Main Edition
US
FR
January 19, 2024 - 5:15pm
Katharine Birbalsingh is the founder and head teacher of Michaela Community School, a free school in London. Since opening in 2014 Michaela has become a lightning rod for the culture war around education, and Birbalsingh has replaced the “student-centred” approach of modern teaching with a no-tolerance code of behaviour.
And as it turns out, “the strictest school in Britain” seems to work. Michaela is rated by Ofsted as “outstanding” and rivals the top-ranking private schools in England for exam results. But this week, it was announced that Birbalsingh would have to defend Michaela’s ethos at the High Court, after she banned prayer at the school. A Muslim pupil claimed that the ban was discriminatory, and is seeking to have it overturned.
The case speaks to a wider battle in Britain over social cohesion and multiculturalism. In an exclusive interview, Katharine Birbalsingh joined UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers to talk about it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeKatharine comes across a bit naive! If the Muslim families really support her they need to speak up for her.
they won’t because they will be bullied and pressured to “toe the line”. If you don’t want to go to this excellent school then don’t, give you place to someone else
I have much the same issue with this as I do with Quebec’s religious symbols ban, here in Canada. If you’re going to argue that public spaces, like schools, or public servants, should be secular, I might be inclined to agree with you. Personally, I’m not religious but generally don’t really care what people wear or believe. However, I do understand the other side. If you come from a place where your religion is marginalized, and then encounter a public servant displaying symbols of a religion antagonistic to yours, it could indeed feel intimidating, especially if you need their assistance.
What irks me is the inconsistency. For example, while Quebec pushed for a ban on religious symbols, they kept a crucifix in their legislative chamber. Similarly, this woman is insisting on a secular school environment, while also requiring the singing of a song called “God Save the King”. I do realize this is your anthem, and this makes it a tad more complicated – but it does nevertheless feel hypocritical. If you are saying religion and breaking students out into religious groups can be divisive, I agree! But that needs to be applied across the board, or your argument starts sounding more discriminatory than inclusive, to me.
I tend to agree with the principle, but not the application. If you are going to be this radical, at least also be a bit more creative, and come up with ways to bring people together that are more consistent.
Like, for example, in our own national anthem, here in Canada, we recently made a change replacing “in all thy sons command” with “in all of us command”. I’m sure this may trigger the gender wars people here, but I did like this change. I actually remember being a little girl and wondering, “what about me?”, when we used to sing that. Similarly, I think we could change “God keep our land glorious and free” to “We keep our land glorious and free”, and this can actually be more inspiring – like we’re all in this together, it’s up to us, not some unseen force.
I guess I just think that either inconsistently banning, or reverting to old prejudices in any case, is the wrong way when you can work a bit harder and come up with more truly inclusive and inspiring things. The real problem with how a lot of the inclusion stuff is approached now is that it isn’t actually inclusive, or inspiring.
And frankly, it’s all just so negative. I’m really weary of everyone, on all sides, being negative. Maybe it’s time we focus on finding solutions that lift everyone up, solutions that truly foster unity, rather than responding in kind and deepening the divides.
No offence, but I think you’re mixing up symbols with actual practice. The Lord’s Prayer has not been recited in Canadian schools in decades. And I agree with this. If you ban religious prayer in school it should apply to every single religion across the board – no exceptions.
Changing the national anthem is different IMO. While I don’t have strong feelings about the change – other than it being performative, silly and a waste of govt time and resources – it’s the same as knocking down statues. Each incident is no big deal, but the cumulative impact slowly erodes the values and history upon which a nation is founded.
I sympathize with your frustration. I too, have grown weary of the negativity, but I also have a pretty good idea where its coming from. The error of the left has always been overreach. Consider the simple phrase ‘end racism’. Sounds great, but at bottom, racism is defined simply as a preference for one’s own race and culture over others. Most of us, especially women I would suspect, would prefer not to live in a Muslim culture under Shariya law and would like our own country to also not become like that. Eliminating overt discrimination and persecution is one thing, eliminating an aspect of human nature, tribalism, is quite another. Some people don’t and won’t ever get along if they’re forced together. The solution, as everyone who arranges seats for a dinner party is to keep these people as far apart as possible. Like will sort with like on its own without any intervention given enough time. There will always be some level of preference for local, regional, and national culture. To suggest that there shouldn’t be is just rubbish. Goals like ‘end racism’ are not realistic, and under scrutiny look absurd. Slogans however don’t create the hostility. The problem arises when the proselytizers of an ideology don’t accept that they can’t convert everyone with rhetoric alone and then leverage the power of institutions they control and even governmental police power to further their own goals and indoctrinate or otherwise coerce people to conform to their ideology. The other side of the ideological divide eventually responds using similar tactics, and it ends in a vicious cycle of provocation and escalation. To me, the only way it ends is when either one side wins (unlikely) or both sides exhaust themselves and give up with or without actual violence (more likely) or some external threat or crisis emerges that renders the debate less important by comparison and forces the sides to come to some compromise (least likely). My solution is to separate myself from the issues and analyze them intellectually and strategically as if I was some kind of outside observer.
