Search

This paper considers how the longstanding liberal principle of freedom of religion in education in England was recontextualised within a marketised system of school choice. First, the potential conflict between the right to freedom of belief and to education is outlined. The notion of neoliberal legalism is explored, first in identifying and defining neoliberalism as a model of regulation by market forces, then in outlining 'neoliberal legality', as the manifestation of this approach in law. Next, the paper presents a narrative account of the development in England of the principle of religious freedom in education up to the Education Act 1944. The neoliberal turn is considered, in the 1988 Education Reform Act and subsequent legislation, showing how while the provision remains, religion is effectively one marker of school choice and strategic school selection, rather than purely a fundamental personal freedom. This is discussed in relation to neoliberal recontexualisation of existing law, and the neoliberal governance of religions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of religious signs in schools, as in other areas of the public sphere, is a current topic, given that legislative changes are constantly taking place. In countries as close as Germany, France, England and Spain, the legislation governing the wearing of the Islamic veil differs considerably due to their different historical, cultural, social, economic and idiosyncratic contexts. Leaving aside the ethnocentric perspective, in this paper a comparative study of the situation was carried out in these four countries. The main results include a negative attitude towards the wearing of the Islamic veil in France as opposed to a more tolerant position in England and Spain. In the case of Germany, there is a greater diversity of positions due to the characteristic autonomy of each federal state. Given the different types of veils, the reasons for wearing them, the traditions of each society and regional idiosyncrasies, it is considered that, a priori, there should not be a fight against its use, although it is recommended to adopt a belligerent stance against its imposition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]