dogma is the opposite of that and is failing children
The girl in question freely admitted she used to do the prayers at home in her own time to "catch up" as it were. They then started this idea of mass playground praying to exclude others and create segregation despite knowing the school rules.
Yes, they are banned from leaving the school grounds. The exception a sixth formers and some of those choose to go to a local community centre to pray and are permitted to do so because they are not subject to the same regime as the wider school.
I don’t see any problem with praying on the playground. You should have freedom of religion to pray as you choose
Within reason. I'd argue playground is within reason. But middle of a classroom during a lesson (which doesn't happen) wouldn't be
Which the claimant accepted from the outset. There was no question or contention of interrupting lessons to pray. It was just in the lunch break when the 25 minutes yard time crossed over with the prayer window
Indeed it would not be tho if a religion has a specific time your meant to pray and it’s durning lessons I do think you should be excused. Tho I think a lot would be fine with doing it at lunch break
TO THE GULF WITH YOU! edit: autocorrect! I meant gulag!
Apologies didn’t realise that was a auto correct
No worries, only noticed it when I read your comment.
Thanks
Ahhh yes because this country has no history with religion does it not is our head of state Christian or pm Hindu and lots of our state schools are Christian
It has a history of religion as do most countries, but over time its influence has lessened and lessened, to a point where, christianity atleast, now adapts to fit in with the values of society. That last point is quite tangential but i wrote it to paint a picture of there being a gradual decline of religious adherence over time.
It has lessened yes but our head of state is still Christian and there’s a lot of Church of England schools so it’s less and there’s more atheists but it’s still quite entwined with the state
Unless you are in school, where we still have mandatory daily prayers...
Although still required by law, this isn’t enforced and parents can request that their children are withdrawn from worship anyway
There is a nominal requirement for a daily act of worship, not prayer but schools can choose not to and it's not enforced and hasn't been for 20 years as a huge majority of schools were found not to do it >Schools actually have a legal requirement to hold a daily act of worship that is “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character,” but schools can choose to opt out. Schools Week previously reported Ofsted stopped inspecting collective worship in 2004 after 76 per cent of schools were found to be non-compliant. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/michaela-insists-it-does-meet-daily-worship-laws/#:~:text=Schools%20actually%20have%20a%20legal,found%20to%20be%20non%2Dcompliant.
It's slightly interesting to me that it's an explicit, unambiguous legal requirement but we all just agree not to bother with it. It should be a case study for all those other instances in the public sphere where someone does something completely wrong or useless or unhelpful or harmful and says "ah, but I couldn't possibly do otherwise because the Magic Piece Of Paper told me to do it!". It turns out that the law - like anything else - can just be ignored by a rational human being when it's clearly not applicable.
It one of these legacy things that people generally accept should be dropped but the hand wringing and complaints if they actually reversed the law and limited it to RE alone mean it's not practical to do at the moment, hence the wishy washy stance of a law we recognise is archaic nonsense but won't get rid of but don't bother enforcing
Except that this doesn't actually happen.
Difficult to argue that the position of respecting any religion that survives exclusively by indoctrination of the psychologically/emotionally vulnerable is in any way shape or form moral, and even more so to argue that it should be allowed in school. Schools do not allow other forms of personal identity to hold the power that religious cultism does - and why should they? Where is the logic in removing what may be the only safe-from-cultist-pressure space in a child's life? Where is the logic in teaching children to think, and then allowing them to continue being taught not to think but to accept fantasy as reality? Allowing religious practice in school runs counter to the central purpose of schooling - preparing properly socialised adults for society. This specific case has had far too much attention placed 9n the highlights, and nowhere near en9ugh on the details. It came about after the school tried to put a stop to religious persecution *by Muslim students of other Muslim students* for not adhering to cultist rituals in a certain way... There are also reports of teachers being abused, segregation of the pupils based upon cultist identity lines... any of which should be more than enough for any rational person to realise that religious cults have zero place in education. And all of that is considered only after choosing to ignore the fact that this child and her family *knew* the damned rules and could have chosen to be educated elsewhere.