Bit late to this discussion but I’ll post anyway. I agree with you Steve. These are difficult issues. I commend you for trying to maintain, as you say, an intellectual and strategic approach.
Speaking from the UK, I found that approach so much easier when the issues revolved around e.g. grammar schools versus comprehensive etc. Today, when I look back over nearly 80 years of life in this country, I find it hard not to let tribalism well up with a vengeance in the face of the current changes in the demographic. Of course, we always had our problems. I still have my ration card, for instance. I remember when London and Coventry still had bomb sites. My husband is originally from Coventry. On a visit ‘home’ in the sixties, he took me to see the ‘modern’, new Cathedral. Would we even have bothered replacing the old one, these days? We had the seventies economic troubles. (On a holiday in Canada, I had pounds refused – ‘any currency but that’.) We were in large animal veterinary practice at that time. Calves were worthless. Some farmers couldn’t pay us. We went anyway. How could one not? Then there were the miners’ strikes – and raised on the Durham coalfield with both grandfathers having been miners ( I inherited an NCB certificate from one for ‘50 years of loyal service to the mining industry and the country’) I was certainly on the cross there. But, these seemed like ‘our’ problems, so I was able to think more rationally. Find a way to retain buoyancy. Also, I was younger and consequently had more fires to burn, as it were. Things could even pass me by. No longer. I feel resentful and then guilty for doing so. ‘I must be a bad person’, I said to my husband the other day. Truth is, I get to feel really bad either way, because we seem to be handing the country over. ‘Here’s one we made earlier. Please remake it in your preferred image.’ That’s what we seem to be doing and it is apparently a fraught process that is breaking my heart. Sorry. Must try harder.
A bit of further background. I have Asperger’s so I never have been particularly sociable. I lack a lot of the social instincts most people take for granted. It’s no great leap for me to dissociate myself from my tribe and indeed most of humanity. It also renders me uniquely incapable of actually accomplishing anything like influencing people in a social setting. To consider issues with almost inhuman dispassion is my God given gift/curse. That’s my excuse anyway, and it’s why I post stuff on the Internet rather than other forms of participation. The written word is the only medium where I’m not an anxious, timid, fumbling mess.
I can say that I do feel some fondness or at least familiarity with the vagaries of my local culture, weak though it is. I think there is an energy to local culture that becomes harder to duplicate at larger scales. The nation state, with its appreciation for shared values, activities, and norms, is, to my mind, as far as human tribalism can be pushed without breaking and deteriorating into something almost anarchistic. I know the people trying to build one big happy humanity are going to lose. Even if they built a world government, the people at the bottom would simply recreate tribal structures and notions on an ad hoc basis, in essence starting the process over. I probably won’t be alive long enough to see that or witness their ultimate defeat, but I know it’s coming for basically the same reason I know the sun will rise tomorrow. The laws of nature and nature’s God cannot be abrogated by any amount of political will or brute force of arms. I take heart in knowing they can’t win, but I do lament the damage they’ve already done and are continuing to do in the attempt.
From reading the articles here, I gather things look even bleaker in Europe than here. I can’t imagine how depressing it must be to live in the UK, finally vote for Brexit, get it passed, and then be utterly betrayed by the political class and economic elites who won’t change anything. Both parties seem equally determined to ram the same globalist program down your throats. It’s not quite as bad over here. Even if Trump loses, there’s several Trump wannabes waiting in the wings we know about, and probably a bunch we don’t. By default, at least some of them are likely to be way more competent than he is. America isn’t like Europe. It’s defined as much by civil conflict as cultural harmony. You could always take the same option my ancestors did and come to America. There’s still quite a few folks fighting the good fight and plenty of farm animals that need veterinarians, or if you’re too old, maybe encourage your children to do so. As I said, there’s an energy in rural culture that even I can see that seems absent in the cities and certainly can’t be seen on the news or in the media. I cannot understand what my brother who lives in Chicago sees in the place. His oldest kid recently told his grandmother she likes her country house better than the city. People looking to governments, businesses, and aristocrats for hope for the future are looking in the wrong place.
