ABSTRACT
This chapter will consider some of the claims that ECtHR judges have made about the role and purpose of education, about the definition of a belief or conviction, and about indoctrination. Various established philosophies of education are considered, including the tension between education considered as being individual or social, and arguments about the value of different kinds of knowledge, for example, disciplinary knowledge or vocational knowledge. Arguments over the definition of indoctrination are considered, and these can reflect an unclear definition of education. Two leading cases are reviewed. First is Campbell and Cosans v. UK from 1977, which considered whether corporal punishment was part of education or simply an ancillary matter. The case also involved deciding what constituted a belief or conviction, since the parents staked their claim on a belief or conviction that beating children was wrong. Second is Kjelsen et al. v. Denmark, from 1976, concerning religious objections to sex education. It delimited the kinds of knowledge that parents could not object to on religious grounds, and thereby discussed indoctrination. The two cases show how ECtHR judges are required to make philosophical assumptions about these issues.