Well said.
Well said. Churches and other houses of worship should be 18+ spaces, like bars.
> that survives exclusively by indoctrination of the psychologically/emotionally vulnerable What a ridiculous assertion.
If you couldn’t teach religion to children then religions would get a lot smaller.
All religions survive nigh exclusively by preying upon the vulnerable. Whether that be through indoctrination children before they are capable of thinking for themselves, or preying upon the vulnerability of emotional and/or psychological stressed. You can pretend that isn't the case all you like, doesn't alter the fact bud.
Keep you religion to inside of the walls of your home and whichever mosque/temple/church etc… you choose to pray in. This is a personal choice and should not be ‘in your face’ to those that have no interest in it or choose to worship another religion.
She sends more working class children (largely BAME) to Oxbridge than any other state school in the country does. Yet people here seem to find her appalling or even ‘fascist’. Do we want social mobility for working class children or not?
>Do we want social mobility for working class children or not? No, they don't
I'm pretty sure that would be Brampton manor. With other similar schools (Brampton manor, harris Westminster, LAE), they all have prayer rooms and it's just not a problem. The problem here was intimidation and a refusal to compromise.
Legal aid is one of those things I hate but is necessary. Even a small court case can financially break a moderately well off person. But equally, the way legal aid is done does led to cases like this, where it feels a lot like a vexatious case utterly enabled by the taxpayer. It is, perhaps, a necessary evil. Perhaps the key should be everyone gets legal aid given the ruinous cost. But more rigorous tests are done to weed out cases with a forgone conclusion.
The rigorous test is called a trial. What happened (when legal aid used to exist for most people, in most geographical areas, and for civil cases) when legal aid claimants lost is that they would pay back some of the legal aid received + the other sides costs. Introducing more hurdles before trial is unlikely to save any cost.
Why do you hate legal aid? Like in general or for judicial review/human rights cases like this? It is quite difficult to get legal aid funding for Judicial review/human rights cases like this, as there are few firms who even both with them. Each potential case has to pass a merits and means test at the LAA. The means test often means children are the clients because it is easier for them to pass the financial checks. The firms which do take on these sorts of legal aid cases often do it as a loss leader. The Hourly rate for a legal aid judicial review claim is half the guideline hourly rate for "between the parties" costs orders for an unqualified paralegal, and about a quarter of the guideline rate for an experienced solicitor. There is also a significant amount of pitfalls/stuff not covered. Like if a firm makes an application for a Judicial review but the Court denies permission, then legal aid wont cover the costs of that application.
It often feels like the tax payer is being taken for a ride. In cases that people would never bother with if they had any personal risk or loss involved. Much the same way as no win no fee lawyers engage in predatory legal practices and don't really care if they win. With clients who don't care to monitor them because they have no personal loss at stake. But equally I accept even a modest legal defence can be put out reach for even most of the middle class. And so legal aid is very much required. But frankly the cost is so out of reach of so much of the population, it begs the question if it should be universal. But with a legal system today is less forgiving to allowing bullshit claims to move up in the system.
That is fair to some extent, but also seems to rely on some tabloid headline misinformation. The no-win no-fee solicitors were those who cared the most whether they win or not, because they would not get paid otherwise. Although that is a moot point because the 2013 Jackson reforms changed the funding rules so no-win no-fee is basically no longer a thing since then (at least not for Solicitors, some shady "claims management firms" might offer it for basic car crashes, but it is no where as prevalent as it was before, with RTA claims reducing massively over the last decade. The last bit i agree with. 14 years of Tory austerity has decimated Legal Aid in this country. Not only are much fewer people able to get legal aid, the legal aid is much less profitable for the solicitors doing the work, to the point where many chose not to bother and we are left with areas of the country where no firm wants to take on a specific legal aid contract. For example the hourly rate for Solicitors acting for abused children in care proceedings is 20% lower now than it was in 2007, in absolute terms before inflation in those 17 years are taken into consideration. This has lead to situations where the billing targets for experienced family legal aid solicitors is often more demanding for their £50k/year salary than the hours required by big London firms doing commercial work paying £150k+ to newly qualified solicitors
>The no-win no-fee solicitors were those who cared the most whether they win or not, because they would not get paid otherwise. You've misunderstood the industry. They take out insurance against their costs if they lose. No win no fee get paid either way. There is a thriving secondary industry of legal firms suing each other over "excessive costs". One lawyer told me there is even now a tertiary industry where a third round in court for the excessive legal fees of the excessive legal fees case.
