Iris is the mother of a three-year-old girl enrolled in a nursery school. When she offered to participate in supervising a school trip, her request was refused by the teacher due to her wearing a headscarf.

She is not the only one to face such a refusal; this has been a recurring problem for many years.

The arguments presented to justify such opposition are often based on the principles of secularism, neutrality, the prohibition of proselytism, or because the activity takes place within the school premises, invoking that the accompanying parent is performing an activity comparable to that of a teacher.

Can I accompany my child on school trips or participate in activities at my child’s school while wearing a religious symbol?

What does the law say?

The issue of accompanying school trips or participating in activities within the school premises by mothers wearing headscarves comes up regularly and was debated again during the examination of the Law of August 24, 2021, reinforcing respect for the principles of the Republic.

As the law currently stands, the answer is clear.

• The question of respecting the principle of neutrality by parents accompanying students from a public school during activities or outings is not subject to specific legislative or regulatory provisions.
• While LAW No. 2004-228 of March 15, 2004, framing, in application of the principle of secularism, the wearing of signs or outfits ostensibly manifesting a religious affiliation in public schools, colleges, and high schools prohibits the ostentatious wearing of religious signs for students in primary and secondary schools, it does not in any way restrict the freedom to manifest one’s religion for accompanying parents. Indeed, the circular of May 18, 2004, relating to the implementation of Law No. 2004-228 of March 15, 2004, explicitly states that ‘the law does not concern parents of students’ (art.2.3).
• Whether it’s regular or occasional school trips, or participation in activities at the school that remain under the responsibility of the teacher, accompanying parents are users of the public education service acting as parents of students, and are not bound by the neutrality required of public officials (TA Amiens, Dec. 15, 2015).
• In its opinion of December 19, 2013, the Council of State thus ruled: parents accompanying school trips are neither agents nor collaborators of the public service but users of the public service who do not have to submit to the principle of religious neutrality.
• Neither the principle of secularism nor that of neutrality of public service can justify refusing mothers of students wearing headscarves from collaborating in educational activities and school trips.
• As such, accompanying parents can freely manifest their religious beliefs. They could only be subject to restrictions for reasons of public order or ‘requirements related to the proper functioning of the public service’ (Study by CE Dec. 19, 2013; Administrative Court of Nice, June 9, 2015). Also, let’s specify that the Council of State has recognized that the wearing of the headscarf alone did not constitute, in itself, an act of pressure or proselytism (CE November 27, 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Jeouit).
• It doesn’t matter if the prohibition on parents manifesting their religion is included in the school’s internal regulations, as such a refusal is likely to characterize discrimination based on religion. However, such regulations, or even the choice of the school principal, cannot be contrary to the principle of non-discrimination. According to the HALDE (replaced by the Defender of Rights), ‘respect for the principle of equality excludes, by definition, that the school management can exercise its power of authorization in an arbitrary manner‘.
• Let us remember that the principle of religious freedom is guaranteed by numerous legal texts, notably Article 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 or Article 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which states that religious freedom “cannot be subject to other restrictions than those which, as prescribed by law, constitute necessary measures, in a democratic society, for public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others“.
• Consequently, despite various proposed laws or amendments to the contrary, it is possible for a student’s parent, when supervising school trips or educational activities, to wear a religious symbol, provided that it does not disturb public order and the proper functioning of the establishment.

What should I do?

If, despite everything, you are refused to accompany your child on school trips or to participate in activities within the school premises, on the grounds that you are wearing a headscarf:

• Request the legal basis (law text, circular, decree, internal regulations, etc.) that justifies the decision to refuse accompaniment as well as a copy of the cited text.
• You can also verbally remind them of the excerpt from the circular of May 18, 2004, which states that “the law does not concern students’ parents“, and if necessary, present a copy of this circular. (Art. 2.3).
• You can ask the school principal to refer to the Secularism Booklet published by the Ministry of National Education (p.28) or suggest that they consult the secularism vade mecum updated in December 2021, which aims to provide tools for national education staff, and which makes no mention of a duty of neutrality for students’ parents.
• You can also present to the school principal a copy of the Halde deliberation, which considered that “the principled refusal opposed to headscarf-wearing mothers to accompany their children on school trips and/or to supervise educational activities not related to teaching, in the absence of any circumstance likely to give it the character of an act of pressure or proselytism, appears to be contrary to the provisions prohibiting discrimination based on religion“.
• If the school principal persists in their refusal, request a written notification specifying that the principal refuses your participation in supervising school trips, the reason for this refusal (wearing a headscarf), and its legal basis.
• You can then alert the secularism referent of the academy, the rectorate and the Defender of Rights.
• Contact Equitas who will provide you with support and legal assistance.

APPLICABLE REFERENCES:

Laws: LAW No. 2004-228 of March 15, 2004 framing, in application of the principle of secularism, the wearing of signs or outfits ostensibly manifesting a religious affiliation in public schools, colleges and high schools; LAW No. 2008-496 of May 27, 2008 on various provisions for adaptation to Community law in the field of anti-discrimination.

Circulars: Circular of May 18, 2004 relating to the implementation of Law No. 2004-228 of March 15, 2004 framing, in application of the principle of secularism, the wearing of signs or outfits manifesting a religious affiliation in public schools, colleges and high schools; Circular No. 99-136 of September 21, 1999 relating to the organization of school trips.

Jurisprudence: Administrative Court of Nice, June 9, 2015, No. 1305386; Administrative Court of Amiens, Dec. 15, 2015, No. 1401797, Mrs. Loubna A.; Council of State, November 27, 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Jeouit, No. 172686.

Studies: Deliberation No. 2007-117 of May 14, 2007 relating to the exclusion of students’ mothers from participation in educational activities and/or supervision of school trips due to wearing a headscarf (Halde); Study adopted by the General Assembly of the EC on Dec. 19, 2013 on the application of the principle of religious neutrality in public services.