Decree on neutrality in education

1. In concrete terms

Ban on wearing visible convictional signs

The decree enshrines neutrality of appearance by banning the wearing of visible convictional signs for all staff members of schools subject to the neutrality principle: teachers, management, supervisors, administrative, paramedical, technical and manual staff. This ban will apply on school premises, but also during external school activities, including internships, and in dependent institutions such as boarding schools, PMS centres or outdoor activity centres.

The ban applies to all visible convictional signs, meaning any clothing or accessory expressing a political, ideological, philosophical or religious conviction.

The term “visible” was chosen over “ostentatious” to avoid any distinction based on size or shape: the aim is to target all signs without distinction, in order to guarantee neutrality of appearance as a whole.

An exception is provided for teachers of religion and ethics, solely within the context of the lessons they give. This authorisation is not limited to the rooms or hours of the lessons concerned, but ceases as soon as these teachers exercise another function or teach another subject within the same institution (for example, a French or history lesson). This exception reflects respect for freedom of worship and teaching and is in line with case law from the Council of State.

2. Why this reform?

Providing a clear and coherent framework

Until now, neutrality was governed by two decrees (1994 and 2003) with similar but distinct wording. This duality led to differing interpretations and sometimes legal uncertainty. The decree merges these frameworks to provide a single standard, for the benefit of all education stakeholders.

Ensuring a neutral environment in appearance

In a context where identity-based claims are multiplying, sometimes even within schools, neutrality of appearance aims to preserve the calm of the school climate and respect for everyone's beliefs. The aim is to ensure that school remains a shared space, free from any convictional pressure, where every pupil can develop freely.

Protecting pedagogical freedom

The text removes from the Code the provision requiring teaching “in terms that cannot offend any pupil”, as this wording led many teachers to self-censor in their lessons (62% according to the Respect Barometer).

Examples of knowledge being challenged: this can concern philosophy, history, language, science, art lessons, etc. The subjects identified can be diverse.

Examples include Darwin's theory of evolution, the presentation of a work of art depicting a nude or a diagram of a reproductive organ, testing a test tube filled with alcohol, readings of classic works identified by some as libertine, or a fantasy novel referring to the devil, or even the difficulty of addressing the historical fact of the Holocaust, addressing human rights when they touch on gender equality, LGBTQIA+ minorities, dissecting a pig's heart or simply an animal organ, etc.

The reform reaffirms the right and duty to teach all knowledge, with objectivity, without giving up pedagogical freedom of expression.

Indeed, increasing tensions linked to identity-based claims, whether religious, political, ideological or philosophical, are observed in our society today and are echoed within schools. The decree aims to avoid any polarisation or identity-based pressure within these schools.

Supporting teachers

The decree is accompanied by a support and training plan:

• Strengthening training for management and teachers;
• Mediation and support tools;
• A specific circular to recall legal references and available support.

3. Who does the decree apply to?

• Staff (teachers, management, supervisors, administrative staff, technicians, cooks, manual workers, etc.)

Of the following schools:

• Officially organised education (WBE).
• Subsidised official education (municipal, provincial).
• Non-denominational free education that has adopted the neutrality principle (around 63 schools).
• Adult education, HSKO, boarding schools, PMS centres, outdoor centres dependent on these schools.

Not covered:

• The denominational free network (out of respect for Article 24 of the Constitution).
• The non-denominational free network that has not adopted the neutrality principle.

Pupils:

Schools retain the ability to regulate the wearing of convictional signs in their internal regulations, for reasons related to the smooth running of education or the pedagogical project.

4. Why this measure is not discriminatory

• It targets all beliefs, without distinction as to religion, politics or philosophy.
• It applies solely within a professional context, while carrying out duties.
• It is based on case law from the Constitutional Court and the Council of State, which recognise the legislator's freedom to choose a concept of neutrality, here, neutrality of appearance.

5. Monitoring and enforcement

The General Inspectorate Service will oversee compliance with the neutrality principle. A report will be presented to Parliament every two years to provide a complete overview.

6. Talking points

Why a general ban?
Because there is no real neutrality without neutrality of appearance. Staff embody the public institution: they must appear neutral to guarantee everyone's freedom of conscience.

Why now?
Because the lack of a clear framework has led to great inconsistency in internal regulations, which is difficult for schools to manage, and to unnecessary tensions. The Government has a responsibility to clarify the situation.

7. Key message

Neutrality is the guarantee of everyone's freedom. By clarifying this principle and guaranteeing neutrality of appearance, we protect teachers, pupils and parents alike.

This decree aims to protect what is most precious about school: being a shared place where people learn together, respecting differences and freedom of conscience. It preserves everyone's right to believe, or not to believe.