Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The following four court applications set the stage for the debate on challenges to school disciplinary rules during the past two years:In July 2005, the mother of Sunali Pillay brought an application in the Equality Court against the principal and governing body of Durban Girls’ High School. The application aimed to restrain the school from taking disciplinary action against her daughter based on the girl’s refusal to remove a nose stud which was regarded by the school as a violation of the school’s code of conduct. The grounds for the application were that their refusal violated her constitutional rights to equality and freedom of religion, conscience, belief and culture. In September 2005, the Western Cape Residents’ Association brought an application in the Cape High Court on behalf of the parents of Bernel Williams. The application was to ensure her attendance at the matric farewell function hosted by Parow High School. It was argued that the school’s refusal to allow her to attend the function, based on her continued unacceptable behaviour, infringed her constitutional right to equality, dignity and freedom of expression. Similarly, the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine, on 2 March 2006, whether the refusal by the school authorities to allow an orthodox Sikh student, Gurbaj Singh, to wear a kirpan (religious object resembling a dagger) to the school he was attending, was an infringement of his freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On 22 March 2006, the House of Lords in England decided in favour of the decision by the head-teacher and governors of Denbigh High School to exclude Shabina Begun from the school unless she conformed to the schooldress code. Begun insisted on wearing a hijab (long coat-like garment) and not the shalwar kameeze she had been wearing for the previous two years and which, according to the evidence, satisfied the Islamic clothing requirements. She argued that her exclusion infringed inter alia on her right to manifest her religion under art 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.In all these matters the constitutional rights of the learner were weighed up against the right of the school to ensure a disciplined environment through the strict observance of the school rules. Although only two of the four applications were successful, it is encouraging that parents and learners are prepared to test decisions taken by schools – an indication that a human rights culture is taking root at secondary school level on both a national and international level.The aim of this note is to discuss these judgments within the parameters of the rights of learners vis-à-vis the rights of other learners and the necessity for discipline and a safe schooling environment. The first section of the note is devoted to an examination of each of these judgments. Thereafter, the issues are discussed with specific reference to the South African constitutional principles and the application of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,016 | 0,034 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,020 | 0,027 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».