The Religious and Ideological Freedom of Teachers in the English Legal Framework: Is the Balance Between Collective and Individual Rights Appropriate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the current legal framework safeguard the individual rights of teachers to religious and ideological freedom, whilst at the same time protecting the collective rights of school communities to provide an educational context aligned to identified values and principles? How does the law seek to find a resolution or accommodation where there is a clear conflict? The relationship between religion, education, law, society, and citizenship has been a political hot-potato in England ever since the State first began to involve itself in schooling in a concerted and coordinated way. The Forster Education Act of 1870 marked the beginning of national educational provision, at least at an elementary level,1 and it was no accident that this landmark statute famously contained the Cowper-Temple Clause.2 This required all religious education to be non-denominational, reflecting the bitter wrangling between Anglican and Non-Conformist educationalists in the Victorian era. In the contemporary context, domestic and international legal instruments3 safeguard the ideological liberty of families and children.4 For example, Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) explicitly requires States to respect the religious and philosophical convictions of parents in the provision of education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".