Thank you for your further helpful comments. I really appreciated them and wanted to respond – I hope any belated readers will indulge me a few more column inches, disagree as they may.
We’re old now, so rural sequestration it is – doing such as we can to uphold the character and traditional feel of the area. We were actually in the US in the eighties for three years. Those depressing agricultural economics resulted in my husband and I agreeing that he should take take a proffered short service commission in the Royal Army Veterinary Corps while I reared our twin sons up to school age – at which point returning to a more streamlined practice would be the order of the day. But, one way and another, the original three years became twenty two – a series of army postings, one of which was to Health Services Command, Fort Sam Houston, Texas. It was a situation we could probably have capitalised upon in terms of staying in the US, but there were one or two downsides plus GB seemed to be picking up economically and it still held our loyalty – Queen and country and all that. And aging parents.
But certainly, the US has more room for manoeuvre than we do – literal room as well as political room. Frankly, I wasn’t as disturbed as some Unherd posters seemed to be by the American Redoubt article. I had a sneaking suspicion that I could cope better with that than I could with ‘calls to prayer’ steadily replacing the sound of our church bells.
I still wish I could be sophisticated/virtuous enough to welcome it all as ‘cultural vibrancy,’ but when I see London besieged every Saturday by thousands of insistent people wearing chequered headscarves … well, it’s not the London we knew in the late eighties whilst living for 3yrs in Knightsbridge Barracks (courtesy of all those black horses that need to be kept on the road). Is it in any way better? I can’t see it. Ms Birbalsingh is trying her heroic best to combat the inevitable problems of creating one ‘big happy humanity’ but it can hardly be viewed as a strategy that will do other than help smooth the path to the profound changes to which this nation has been ideologically and indelibly committed.
I realise that North America was built on immigration so the general level of psychological programming must be less archaic than mine. Your particular ‘gift’ maybe confers upon us an unusual confederacy of viewpoint. There is exculpation to be found there and, for that, the guilty part of my psyche thanks you.
I wish you the very best – you and your vast country. I remember, during one road trip, standing on the top of the Continental Divide when the carburettor in our old Buick had finally spluttered to a sulky halt and saying: ‘Well, we’re never going to be able to walk home from here!’ Kind of a metaphor for where I feel we now stand in England.
Thank you for your response. I did write more but it has been condemned to the sin bin apparently. It may or may not reappear before this particular subject is time expired.
And I wish you and your much smaller country the best as well. Those of us with an understanding of history still appreciate the fact that the US and UK share a sort of relationship that isn’t common in world history, that of a rebellious province that overthrew its overlord only to later reconcile. Like a rebellious child that leaves their parents’ home in fury only to return as a man/woman grown to reconcile and share their success with the parents that age and wisdom have taught them to appreciate.
I don’t think our ‘programming’ is all that different. I’m sure that’s what the champions of diversity, equity, and inclusion would like you to believe, but they’re a fairly naive and gullible lot who I take seriously only when they make an obstacle to sensible policy. I don’t think our programming is different, but that there’s a lot less of it. My theory is that multiculturalism sort of works here because there isn’t an established, dominant native culture and never was. Even in the colonial period, there was a mixture of groups. Catholics, Puritans, Quakers, Dutch, Germans, economic opportunists, merchants, fur traders, even convicted criminals. More immigrants came from different cultures, but the one thing they had in common was that they chose to reject their homeland and culture for whatever reason and embrace an uncertain future. America continued to be a nation of rebels, malcontents, nonconformists, gamblers, and fighters. Look at US crime statistics. They’re astronomical compared to most of the world. It’s the nature of our people and the price of our nonexistent culture, IMHO. What culture we have is highly recent and poorly defined. Much of it was invented out of whole cloth for propaganda reasons over the past century. Some of the propaganda is contradictory and most of it has some ulterior motive. Regional and local subcultures are dominant over national ones. People remain by and large more loyal to their neighbors, communities, and regions over the national government. Critically, other than black/white it’s not broadly racial, ethnic, or tribal. You can’t easily tell who’s who by looking at them or their religion or their ancestry or any of the common ways. It doesn’t follow bloodlines. As a result, the cultures tend to be open to any like minded person. If one simply lives in an area long enough and talks and acts like a local, they’ll eventually be accepted as ‘one of us’. From my observation, this is unlike the rest of the world. Germans remain Germans whether or not they live in Germany, and will remain German even if several generations pass so long as they don’t intermarry extensively. It is reasonable to speak of the Russians who live in Ukraine or the Germans who live in France. It would be absurd to speak of the Kentuckians living in California. If European cultures are lakes, rivers, and seas that formed organically with long histories and well defined boundaries, borders, and characteristics, American culture is a few dozen swimming pools lined up next to each other with an artificial barrier strung around them. It’s artificial, shallow, and divided, but because it’s artificial, shallow, and divided, people can just go to whichever one suits them and it sort of works, albeit in a way that appears chaotic, inefficient, discordant, and even dysfunctional to outsiders.