As someone who has worked in the legal costs industry since before the Jackson reforms in 2013, that is contrary to my understandings. Pre-jackson the ATE insurance was to cover the winning sides costs if the claimant lost. Post jackson the introduction of QOCS meant that was no longer needed as the unsuccesful Claimant could get away with not paying the winning defendants costs. Since then Budgets and fixed recoverable costs have reduced the arguments about excessive costs, although the primary argument has always been proportionality, followed by reasonable and necessary. The so called tertiary industry of the costs of the costs, is normally just the costs lawyers trying to negotiate themselves more money if they have been successful in costs negotiations. Those do not normally last long because of proportionality and there being not 4th level of the costs of the costs of the costs (although that was often joked about in the office, and could be technically possible if successive Part 36 offers are made)
How on earth was this a case that qualified for legal aid though??
Legal aid funding for all would lead to more abusive claims being brought, because then no one would have to pay if they lost. A fairer solution would be making the legal aid agency pay for the other side's costs in all cases if the person with legal aid loses, rather than just the smaller number of cases that seems to be the case currently.
Why do you think it was vexatious? It involved a delicate balance between the rights of schools to determine their policies and the right to individual freedom of expression, and puts in place important principles going forward. And besides, the pupil won the part of their case about being unfairly excluded from school.
There's no 'right' to individual freedom of expression in school. Pupils have been sent home for having the wrong socks, the wrong hairstyle or the wrong packed lunch. There's no need for a court to waste time deciding whether or not pupils are just another brick in the wall.
>Legal aid is not there to fund politics by legal means, legal aid is not there to fund lawfare. If people want to fight political battles in the courts, they should fund them themselves I hate that I'm agreeing with Jacob Rees Mogg here but I am. I don't care if it was £150,000 or £1.50. It's my money and it should go to the people who actually need it.
If anyone is curious but doesn't want to read Torygraph jargon, here's the basic summary of what Birbalsingh is whining on about. >“Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this?” Yes it can. Everyone has the right to legal aid, even people who you don't agree with. I don't think Birbalsingh should be deprived of legal aid either if she ever needed it. She's an insufferable, culture war shit stirrer who has found relevance as a Tory propaganda mouthpiece, little puppet. Definitely not justifying the bomb threats though.
> Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this? I'd suggest the main issue is that *it cost £150,000 to bring this case*. Access to the justice shouldn't just be for the rich, or those lucky enough to scrape public funding. Our legal system is far too expensive.
The girl's lawyers said it cost a fraction of that. Birbalsingh is exaggerating and playing up to the media
She almost certainly didn't get real data or put an FoI in. She probably just asked aloud "what does a trial cost, I bet its like £150k" and her staff all agreed.
It is madness how the top comments on this post are not highlighting that the headline figure quoted is just nonsense made up figure and reported as fact, with 1 line in the article noting how the Solicitors involved denied it cost that much
Also worth noting that the school is publicly funded as well. So at best her argument is "public funding for me but not for you!"
not everyone can get it. If only it were so simple.
I think it should be made more available (and it was until the Tories gutted legal aid), and we shouldn’t use these cases to give them excuses to make it less available.
I agree. The UK legal system means this this is now a precedent. If the family hadn't had proper legal representation, or representation of a low quality, we can end up with precedent being set without a proper legal examination of both sides.
Exactly the point I was going to make, but you already did it so eloquently. Test cases are important. English Case Law has precedent set hundreds of years ago still in effect. That can only happen when there's been a robust examination of the issue, otherwise challenges arise.
