Undercover investigations, extremist ties and troubling classroom teachings—these are just some of the controversies surrounding Sir Hamid Patel, the newly appointed interim chairman of the board of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, OFSTED, the United Kingdom’s educational standards office. Once the head of schools where staff allegedly called for the stoning of gay people and banned music as “satanic,” Patel now holds significant influence over the direction of British education.
His influence extends beyond education, as he also oversees an Islamic charity that includes figures with hardline Salafist and Deobandi beliefs—some of whom have voiced support for the Taliban.
A Channel 4 “Dispatches” documentary claimed alarming practices within Tauheedul schools under Patel’s leadership. Investigators recorded staff at one of the schools, declaring that clapping and whistling were “satanic,” that ties were forbidden because they could turn into serpents on the “day of judgement” and that homosexuals should be “stoned to death.”
Despite this, Patel was awarded a Commander of the Order of the British Empire Award in 2015 for his services to education, a move that raised eyebrows given the extremist ideology circulating within schools under his trust. His influence extends beyond education, as he also oversees an Islamic charity that includes figures with hardline Salafist and Deobandi beliefs—some of whom have voiced support for the Taliban.
Concerns over Patel’s suitability for the Ofsted role stem from past affiliations with radical clerics. In 2010, a school under his leadership invited Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais—a Saudi cleric notorious for calling Jews “pigs” and praying for their annihilation. Schools under Patel have also hosted Ismail Menk, who has openly described homosexuals as “filthy” and “worse than dogs and pigs.”
The “Trojan Horse” affair, which exposed the Islamist infiltration of Birmingham schools, revealed disturbing practices—including the forced removal of secular headteachers, segregated classrooms and the restriction of “un-Islamic” subjects like biology.
Rather than acknowledging the depth of the scandal, Patel has downplayed the findings, arguing that the affair created “establishment suspicion.” His stance raises concerns about how the United Kingdom’s education system, under his leadership, will address extremism in schools moving forward.
According to Conservative Post, under Patel’s leadership, Star Academies Trust enforced strict Islamic practices in its schools. Pupils were encouraged to wear the hijab outside of school, to recite the Quran weekly, and to avoid stationery featuring “un-Islamic images,” including pictures of pop stars. These alleged policies fuel concerns about religious conservatism in schools meant to provide a broad and balanced education.
In 2010, a school under his leadership invited Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais—a Saudi cleric notorious for calling Jews “pigs” and praying for their annihilation.
Some have rushed to Patel’s defense, dismissing concerns as mere guilt by association. Critics might argue that these examples reflect the actions of those around him rather than Patel himself. However, too few recognize that savvy Islamists often know precisely what—or more crucially, what not—to say. In such cases, the company they keep speaks louder than their silence, revealing far more about their true intent.
Patel now wields enormous influence over school policies in the United Kingdom nationwide and, given his track record, raises urgent questions: Will his leadership push U.K. schools toward a more conservative religious agenda? Can the education system still be trusted to uphold secular, balanced oversight?
With schools under his past leadership hosting speakers who vilified Jewish people, concerns are mounting over whether he will take real action to protect Jewish students and root out antisemitism. As scrutiny intensifies, the government must answer for its decision—was this appointment a reckless gamble or a calculated move with far-reaching consequences?
