An independent Islamic faith school that requires girls as young as seven to wear hijabs is to become state-funded, with the council saying the uniform policy is “legally compliant”. The Telegraph has more.
Barnet Hill Academy, in north London, will become a voluntary-aided (VA) primary school from the start of September after approval from the council last month.
VA schools are maintained and funded by the local authority, but the governing board has a substantial influence in the running of the school, employing staff and implementing the admissions criteria.
The National Secular Society (NSS) has written to Barnet council raising concerns about its decision to grant VA status in light of the school’s uniform policy, which includes “compulsory” hijabs for girls in Year 3 and above.
Stephen Evans, Chief Executive of the NSS, said: “It is appalling that taxpayers are being asked to fund a school that forces girls as young as seven to wear the hijab. Women should be free to choose religious dress; young girls should not have it imposed upon them.
“State-funded schools should bring children together, not divide them by faith and, by extension, ethnicity. The council must pause the implementation of this decision and subject this proposal to proper public and democratic scrutiny.”
Barnet Council, which is Labour-led, said it prided itself on “the diverse nature of our school landscape” and said the school’s uniform policy was legally compliant.
The hijab, a headscarf that covers the head and neck, is worn by many Muslim women and girls for reasons of modesty and faith.
Campaigners have previously argued that requiring young girls to wear the hijab is repressive and encourages the sexualisation of children because it is worn from puberty as a sign of modesty in front of men.
Islamic groups claim the hijab serves as a visual marker of a girl’s commitment to her faith and identity and allows for increased privacy at a time when they are more self-conscious.
Research by the NSS in 2017 found the hijab was compulsory in eight state-funded Islamic schools in England, including three primary schools. The Telegraph has identified a handful of state-funded schools still operating the policy in 2026.
In a uniform policy published on its website, Barnet Hill Academy, which teaches pupils aged between three and 11, states that a white hijab is “compulsory” for students from Year 3. The policy is listed alongside other requirements such as wearing a school-branded cardigan and black shoes.
The school, which has been operating since 2006 and has 158 pupils against a capacity of 400, according to the Department for Education’s register of schools, previously charged annual fees of more than £6,500.
However, it submitted a proposal to Barnet council in May to become a VA school. On August 4th, the council approved the switch, saying the proposal had undergone its scrutiny process and met the required standards and criteria.
The council’s judgment said there was “a very limited level” of state-funded Islamic primary provision across London and that it was “unevenly spread and primarily concentrated outside of Barnet”. It added that the school’s “inclusive policies” support the “elimination of discrimination” and the “advancement of equality of opportunity”.
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
As I understand it, the need for coverings is so that “men’s lusts” are restrained. If you feel lustful towards a 7-year old, you are one sick (Insert word of choice here)
Disgraceful appeasement from the local authority.
More tacit intimidation by the Muslim community to get their own way of life written into the “system”
Next stop sharia
Say hello to Barnet’s multifaith forum.
I wonder how many White, Christian females there are sitting on Barnet Council ?
Let’s hope that no state school opts for a uniform that requires 7-year olds to wear bikinis.
There is no such thing as a school uniform that requires a female to wear a head covering at all times.
This policy discriminates between girls and boys and should therefore be illegal.
If its such a commitment to faith why don’t the men wear it? Or are they not as committed?
As a Tax payer I am sick of funding all this diversity crap, The Country and my Bank Account is being rapidly torn apart by Labour and its worship of all others except the natural born Brit. Isn’t it time we all just stood up as a nation and say No.
We could, as a start, stop voting these Uniparty traitors into power. After which, things might start to improve.
If a pupil from the school’s catchment area is attending the school they do not have to meet any additional VA criteria, for example in a Catholic VA school in-catchment pupils are not required to attend Mass or to be involved in any other Catholic activities.
The same should be the case for an Islamic VA school, compulsory hijabs should be rejected.
No school should require a child to wear any religious garment. It should be illegal to have such a policy.
It is not fair that females should be compelled to cover their heads and males should not. The definition of equity as in DEI is fairness. This decision ignores the requirements of DEI and should be reversed.
Yeah, but as we know the very same rules can be ruthlessly enforced or totally ignored depending on the religious or ethnic makeup of a group.
”Inclusivity” and ”Diversity” mean “not white and certainly not Christian”.
Is there any comment from the Archbishop of Canterbury on this topic? Has she rushed to defend her Christian flock or doesn’t she think it matters? What is the point of this vengeful woman?
“What is the point of this vengeful woman?”
There is no sensible answer to that question. She doesn’t even suit her official frock better than her male(-ish) predecessors.
Women and girls are less than animals in the way they are treated by Muslim Men, There is no such thing as fair where the female is concerned, because apart from supplying a body for sex and children, and cleaning they are as any other animal, there to service the needs of the Male.
It is also concerning that these males appear to be so sexually incontinent that they are unable to tolerate the sight of female hair and other body features without being able to restrain themselves. I believe the Home Office has recently indirectly confirmed this.
This Is essentially making a statement that sticks up two fingers at British society. In Islamic tradition, wearing of the hijab begins at puberty – which is normally toward the end of primary school age. The school has decided to go beyond that tradition, saying that they are going to islamise all girls attending that school, regardless of their background. Why should the state, via the council, be funding such extremism?
They’re not, we are. And you know what we’ll do about it? Absolutely f*ck all.