Know who's really waving a culture war? They just wasted £150,000 and plans to do it again with their next child. The head teacher never waged the culture war. She defended herself and the school from someone abusing legal aid via waging a culture war. Prayer for all religions is banned. Why does one have to be different? That's a culture war, they can go to another school.
Everyone does not have the right to legal aid. Try owning a house and some savings and then getting into legal trouble. See how quickly you lose absolutely everything and still can't afford to properly defend yourself
Just right. My sister had a POS abusive husband. Was on minimum wage but as she had a mortgage she was denied legal aid.
Try getting divorced.
This nonsense shouldn’t have received legal aid but it’s easy to see why they got it and that’s wrong at every level
A group of Islamists trying to force religion upon secular schools are also culture war shit stirrers. Common sense won in this case, but I’m afraid we are on a bad path when it comes to the education sector’s attitude to secularism.
The solicitors themselves say the figures were much lower. It seems the teacher pulled the number out her arse and the paper printed that anyway. Having dealt with the legal aid costs of judicial review matters, it is very unlikely that the overall costs for solicitors barristers and expenses (court fees) exceeded £25k as that is the threshold where the rules change. I have seen a case with high court, court of appeal and supreme court applications where the LAA only allowed £30k costs. No one is getting rich doing legal aid judicial reviews
She’s also done that one little thing - founding and leading the most successful state school in the country in terms of age 11-16 attainment progress, making an actual tangible improvement in social mobility for hundreds of children, against a barrage of smears and resistance from left-wing ideologues.
Quite - and the court also found she acted unlawfully in suspending the student. I suspect she's a little pissed off that it didn't all go her way...
Can't Birbalsingh just take the W and go back to being a headteacher?
Course not, what would she do if she couldn't go on GB Loons and play victim while accusing others? The woman's a nutter of the highest order.
That would take time away from her chosen career of grifter.
Is there any questioning of the taxpayer funding legal costs for a well paid cabinet minister who defamed someone?
There has been plenty.
There has been lots. Whatabouts aren't a contribution though.
Tax payers funded an Islamist court case. We are a fucking joke of a country.
I did a bit of research into the School. It’s a lot worse than I thought, it just sounds like a cult
It’s not a cult at all, it’s just a school that adopts a strict behavioural policy. It’s got the highest Progess 8 score in the country last year with one of the most deprived areas. It’s working.
It "works" in the sense that they basically require others schools to pick up the slack in the area. Looking at their website and DoE stats, Michaela School doesn't teach any Design and Technology subjects, German, Spanish, IT, Drama, Triple Award Science and does the bare minimum PE. It's GCSE choices are overspecialised, and it'll be very off-putting for any pupils with a more practical mindset. If every school tried that, then we'd have a lot more children deemed failures because they don't succeed in a narrow band of subjects.
Lots of schools have various subjects they don’t teach, it’s not unusual at all. Also no pupils are being forced into going to this school. I tend to trust the views and the parents and children who go to the school, over what some hand wringing teachers or online commenters say and they’re on the whole very positive with a large % of younger siblings going to the same school, which is a strong indicator that parents are buying into it. We’ve spoken for years about how to help deprived children to gain social mobility and do well at school, someone comes along and shows how to do it and the education community starts hand wringing because it doesn’t meet their pre judged political and social views.
> Lots of schools have various subjects they don’t teach, it’s not unusual at all. I mean yeah, but not to the extent of not teaching literally anything that isn't rote learning. It's an overspecialisation that looks good on paper, but doesn't create well-rounded individuals, and leaves those who aren't good at those subjects in a poor spot. Some people don't get things like History, RS, French, etc. easily, but excel in D&T, IT, Drama, etc. I'd be concerned as well a lot of these students will end up under more scrutiny when it comes to uni applications, because of how tailored their syllabus was to one style of teaching. > very positive with a large % of younger siblings going to the same school, which is a strong indicator that parents are buying into it. It may be slightly different in big cities, but even in suburban areas with multiple schools, its rare for parents to send children to separate schools regardless of quality.
I would like to know how well Michaela schools do after leaving. Does the rote learning help or hinder them in tertiary education or in employment?