I read some of the American Redoubt article you mentioned. Seems like a fairly typical European liberal reaction to something that doesn’t exist in your culture but has pretty much always existed here to one degree or another. The Antimasonic party, New Harmony, the Mormons founding their own state, the Amish, are all variations on the radical separatist themes. Most are not as gun oriented, but some have been fairly violent. Like so much of our present situation, this is not new but it’s different from the superpower period 1945-2016. It’s only new to the narrow minded who don’t know any history before WWII and view all cultures prior to that time as barbaric. Most Americans other than the 25% or so who are hardcore liberal Democrats would shrug their shoulders at this. Gun sales numbers would suggest that there are far too many of these types of Americans for the woke liberal globalists to win. I think the Biden administration actually does recognize that based on their quietly continuing and/or expanding upon Trump’s economic nationalist policies. I think the smart people know that an uneasy truce and a series of compromises is the best they’re going to get. Faith in the federal government is so low that setting off any sort of violent standoff with these or other separatist groups could easily escalate into a conflict that is worse for everyone than compromising. I think it’s a very low possibility in the current climate. It would take significant changes in the electorate to get to that point.
I have no idea why some posts get flagged and unposted for a while then appear hours or days later. There’s no rhyme or reason to it that I can see. Whatever firm Unherd hired to play moderator to their comments section is doing a terrible job. If it’s an automated program, they need to buy a new one.
It’s difficult to find the words to describe the sheer intellectual and emotional vibrancy that Ms Birbalsingh brings to our community in the UK. This interview should be compulsory viewing in every school, and in every centre of power.
Once again, Freddie Sayers conducts matters with aplomb and insight, allowing the interviewee full rein to present their case.
I hesitate to say this, because i know some subscribers have a different view and i wouldn’t want to detract from my point… but i’m going to say it anyway: being female massively helps her case. I’m not entirely sure why, but when we see role models such as this headteacher, Kathleen Stock and Mary Harrington applying their intellect and experience to a particular matter, somehow they seem to be able to ‘carry the day’ without upsetting the sensibilities of others.
I say this because there seems to be an impression that the introduction of females in places of influence has had a negative effect on our culture. This example demonstrates – surely beyond any reasonable doubt – the value of their contribution when taking up the opportunities that our culture affords them.
Thanks for the heads-up. I cut short listening to the previous two interviews (CIA bloke ex. Ukrainian government PR man) because the interviewees lack substance despite Freddie’s best efforts.
Part of the reason why some people see a negative effect of “females in places of influence” is not because that person is female. It’s because they have brought in an ideology which projects females as victims and males as perpetrators.
Mothers have a closer bond to their children and she represents this. A male headmaster, even one with the same views wouldn’t elicit as much empathy.
So much common sense from Katharine Birbalsingh, and a willingness to identify and address some uncomfortable truths, including: multiculturalism doesn’t work if left to its own devices. We must facilitate mixing of races and groups. Most importantly, a multicultural society (really any society) requires sacrifices by everyone to make it work.
I sincerely hope she can continue running her school in her way, but the progressive educational establishment must really hate her. She stands for everything they despise.
Personally always thought schools should be entirely secular. And listening to this Headteacher I’d be v grateful if she was the headteacher at my grandkids school.
But we all the know the problem is ‘consistency’. If we ban this are we to make all schools secular? And have we the stomach for that because it’d involve taking on many other denominations?
An argument might be made based on ‘choice’ – don’t send your kids there. That of course opens up a further question about the ability to deploy choice and how much choice in religious influence we believe nationally funded education should include.
