CMG3701
Assignment 4 2025
(Answer Guide) -
Due 21 August
2025
QUESTIONS WITH 100%
VERIFIED AND
CERTIFIED ANSWERS.
,1|Page
CMG3701 Assignment 4 2025 (Answer Guide) - Due 21 August 2025
VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED ANSWERS. WRITTEN IN REQUIRED FORMAT AND WITHIN
GIVEN GUIDELINES. IT IS GOOD TO USE AS A GUIDE AND FOR REFERENCE, NEVER
PLAGARIZE. Thank you and success in your academics.
Contents
Question 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Concept of loco parentis and Specific Duties of Care ........................................................ 2
1.2 Analysis of Mr Dlamini’s Decision in Light of Loco Parentis ............................................ 2
1.3 General Duty of Supervision vs Specific Duty under Loco Parentis ............................... 2
1.4 Audi Alteram Partem Rule and Its Significance .................................................................... 3
1.5 Violation of the Audi Alteram Partem Rule by Mr Dlamini ................................................. 3
1.6 Balancing Safety and Procedural Fairness ............................................................................ 4
Question 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Definition of “Conflict of Learners” in a Disciplinary Context .......................................... 4
2.2 Handling Lerato’s Confession of Peer Pressure: A Practical Approach ........................ 5
2.3 Culpability Considerations and Disciplinary Outcomes ..................................................... 5
2.4 Ultra Vires vs Intra Vires in Context of School Leadership ............................................... 6
2.5 Was Mr Dlamini’s Action Ultra Vires or Intra Vires? ............................................................ 6
2.6 Clauses Likely Bypassed and Proper Intra Vires Actions .................................................. 7
Question 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Core Rights of Learners Referenced by Mr and Mrs Ncube .............................................. 8
3.2 Application of Procedural Fairness under BELA Principles.............................................. 8
3.3 Legal Complexities of Demanding Payment for the Broken Window ............................. 9
3.4 Evaluation of the “Zero-Tolerance” Approach .................................................................... 10
Question 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Definition of “Violence in Schools” and Application to Sipho’s Case .......................... 10
4.2 Underlying Factors and Immediate Alternative Intervention ........................................... 11
4.3 Limitations of Punitive Measures and Broader Strategies............................................... 11
4.4 Long-Term Impact of Mr Mkhize’s Approach vs Supportive Discipline ....................... 12
4.5 Purpose of the Department of Basic Education’s Progression Policy ......................... 13
4.6 Justifying Retention under the Progression Policy ........................................................... 13
4.7 Tension Between Academic Standards and the Progression Policy ............................ 13
References ............................................................................................................................................... 14
, 2|Page
Question 1
1.1 Concept of loco parentis and Specific Duties of Care
The concept of loco parentis refers to a legal and moral obligation where a school and
its staff assume the role of a parent while learners are under their supervision (Bray,
2005). This principle imposes a duty of care on educators to act as reasonably careful
parents would under similar circumstances. During the school trip, Progressive
Pathways Academy and its staff, including Mr Dlamini, were expected to ensure the
physical safety, emotional well-being, and general supervision of Thabo and Lerato.
Specific duties included:
Monitoring their whereabouts at all times
Protecting them from foreseeable harm, including travel risks
Addressing misconduct with appropriate disciplinary measures that still prioritise
learner safety and procedural fairness (Joubert & Prinsloo, 2009)
1.2 Analysis of Mr Dlamini’s Decision in Light of Loco Parentis
Mr Dlamini’s decision to send Thabo and Lerato home alone at night from Kruger
National Park raises serious concerns under the loco parentis standard. A reasonable
parent would not expose children to potential harm by making them travel unsupervised,
especially at night and in a remote area. While disciplinary action may have been
warranted, ensuring their safe supervision until parents could intervene or other
arrangements were made would have reflected appropriate care (Beckmann & Prinsloo,
2004). Thus, Mr Dlamini deviated from the expected standard of a responsible guardian
by prioritising punishment over safety.
1.3 General Duty of Supervision vs Specific Duty under Loco Parentis
The general duty of supervision refers to the school’s obligation to oversee learners'
conduct and well-being during school-related activities. The specific duty of care under
loco parentis, however, is heightened during excursions and requires educators to act in
ways a prudent parent would especially in unusual or emergency situations (Joubert,
Assignment 4 2025
(Answer Guide) -
Due 21 August
2025
QUESTIONS WITH 100%
VERIFIED AND
CERTIFIED ANSWERS.
