Like Germanshepherdsmum, I would urge people who haven't already done so to read the judgement as it provides a lot of detail about how the school operates which I found chilling, for example, that children have to be "aggressively integrated". The word aggression shouldn't form any part of education.
I agree that STEM isn't for everyone but it could equally have been the other way around had, say, Birbalsingh been a scientist and decided that languages were too hard for girls. She's making arbitrary decisions about what girls are and aren't capable of doing.
I think you have to read the judgement to understand the kind of enforcement that goes on. It goes far beyond what is necessary. For example, if a child comes to school wearing a wrong piece of clothing, they are put in isolation until a parent brings the correct item to school. What if parents are at work? Most are. That would mean the child remains in isolation for the entire school day. For what? The wrong colour socks?
I forgot to mention before, but the court case revealed that Islamic prayer rituals had been carried out in the school in numbers and peaceably with permission before the events which lead to this court case. This is explained in paragraph 91 onwards.
93. In her second witness statement Ms Birbalsingh says āIt is important to appreciate that, prior to the events of Spring 2023, none of the children at the School had ever sought to conduct prayer rituals during the school day.ā
That was patently untrue because ...
This was then contradicted by Ms Hassanās evidence, which I [the judge] accept. She left at the end of the Sixth Form in July 2021. When she was in the second year of the Sixth Form, Ms Hassan was permitted by her then Head of Year to perform the Asr prayer before āmaths clinicā, which took place after school. The Head of Year ācould not have been more helpfulā. She made a classroom available for Ms Hassan who then used it to pray at lunchtime as well. Ms Hassan says that the practice which developed was that many other sixth formers, although she does not know how many, would also use this room to pray at lunchtime: āIt was hardly a secretā. They would walk across from the Sixth Form common room, generally holding their pocket prayer mats, pray and then go back to the common room. Staff would see them doing so: āit was just an accepted part of sixth form lifeā and it was not controversial or a major issue.
94. Ms Birbalsinghās statement in reply says that Ms Hassan āhas described some events from a previous period in the Schoolās historyā. Regrettably, Ms Birbalsingh does not acknowledge that her second witness statement, or other statements which she has made to the effect that hitherto no pupil had shown any wish to pray in school, were inaccurate in this respect. Nor does she explain how the inaccuracy came about. But nor does she contradict Ms Hassanās account. Instead, she argues that āthere is one respect in which Ms Hassanās evidence is relevantā namely that it shows that if prayer rituals were permitted for some pupils, others would wish to follow suit.
And that is the crux of the matter. Provision had been made for student prayer in the recent past.
127. Ms Birbalsingh says that large numbers of parents were in touch with her about this issue [of prohibiting prayer], as well as with tutors and Heads of Year, between the week of 20 March 2023 and the decision of the Governing Body.
Muslim parents, in particular, explained the importance of prayer to them and their children. They generally, although not exclusively, wanted the School to provide a prayer room during the lunch period. Notwithstanding this, her view was and is that the only appropriate response was to prohibit prayer rituals.
So even when parents want a prayer room, she prohibits it.
You have to read the whole judgement to understand all of the context but my reading of this is that the unpleasant events which occurred could have been avoided if a prayer room away from the public had continued to be provided as it had been to Ms Hassan and her cohort over 2020 and 2021.
But Birbalsingh now has a rigid rule that not more than four students may gather together which would not allow the number of students who want to pray to do so at the same time. It is her own rigidity and mistrust of her students which has lead to this trouble and it could all have been avoided. Previous students had shown that prayer could be conducted peaceably. All she had to do was to monitor the situation to ensure that students who did not wish to pray were not coerced into doing so or chastised of they did not. That could have been made a condition of the facility - that permission would be withdrawn if it was abused.