My view is that religious schools should not be funded from public money. I object to my taxes being used to support religious indoctrination. If parents want their kids to have a religious education, they should either deliver it themselves or pay for them to attend a private school.
You are imagining complexity where is does not exist.
The UK has a long tradition of single faith schools, the Sate funds these and their continued existence is not a current topic of general debate in the UK.
KB observes that single faith schools achieve excellent results and she believes this is because pupils at these school benefit from a clear social structure in their schools with a consistent set of rules. Her school demonstrates when the same structure is applied in general multi race schools, the pupils benefit as much as single faith schools and excel academically.
In large cities the KB school model can be applied without depriving Muslim children the option to pray as their faith expects because other schools are available.
As a separate matter, the Church & State debate is peculiar to North America and should not invade an already complex UK issue.
Faith schools indoctrinate – full stop. Let parents do what they want outside school and let kids decide for themselves as they become adults.
I suspect you are less aware of the pernicious impact faith schools had in Northern Ireland separating communities, stoking inequity and tribal violence. The UK already has this example of why Faith schools create serious problems. Like much that happened in NI we like to sweep it under the carpet. But the lesson is there.
How widespread is this indoctrination? Should all churches and mosques be closed?
Community separation and tribal violence go back centuries in North Ireland. The English Plantations had established inequality before the Spanish Armada sailed up the English Channel in 1588.
Trying to blame the Troubles in NI on 20th century single faith schools is a ridiculous extrapolation that exposes historical ignorance.
The Left hates religion because it provides an alternative belief system that challenges the single word of the authoritarian central state apparatus.
No one is talking about making a faith school. They’re talking about allowing students who want to to take a few minutes out of their break to pray. Not forcing anyone else, not changing the curriculum to teach their religion… why should that even bother anyone else?
This woman is incredible, I love that the school is vegetarian!
That was not the motivation though. There was no stated mission for the school to become vegetarian, it was just the most practical route to ensuring children of all races and religions eat together at mixed race dining tables.
Your comment undermines the central achievement of the school.
She should be education minister.
If they want to pray whilst at school, then they should attend a Muslim school. Michaela is a non-sectarian secular school, and long may it remain so.
I strongly suspect there are ‘actors’ behind the objection of not being able to pray at school other than the child and parents involved.
I also suspect KB knows this, and is therefore having to be very diplomatic (which she’s good at) when discussing the issue, so as not to upset the carefully-balanced applecart she’s achieved with years of hard work.
Elsewhere in comments, she’s accused of being “naive”. It’s rather naive to think she’s not more fully aware of the implications than those labelling her in such a way.
This is the key thing; if you don’t like it, take the child somewhere else. I believe this attitude was once prevalent (I recall a former headmaster responding to a parent complaining that I’d put her son in detention and he said exactly that).
Is there an expectation of pleasing everyone? I don’t seem to hear these word very much. And our politicians are forever trying to please us. Can’t they say “this is what we want to do, if you don’t like it, vote for the other lot”.
Surely there is no legal case to answer if it is made clear when parents are applying for a place at this school for their children that this is a secular school?
I’m curious what ‘secular’ means to you. (Is making students sing ‘Jerusalem’ secular?) To me, secular means that no religion is forced on everyone; it doesn’t mean that no one is allowed to practice their own religion. Apparently, the Muslims are allowed to fast during Ramadan and to wear hijab – as they should be – so why is the line drawn at praying, which is an obligation for them?
I’m told Jeremy Paxman visited her school and said while he saw many good things, being a pupil at this school would have done his head in. Berbalsingh dismisses every opinion other than her own with such breezy certainty and lack of curiosity, I find that concerning.
Jeremy Paxman: king of the ‘gotcha’ school of journalism.
As an interviewer, Freddie sayers is way superior.
As an interviewer, I agree, but that’s not my point
Discipline applies to everyone while on school premises.
No one would disagree with that
She is in charge and parents have a choice of schools!
She’s in charge within the limits of the law, and we’re about to find out what those limits are. She’s a small c conservative, she believes in the rule of law after all.
I really wish she was interviewed by someone who understood the issues and could have asked better questions.
Practicing Muslims from the age of 10 need to pray 5 times a day, and one of those times comes during the school day. It’s not just a little cultural thing that they should have to sacrifice to make others happy. The host asks what would happen if Muslim students were allowed to pray during their lunch break, and she says that the whole character of the school would be destroyed, and they’d have to get rid of all their rules, to let kids talk in the halls, etc. How does any of that follow? They’re not asking for chaos; they’re asking to be allowed to follow a rule – one of the most important rules in their lives, which she is forcing them to violate.
