The Michaela Community School in northwest London is not just a curiosity: it’s a phenomenon. Its head teacher, Katharine Birbalsingh, has such a big public profile that you might wonder if her school lives up to its hype.
It does. Results are astonishing. Its pupils leave, on average, with better grades than most private schools – but a quarter of Michaela pupils are on free school meals. When it comes to raising attainment, Michaela was recently ranked first out of 6,959 secondaries. You’d hope that her model would be copied and rolled out nationally. Instead, she’s being sued.
The trial of Katharine Birbalsingh – or, at least, her school – is a story of our times. Anyone who innovates in state education needs to be ready for battle because they are taking on an establishment. They can expect lawsuits on bizarre pretexts and technicalities. Their antagonists specialise in rustling up legal aid – so the taxpayer sues the taxpayer.
It has become a form of routine harassment, punishing those who deviate from the norm. But to end up in the High Court is unusual, even for the free school movement.
She’s being sued over her strict policy of secularism, which she regards as the glue that binds her multi-faith school together. About half of the 700 pupils are Muslim – so it would be quite an impact if the school (a converted office block) was to somehow empty rooms for lunchtime prayers.
It would also threaten an important principle: to have no form of separation or segregation, on grounds of religion or ethnicity. That everyone is together and equal: and swallow differences, so they all get on.
A founding principle of the school is that teachers control the culture, not just the lessons. Pupils stay silent in corridors, unless greeting passing staff. At lunchtime, they eat in assigned groups of six. One pupil sets the table, another fetches and serves food, another wipes up.
It’s seen as a vital ritual, to emphasise that all are part of the same school family. Other inner-city schools have problems with gangs, bullying and tensions between Caribbean and African, Hindu and Muslim, Sunni and Shia. Michaela’s mixed lunchtimes are intended to avoid that.
At first, meat was served. But Hindus avoided the beef and Muslims the pork: pupils started to segregate. To avoid this, lunch at Michaela is now all vegetarian. Cohesion is crucial, as is equality before the rules. So when one pupil started to pray at lunchtime, then was joined by others, and then other Muslims were pressured into joining in, it was a serious challenge to school culture. A social media campaign started and teachers started being threatened by outsiders. School governors tried to end the debate by voting, 11-to-1, to ban prayer. A pupil sued – and here we are.
But this is about more than just one school. In her statement, Birbalsingh has said that this is about the basis on which a multi-faith Britain can be made to work: asking everyone to give up something, not to insist on everything, so we can all get on. She has been giving a polite “no” for years. Christian parents complain about the Sunday revision sessions; Jehovah’s Witnesses about Macbeth (they dislike the study of witches), Hindus about plates that touch eggs. She has said, to each of them: please accept the school’s ethos. We all need to compromise.
So you can see the principle at stake here. One one hand is what the French call laïcité: an agreement to leave religion out of certain areas (like the classroom) so that people of all religions and none can rub along together.
Against this we have the grievance industry, preaching minority rights. Claiming that “freedom of religion” somehow compels schools to open prayer rooms, or drop whatever may offend a minority – like Macbeth or Sunday study or plates that touch eggs – even if they are within majority national culture.
With Michaela, the proposition is clear: everyone compromises. Few pupils really want vegetarian food, everyone is asked to eat it – but that’s so they can all get along together and come up with the kind of academic results that you’d be lucky to find in a £20,000-a-year private school. Everyone agrees that their “right” – to meat, prayer rooms or an uninterrupted lunchtime – is there to be sacrificed so they can take part in this educational miracle.
But Birbalsingh has run ahead of the Government. What Michaela does works: but it is not protected by law.
The real scandal, of course, is that this nonsense has gone to the High Court in the first place. But the Tories have been confused on this for years, not sure whether to pose as champions of diversity or enemies of identity politics. One piece of official advice says schools must ensure they are “enabling Muslim pupils to pray at prescribed times”. Another says schools are not “required to provide any pupil with a physical space, such as a prayer room”. Which is it?
As Rishi Sunak has found out with Rwanda, his party has left a legal mess so deep that rule by lawyers has supplanted rule of law. This is why Britain’s most successful state school is now on trial.
It’s quite possible that Birbalsingh loses, staff are obliged to open prayer rooms so the Muslim pupils disappear upstairs while non-Muslims go to have lunch, thereby destroying the cohesion that all of its staff fought so hard to create. And the Muslim parents who liked their children not being intimidated by more conservative-religious peers will lose this protection.
It’s sometimes said that Britain created the world’s most successful multi-faith democracy, without really thinking about it. But perhaps we should start thinking about it. One in 10 school pupils now live in Muslim families: what to do when a small number start to ask for prayer rooms? How many head teachers would, as Birbalsingh has done, hold out even if this means going to the High Court?
The Tories often say they are the party taking on the forces of identity politics – but it’s the Birbalsinghs of this world who fight the battles. With a few more months still left in power, the Conservatives can do a lot more to make sure the law is on her side.
William Turner is a seasoned U.K. correspondent with a deep understanding of domestic affairs. With a passion for British politics and culture, he provides insightful analysis and comprehensive coverage of events within the United Kingdom.