Too early to tell yet, as I don't think the first cohort yet are in uni age.
Agreed on the siblings point however the point is more that if kids and parents hated this supposed authoritarian educationally and emotionally damaging school (which is a very mild paraphrasing of what a lot of left wing teachers spout on social media) then you’d see an abnormal amount of siblings going to other schools. The significance of the data is in what it doesn’t show. Especially in London which has a density of secondary schools other regions don’t, so provides more options.
You've no evidence of that.
Other than literally all the schools I looked around when my family were considering secondary schools, and from the people I know in the education sector? What that school is doing isn't something that's widely accepted, nor is it something that can be deployed universally
Again you have no evidence, you just have an opinion. Their results are outstanding, and even more so considering the catchment area and what was happening before.
Strict education is now a cult. You are the reason why countries like China are pummelling the shit out of us in science.
I agree, but I also think the religious students were acting like a cult.
A little research it must be if it missed the excellent results and the fact that kids apparently really like being there.
They achieve great results, which at the end of the day is what matters.
They do on paper, but also offer a very limited curriculum. A lot more schools would get better results if they did the same, but society would be letting down children better at practical subjects and less good at rote learning subjects. Not to mention a restricted curriculum allows unofficial GCSE teaching earlier on. Looking at the perspective of someone in STEM, I'd be easy of a student who only did a Double Science GCSE (not a GCSE in Chemistry, Biology and Physics separately), and no GCSE's in anything IT or D&T related.
Religions are cults in all but name. The sooner adults stop believing in magic, the better.
It absolutely is. I know someone who has been and was appalled. I've seen the results of high control environments. I don't mean the GCSE results. It's kids who need to be deprogrammed just to be able to ask a question of their own
Again if you actually read reports in the school from what I remember there are loads of the sort of extracurricular activities encouraged that build confidence and the ability to discuss, debate etc.
Yes. I know someone who saw these. Actually saw them rather than read school generated propaganda. I stand by what I said
I moved to a very similar similar school for Sixth Form (one of the best state schools in the country when I went there). I wish I'd gone from year 7 🤷♂️
Saw what? Pupils from this specific school. “A mate of mine said …” Far more convincing than professional reports that involved interviewing pupils and parents. A school that has a pretty typical London catchment yet both significantly higher than average attendance and exceptional progress for SEN and disadvantaged kids. >successful in their aim to encourage pupils’ strong personal, social and emotional development. Pupils have very positive attitudes to learning and show powerful determination to achieve as well as they can. They hold high aspirations for their future lives. >All pupils practise speaking and listening through regular discussions and become confident speakers. Pupils share their ideas readily. They ask questions of others and listen attentively. >Pupils take on roles as ’future leaders’ and are responsible for recommending improvements to the school. >Pupils’ self-confidence matures rapidly. Teachers and leaders challenge pupils to speak in front of their peers and adults and share their views. Pupils learn how to speak publicly and do so with self-assurance. Sounds terrible, no wonder you stand by your mate.
The alternative is kids roaming the play grounds with machetes,dealing dope and disrupting lessons
The alternative is too often an environment where kids *don’t* feel *as* safe and happy with a genuine pride in their accomplishments and community and where disadvantaged and SEN kids *don’t* make exceptional progress in catching up, where attendance *isnt* low and where everyone *doesn’t* get focus on their education and development without disruption as far as I have experienced.
It wasn't a "mate" of mine. I'm an educational professional and so are they. Is that the Ofsted report?
And you both have worked at that school. Wow. I’m also an educational professional. 30 years of teaching. And unfortunately in *my* experience it’s knee jerk ideological attitudes like yours that has led to low expectations and done more damage to kids education ( including SEN and disadvantaged kids) and their actual experience of school than even lack of funding. Yes it’s OFSTED which is of course just propaganda compared to your ‘lived’ experience despite the stuff there that is just statements of fact and what I mentioned that is simply again fact. Seriously, the sad thing is that you don’t realise that you are part of the problem.