(Apparently girls are allowed to wear hijab and students are allowed to fast during Ramadan – as they should be – so how does she justify those things, which obviously differentiate them from non-Muslims, and then forbid them from praying? For that matter, their names alone normally differentiate them. Also, how does she justify having the students sing “Jerusalem,” a religious song that is not the national anthem?)
They wouldn’t need three big prayer rooms, as she claimed. The students don’t all have to pray at once.
I’d guess that since half of the students are Muslims, many of them want to pray but have put up with her prohibition because they don’t want to make problems (and get reported to PREVENT or have their children taken from them, which Muslim parents in the UK are very afraid of). But when one person started praying, the others felt brave enough to join in, especially because it was Ramadan. She says the number of students praying increased over several days, “for whatever reason.” The reason is because it’s an obligation that practicing Muslims want to fulfill.
The fact remains that parents know the ethos of the school when entering their children. If they want something other, they should apply to another school. Why is that so controversial?
That’s easy. The school is close, the school rating is good, and a smattering of Muslim victimhood. In a more charitable form, a belief that the school can remain the same when prayer allowed.
A fare critique and a few good points, however,
“Practicing Muslims from the age of 10 need to pray 5 times a day” – practicing Muslim routinely skip all 5 prayer times combining first and last two into one, so it’s absolutely not where the real problem lies.
“For that matter, their names alone normally differentiate them” – absolutely. You need to draw a line somewhere, and wearing hijab, a cross or a name Muhammad isn’t going against the school’s ethos, but separating kids during recess is.
“But when one person started praying, the others felt brave enough to join in” ( or intimidated enough as she suggested )
“The reason is because it’s an obligation that practicing Muslims want to fulfill” – the obligation is in place for the past 14 centuries, and school has been around for 10 years. It’s not hard to figure out why the obligation got somehow important in 2024. ( hint: record level of migrations to UK )
“Practicing Muslims from the age of 10 need to pray 5 times a day” – practicing Muslim routinely skip all 5 prayer times combining first and last two into one, so it’s absolutely not where the real problem lies
I used “practicing” as a shortcut, meaning Muslims who care about their prayers. They certainly don’t routinely skip all 5 prayer times. I’m not sure what “combining first and last two into one” means – for one thing, that only accounts for 3 of the prayers.
“wearing hijab, a cross or a name Muhammad isn’t going against the school’s ethos, but separating kids during recess is.”
Huh?
From The UK’s National Secular Society: End collective worship lawsNo child should be compelled to pray in school.
We want to see laws requiring schools to hold acts of worship abolished.
The laws are archaic, unnecessary and breach children’s freedom of religion or belief.
The United Kingdom is the only Western democracy which legally imposes worship in publicly funded schools.
The law in England and Wales provides that children at all maintained schools “shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship”. Northern Ireland and Scotland have similar laws.
Even in schools with no religious designation, the worship must be “wholly or mainly of a Christian character”.
School assemblies are an important feature of school life. They foster a sense of community in schools and promote the moral and social development of pupils.But acts of worship are neither necessary nor desirable to achieve these educational goals.
The majority of the public (52%) say school assemblies should be about moral issues, whereas just 26% agree that they should feature religious worship.
https://www.secularism.org.uk/end-compulsory-worship/
Amazing that people should think that the style of sharing food at mealtimes is odd.
At UK boys’ secondary school in the 1960’s we were not that formal, but we sat with the same group of boys at lunchtime. One would collect the food, others the plates, others take away the stuff afterwards etc.
It’s just normal.
Also, there was no choice of food. It was ‘this or do without’, but, apart from a few, most of us were happy with what was on offer.
Michaela is ‘normal’, it’s the rest who are odd.
There are various norms, not just one. I think that having only vegetarian food fits with all of them
What’s character?
Kids need discipline, fully agreed. Being “British”? I’m not British and I understand where she’s coming from , looking for something to supercede the sectarian and racial background of the kids. But is there such a thing as being “British” besides reflecting one’s geographical location? ( my remark is inspired, as I realize, by Mary Harrington’s recent “spreadsheet-state” substack )
The best reason Britain should ban prayer in school is the presence of Muslim students. Christianity is our religion. We must stop Moslem from taking over the country and it should start in schools.