, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
SECTION A - THE SCHOOL TRIP DILEMMA
Question 1
1.1. Explain the concept of loco parentis and identify the specific duties of care Progressive
Pathways Academy and its staff assumed towards Thabo and Lerato during the school trip.
The concept of in loco parentis refers to the principle where individuals or institutions, such as
educators, assume the role and responsibilities of a parent while children are under their care,
particularly during school activities. This principle means that educators and school staff are
entrusted with the authority to make decisions in the best interest of the learners, ensuring their
safety and well-being while they are away from home. However, the authority granted is not absolute,
and it is expected that educators act with the same level of care a reasonable parent would exercise in
similar circumstances.
In the case of the Progressive Pathways Academy (PPA) excursion to the Kruger National Park, the
staff had several specific duties of care towards Thabo and Lerato. First, ensuring the safety of the
learners was paramount. This included providing appropriate supervision throughout the trip,
particularly during non-instructional times like evenings, as indicated by the panic caused when the
students were found missing. The school was responsible for maintaining a secure environment,
including enforcing curfew and preventing students from accessing unsafe or restricted areas.
The PPA staff also had a duty to uphold discipline and maintain order, as outlined in the school’s
Code of Conduct. Thabo and Lerato's actions, violating curfew and entering a prohibited area,
required the school to take appropriate disciplinary measures. Additionally, a proactive approach to
risk management was necessary, with clear rules and regular reinforcement of safety protocols to
prevent incidents like this from occurring.
While disciplinary actions were necessary, the school had an obligation to ensure that these measures
were fair and did not jeopardize the learners' safety or well-being. Mrs. Mkhize’s concern about
sending her son home alone late at night highlighted the importance of considering the learner's
immediate safety when making disciplinary decisions. The decision to dismiss Thabo without
allowing him to explain himself further underscores the need for due process, where the learner’s
side is heard before actions are taken. Furthermore, the issue of peer pressure in Lerato’s confession
raised questions about the fairness of treating the students equally in this situation, emphasizing the
need for a thorough and balanced approach to disciplinary action.
1.2. Given the principle of loco parentis, analyse how Mr Dlamini's decision to immediately send
Thabo and Lerato home from Kruger National Park, especially at night, aligns with or deviates
from the expected standard of care for a responsible parent or guardian.
Mr. Dlamini’s decision to immediately send Thabo and Lerato home from Kruger National Park,
particularly at night, deviates from the expected standard of care associated with the in loco parentis
principle. This principle requires educators to act as a responsible parent would in ensuring the safety
and well-being of students during school activities. In this case, Mr. Dlamini's decision raises
significant concerns regarding both the immediate safety of the learners and the procedural fairness
of the disciplinary process.
, Firstly, sending Thabo and Lerato home late at night from a remote location was deemed
irresponsible and unsafe by Mrs. Mkhize, who argued that a responsible parent would prioritize the
child's immediate safety over disciplinary action. A responsible parent would likely ensure that the
child is safely cared for before taking any punitive action, especially when the child is far from home
and in an unfamiliar, potentially hazardous environment. The immediate safety of the students
should have been the primary concern, rather than the swift enforcement of a punishment.
Secondly, Mrs. Mkhize's complaint that Thabo had not been given a fair opportunity to explain
himself or to consider alternative disciplinary measures highlights another area where the decision
deviates from the standard of care expected from educators. The lack of a formal hearing or due
process, which is required for assessing the severity of a breach, indicates that the decision was made
without proper consideration of the full context. The School Governing Body (SGB) chairman’s
review pointed out that the policy provided for early dismissal only in cases of serious breaches, but
it also implied that such decisions should be made within the bounds of due process and with careful
consideration of all factors. By acting unilaterally, Mr. Dlamini bypassed the expected procedural
fairness, making the decision feel arbitrary and insufficiently reasoned.
Finally, while Mr. Dlamini’s concern for safety and the school’s reputation is understandable, the
immediate dismissal of the students without taking into account the time of day, the remote location,
and the lack of a full hearing shows a clear deviation from the standard of care that in loco parentis
demands. A more measured approach, allowing for a thorough evaluation of the situation and
considering the safety of the students during their return journey, would have been more aligned with
the duties of a responsible guardian.
1.3. Differentiate between the school's general duty of supervision and its specific duty of care
under loco parentis in the context of the learners' safety during the excursion. Was Mr Dlamini's
action fundamentally flawed in its application of this duty?
In the context of learner safety during the school excursion, there is a clear distinction between the
school's general duty of supervision and its specific duty of care under the in loco parentis principle.
Mr. Dlamini’s decision to send Thabo and Lerato home immediately requires careful evaluation
against both these duties.
The general duty of supervision is broad and refers to the school's overall responsibility to ensure the
safety of its students during any school activity, including excursions. This duty requires the school
to make necessary provisions to safeguard learners' well-being and to manage the environment to
prevent harm. It involves constant monitoring of students and actively ensuring that the school
environment remains safe and conducive to learning.
The specific duty of care under in loco parentis, on the other hand, is more intense and personal. It
derives from the delegation of parental authority to educators, requiring them to act as a reasonable
parent would in safeguarding the child's well-being. This duty involves considering the individual
child’s best interests, ensuring their immediate safety, and addressing foreseeable risks or dangers.
Educators must take proactive steps to protect learners from harm, not only within the classroom but
also during off-campus activities like excursions.