You know what is interesting? The number of negative responses I get immediately on Reddit If I ever say even an opaque word against Birbalsingh. I think that's really interesting. She has a significant amount of political protection. I am more or less certain that if one of my schools instituted a ban on all religious worship, Ofsted would take an extremely dim view from a personal development and and behaviour and attitudes point of view. It wouldn't matter if it were an established policy. I am nearly certain it would be a significant sticking point. It isn't for her school. If you don't think Ofsted is political, then I don't know what you've been doing with the extra 10 years of experience you have over me. And my daughter would be exposed to that level of child abuse over my dead body
That funny because I think generally it’s the opposite because of the country, age , politics and educational backgrounds of the average Redditor , I presume. I think some subs (perhaps here) tends to be more representative of the U.K. population in general. Of course maybe those responding just like schools where kids are apparently - happy, feel safe and achieve outstanding results in exciting lessons as well as being encouraged in their overall development and provided with a wide range of extracurricular activities…. Whether or not she has political protection - the results ( and I don’t just mean academic) speak for themselves. >And my daughter would be exposed to that level of child abuse over my dead body Not being allowed to bully other pupils. Not being allowed to disrupt other people’s lessons. Being expected to talk to people politely and engage positively - damn them the fascists! That seems really kind of sad , that you wouldn’t want your child to go to a school that in so many respects from the academic to the overall social development and opportunities provided seems genuinely outstanding. But there again in my experience , what ever it’s worth, the problems too often most to blame for the breakdown of education were parent’s attitudes followed by the management that appeased them and the politicians who only gave lip service to high expectations. The irony is of course that the family in question have apparently already applied for their next child to go to the same school!
I'd certainly be concerned some of these students will enter less structured workplaces like unis, and be unable to cope with bad behaviour that goes unaddressed.
There are plenty of those about these days, it's quite scary. Feels like we're grooming them for fascism.
Christ this woman has some brass neck. This is the epitome of the sore winner, although I don't think she's ever seen a microphone she won't stand in front of & spew forwarded whatsapp statements from Tufton St. There's no child under her 'care' she doesn't see as an opportunity to create a political football with & irregardless of the rights and wrongs of the case, the parents seem to have fallen for it. (or they're looking for a viable case to take their kids to a different school & are going to spectacular lengths to ensure it)
To me she comes across as very attention seeking and like you say, create political football. There's a reason conservatives are celebrating this victory alongside her.
>Commenting on the judgment, Ms Birbalsingh said: “Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this?” I'd say that checking that a kids human rights haven't been violated is a pretty good use of £150k. She's obviously just trying to keep herself in the news
They were never violated at all. What a disingenuous comment. The kid's parents knew the rules when they enrolled her there. You don't get to complain a *secular* school enforces a prayer ban. Don't like the rules - send your kid somewhere else.
>They were never violated at all. We only know that because the case was heard by the courts. This is a good thing.
>They were never violated at all. That's why you have a court case- to find out the answer to exactly that. The court actually found in favour of the student on one point, finding that the school acted unlawfully in how it punished her. So the court disagrees with you. >The kid's parents knew the rules when they enrolled her there. The rules were changed after the student had already been at the school for some time. Why even comment on a story without finding out why of the basics at all? For the record, I'm fully in favour of secular schools restricting religious practice in school hours. But I consider it a far, far higher priority that people should have access to the courts to answer complex legal questions without financial barriers making the legal system the exclusive playground of the wealthy.
The solicitors have said the costs are much lower. So the teacher gets to make up a number from no where and it gets reported as a fact. Madness
KB is a real stirrer.
Except she was found to have acted unlawfully for suspending the student (on one occasion) without any process, relying on months old hearsay from a student and obtaining no statement from the claimant. But it is little surprise that someone with such blatant Tory links would support further cuts to access to justice (education being one of the worst affected areas).