,1|Page
CMG3701 Assignment 4 2025 (Answer Guide) - Due 21 August 2025
VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED ANSWERS. WRITTEN IN REQUIRED FORMAT AND WITHIN
GIVEN GUIDELINES. IT IS GOOD TO USE AS A GUIDE AND FOR REFERENCE, NEVER
PLAGARIZE. Thank you and success in your academics.
Contents
Question 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Concept of loco parentis and Specific Duties of Care ........................................................ 2
1.2 Analysis of Mr Dlamini’s Decision in Light of Loco Parentis ............................................ 2
1.3 General Duty of Supervision vs Specific Duty under Loco Parentis ............................... 2
1.4 Audi Alteram Partem Rule and Its Significance .................................................................... 3
1.5 Violation of the Audi Alteram Partem Rule by Mr Dlamini ................................................. 3
1.6 Balancing Safety and Procedural Fairness ............................................................................ 4
Question 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Definition of “Conflict of Learners” in a Disciplinary Context .......................................... 4
2.2 Handling Lerato’s Confession of Peer Pressure: A Practical Approach ........................ 5
2.3 Culpability Considerations and Disciplinary Outcomes ..................................................... 5
2.4 Ultra Vires vs Intra Vires in Context of School Leadership ............................................... 6
2.5 Was Mr Dlamini’s Action Ultra Vires or Intra Vires? ............................................................ 6
2.6 Clauses Likely Bypassed and Proper Intra Vires Actions .................................................. 7
Question 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Core Rights of Learners Referenced by Mr and Mrs Ncube .............................................. 8
3.2 Application of Procedural Fairness under BELA Principles.............................................. 8
3.3 Legal Complexities of Demanding Payment for the Broken Window ............................. 9
3.4 Evaluation of the “Zero-Tolerance” Approach .................................................................... 10
Question 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Definition of “Violence in Schools” and Application to Sipho’s Case .......................... 10
4.2 Underlying Factors and Immediate Alternative Intervention ........................................... 11
4.3 Limitations of Punitive Measures and Broader Strategies............................................... 11
4.4 Long-Term Impact of Mr Mkhize’s Approach vs Supportive Discipline ....................... 12
4.5 Purpose of the Department of Basic Education’s Progression Policy ......................... 13
4.6 Justifying Retention under the Progression Policy ........................................................... 13
4.7 Tension Between Academic Standards and the Progression Policy ............................ 13
References ............................................................................................................................................... 14
, 2|Page
Question 1
1.1 Concept of loco parentis and Specific Duties of Care
The concept of loco parentis refers to a legal and moral obligation where a school and
its staff assume the role of a parent while learners are under their supervision (Bray,
2005). This principle imposes a duty of care on educators to act as reasonably careful
parents would under similar circumstances. During the school trip, Progressive
Pathways Academy and its staff, including Mr Dlamini, were expected to ensure the
physical safety, emotional well-being, and general supervision of Thabo and Lerato.
Specific duties included:
Monitoring their whereabouts at all times
Protecting them from foreseeable harm, including travel risks
Addressing misconduct with appropriate disciplinary measures that still prioritise
learner safety and procedural fairness (Joubert & Prinsloo, 2009)
1.2 Analysis of Mr Dlamini’s Decision in Light of Loco Parentis
Mr Dlamini’s decision to send Thabo and Lerato home alone at night from Kruger
National Park raises serious concerns under the loco parentis standard. A reasonable
parent would not expose children to potential harm by making them travel unsupervised,
especially at night and in a remote area. While disciplinary action may have been
warranted, ensuring their safe supervision until parents could intervene or other
arrangements were made would have reflected appropriate care (Beckmann & Prinsloo,
2004). Thus, Mr Dlamini deviated from the expected standard of a responsible guardian
by prioritising punishment over safety.
1.3 General Duty of Supervision vs Specific Duty under Loco Parentis
The general duty of supervision refers to the school’s obligation to oversee learners'
conduct and well-being during school-related activities. The specific duty of care under
loco parentis, however, is heightened during excursions and requires educators to act in
ways a prudent parent would especially in unusual or emergency situations (Joubert,