SECTION A - THE SCHOOL TRIP DILEMMA
Question 1
1.1. Explain the concept of loco parentis and identify the specific duties of care Progressive
Pathways Academy and its staff assumed towards Thabo and Lerato during the school trip.
The concept of in loco parentis refers to the principle where individuals or institutions, such as
educators, assume the role and responsibilities of a parent while children are under their care,
particularly during school activities. This principle means that educators and school staff are
entrusted with the authority to make decisions in the best interest of the learners, ensuring their
safety and well-being while they are away from home. However, the authority granted is not absolute,
and it is expected that educators act with the same level of care a reasonable parent would exercise in
similar circumstances.
In the case of the Progressive Pathways Academy (PPA) excursion to the Kruger National Park, the
staff had several specific duties of care towards Thabo and Lerato. First, ensuring the safety of the
learners was paramount. This included providing appropriate supervision throughout the trip,
particularly during non-instructional times like evenings, as indicated by the panic caused when the
students were found missing. The school was responsible for maintaining a secure environment,
including enforcing curfew and preventing students from accessing unsafe or restricted areas.
The PPA staff also had a duty to uphold discipline and maintain order, as outlined in the school’s
Code of Conduct. Thabo and Lerato's actions, violating curfew and entering a prohibited area,
required the school to take appropriate disciplinary measures. Additionally, a proactive approach to
risk management was necessary, with clear rules and regular reinforcement of safety protocols to
prevent incidents like this from occurring.
While disciplinary actions were necessary, the school had an obligation to ensure that these measures
were fair and did not jeopardize the learners' safety or well-being. Mrs. Mkhize’s concern about
sending her son home alone late at night highlighted the importance of considering the learner's
immediate safety when making disciplinary decisions. The decision to dismiss Thabo without
allowing him to explain himself further underscores the need for due process, where the learner’s
side is heard before actions are taken. Furthermore, the issue of peer pressure in Lerato’s confession
raised questions about the fairness of treating the students equally in this situation, emphasizing the
need for a thorough and balanced approach to disciplinary action.
1.2. Given the principle of loco parentis, analyse how Mr Dlamini's decision to immediately send
Thabo and Lerato home from Kruger National Park, especially at night, aligns with or deviates
from the expected standard of care for a responsible parent or guardian.
Mr. Dlamini’s decision to immediately send Thabo and Lerato home from Kruger National Park,
particularly at night, deviates from the expected standard of care associated with the in loco parentis
principle. This principle requires educators to act as a responsible parent would in ensuring the safety
and well-being of students during school activities. In this case, Mr. Dlamini's decision raises
significant concerns regarding both the immediate safety of the learners and the procedural fairness
of the disciplinary process.
, Firstly, sending Thabo and Lerato home late at night from a remote location was deemed
irresponsible and unsafe by Mrs. Mkhize, who argued that a responsible parent would prioritize the
child's immediate safety over disciplinary action. A responsible parent would likely ensure that the
child is safely cared for before taking any punitive action, especially when the child is far from home
and in an unfamiliar, potentially hazardous environment. The immediate safety of the students
should have been the primary concern, rather than the swift enforcement of a punishment.
Secondly, Mrs. Mkhize's complaint that Thabo had not been given a fair opportunity to explain
himself or to consider alternative disciplinary measures highlights another area where the decision
deviates from the standard of care expected from educators. The lack of a formal hearing or due
process, which is required for assessing the severity of a breach, indicates that the decision was made
without proper consideration of the full context. The School Governing Body (SGB) chairman’s
review pointed out that the policy provided for early dismissal only in cases of serious breaches, but
it also implied that such decisions should be made within the bounds of due process and with careful
consideration of all factors. By acting unilaterally, Mr. Dlamini bypassed the expected procedural
fairness, making the decision feel arbitrary and insufficiently reasoned.
Finally, while Mr. Dlamini’s concern for safety and the school’s reputation is understandable, the
immediate dismissal of the students without taking into account the time of day, the remote location,
and the lack of a full hearing shows a clear deviation from the standard of care that in loco parentis
demands. A more measured approach, allowing for a thorough evaluation of the situation and
considering the safety of the students during their return journey, would have been more aligned with
the duties of a responsible guardian.
1.3. Differentiate between the school's general duty of supervision and its specific duty of care
under loco parentis in the context of the learners' safety during the excursion. Was Mr Dlamini's
action fundamentally flawed in its application of this duty?
In the context of learner safety during the school excursion, there is a clear distinction between the
school's general duty of supervision and its specific duty of care under the in loco parentis principle.
Mr. Dlamini’s decision to send Thabo and Lerato home immediately requires careful evaluation
against both these duties.
The general duty of supervision is broad and refers to the school's overall responsibility to ensure the
safety of its students during any school activity, including excursions. This duty requires the school
to make necessary provisions to safeguard learners' well-being and to manage the environment to
prevent harm. It involves constant monitoring of students and actively ensuring that the school
environment remains safe and conducive to learning.
The specific duty of care under in loco parentis, on the other hand, is more intense and personal. It
derives from the delegation of parental authority to educators, requiring them to act as a reasonable
parent would in safeguarding the child's well-being. This duty involves considering the individual
child’s best interests, ensuring their immediate safety, and addressing foreseeable risks or dangers.
Educators must take proactive steps to protect learners from harm, not only within the classroom but
also during off-campus activities like excursions.