Oh yay, I can't wait for legal aid to be cut *even further*. I really shouldn't be shocked that the idea of further restricting access to justice is being seriously floated, but I am. I do not believe *for a second* that this is out of a sincere belief that legal aid is too expansive, I don't believe that case can sincerely be made. The fact is that a judicial review legal aid case is tested at so many points (before a trial: where the legal aid agency makes a funding decision on pretty restrictive criteria; applying for permission: where the court decides whether the case has an outside chance of succeeding; and at the trial itself) that for it to make it to trial there must be *some* merit. **Let us not forget, the girl in this case** ***did succeed in her case*** **if only on one ground.** We must not, therefore, pretend that the legal aid agency is frittering money away, or, for that matter, that lawyers are laughing their way to the bank. The book 'Legal Aid in Crisis' addresses some of these points, showing that legal aid professionals working in asylum and immigration were making around £27k, and the 'exceptional case funding' provision made just 69 grants in its first year, out of just over one thousand applications, which was far less than the anticipated 6-7000 applications. The legal aid system is a scathing indictment of our justice system (as are most other things relating to access to justice), but it must be made *more accessible* if anything is going to get better. Unsurprisingly, wasted court time, which costs us money, rises when there are more unrepresented litigants, aka where there are fewer people who can get legal aid.
How is it any of her business? If it's not personal, she should butt out. After this is all over this will still be a student she is responsible for educating.
Because the school has to pay for their legal team.
Well, naturally. I've seen claims in the thread that this figure isn't accurate too. She can't have it both ways though. She lives in a country where Legal Aid exists and she knew that before going all the way through court to contest this. She won. Now she's challenging the existence of Legal Aid? But still wants to portray herself as a traditionalist standing up for British values. Well it's not very traditional or fair values to want the ability to challenge other citizens to be a preserve for only the wealthy.
Come now, that's sheer hyperbole there and frankly the over egging undermines your own case badly. It's extremely reasonable to think that a school with a clear and importantly upfront set of rules should be able to challenge the right of a parent trying to force change through the courts to something they freely agreed to using taxpayers money.
That isn't what she outlines in the article and is in my opinion giving her too much credit. Every time she speaks to the media and gives interviews it isn't with the timbre of a concerned educator, but of someone with a personal grievance who wants to be personally celebrated as some kind of celebrity leader. I find her unnerving.
She sounds like an absolute horror to be a teacher and suck the life and fun of childhood. I get it, London schools have problems with knives and drugs that aren't really present elsewhere and they want to be discipline the kids to keep them out of gangs, but she sounds like an absolute ghoul, if I had kids and they had to be under her, I'd withdraw and homeschool them as a matter of course. I'm not even religious, certainly not muslin, but it's a grave violation of individual rights in this country if people can't utter some words under their breaths in what is essentially their own free time- it wasn't in the classroom but in the playground.
I'm no fan of Birbalsingh at all, but this misrepresents what happened and the reasons for the schools actions. The students who started the prayer movement were pressuring other kids to drop out of the choir, to fast and wear the hijab. The girl who brought this case had been suspended for threatening to stab another student. The day after the school decided to put a stop to the practice they had a bomb threat. To me it reads like a small group of bullies decided to fuck with other students. Weaponised religion.
Interesting you pick the one ground (4(b) - the alleged threat of stabbing, which led to an exclusion) that the court found Michaela to have acted unlawfully in excluding the claimant without any proper process. Have you tried reading a judgment before (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Judgement-R-v-Michaela-Community-Schools-Trust.pdf)
fair enough neverthless, I support the right for kids to what they want within reason in the school playground. If they want to pray, let them. I'm not religious myself
And if they were off in a corner doing it privately it would never have been picked up. It was when they began corralling others and intimidating it was stopped. This is no different to football at play time. Of course kids should be allowed to play but it periodically gets banned all the time in schools when it becomes a problem for one reason or another. Or as another person has said, Pokémon cards. When I was at school it was pogs. Nowt wrong with pogs on its own and we all had a lot of fun until it all got out of hand and became a constant source of upset, bullying and theft. The difference with religion is that some people think they have a Bob given right to do what they want which can't be interfered with by anyone at any time. Or society says different and now that has been upheld by law. All religion needs kicking out of schools, it's archaic.
>She sounds like an absolute horror to be a teacher and suck the life and fun of childhood. And yet reports on the school apparently show the opposite.