CMG3701
Assignment 4
Due 21 August 2025
,CMG3701
Assignment 4
Due 21 August 2025
Question 1
1.1 Concept of In Loco Parentis and Specific Duties of Care
The principle of in loco parentis (Latin for "in the place of a parent") imposes a legal and
moral obligation on schools and their staff to act with the same care, concern, and
responsibility expected of a reasonable parent. This duty is particularly important during
school excursions where learners are away from their usual environments and parental
care (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2015).
At Progressive Pathways Academy, the application of in loco parentis during the school
trip to the Kruger National Park required that staff ensure the safety, supervision, and
emotional well-being of learners like Thabo and Lerato. The specific duties included:
Physical safety: Ensuring safe transportation, secure accommodation, and protection
from environmental hazards, particularly considering the dangers associated with a
wildlife park.
Supervision: Monitoring learners to prevent unsafe or inappropriate behavior, including
any unauthorized activities.
Emotional care: Responding appropriately to learners’ emotional needs or claims, such
as Lerato’s experience of peer pressure, in a way that is empathetic and measured.
Disciplinary oversight: Administering discipline in a fair and proportionate manner,
consistent with the obligations of a reasonable parent.
These duties align with the broader expectation that schools act with the diligence and
care that would be expected from any prudent guardian (Squelch, 2000).
, 1.2 Analysis of Mr Dlamini’s Decision in Light of In Loco Parentis
Mr Dlamini’s decision to send Thabo and Lerato home immediately at night was
inconsistent with the principle of in loco parentis. A reasonable parent would prioritise
the learners’ safety and emotional stability over the urgency of punishment. The risks
associated with nighttime travel, the psychological impact of abrupt removal, and the
lack of a graduated response all reflect a failure to act in the best interests of the
learners (Joubert & Prinsloo, 2013).
While the school retains the authority to discipline learners under this principle, that
authority must be exercised with caution and balance. The disciplinary response must
be proportional and should not compromise the learners’ welfare. In this case, Mr
Dlamini’s choice prioritized punishment over protection, which contravenes the very
essence of the in loco parentis responsibility.
1.3 General Duty of Supervision vs Specific Duty under In Loco Parentis
The general duty of supervision obliges schools to provide reasonable oversight to
ensure a safe learning environment. This includes broad responsibilities such as
monitoring learners during school hours, especially on trips, to prevent harm (South
African Schools Act, 1996).
By contrast, the duty under in loco parentis is more specific and personal. It requires
school authorities to act with the same attentiveness and empathy expected from a
reasonable parent. This means accounting not only for the group’s safety but also for
individual learner circumstances, such as Lerato’s claim of being pressured.
Mr Dlamini’s decision neglected both forms of responsibility. The general supervisory
duty was breached by placing learners in danger during their unsupervised return. The
specific duty under in loco parentis was also violated, as he failed to consider less
harmful alternatives or engage with the learners' unique needs and emotional states.
Assignment 4
Due 21 August 2025
,CMG3701
Assignment 4
Due 21 August 2025
Question 1
1.1 Concept of In Loco Parentis and Specific Duties of Care
The principle of in loco parentis (Latin for "in the place of a parent") imposes a legal and
moral obligation on schools and their staff to act with the same care, concern, and
responsibility expected of a reasonable parent. This duty is particularly important during
school excursions where learners are away from their usual environments and parental
care (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2015).
At Progressive Pathways Academy, the application of in loco parentis during the school
trip to the Kruger National Park required that staff ensure the safety, supervision, and
emotional well-being of learners like Thabo and Lerato. The specific duties included:
Physical safety: Ensuring safe transportation, secure accommodation, and protection
from environmental hazards, particularly considering the dangers associated with a
wildlife park.
Supervision: Monitoring learners to prevent unsafe or inappropriate behavior, including
any unauthorized activities.
Emotional care: Responding appropriately to learners’ emotional needs or claims, such
as Lerato’s experience of peer pressure, in a way that is empathetic and measured.
Disciplinary oversight: Administering discipline in a fair and proportionate manner,
consistent with the obligations of a reasonable parent.
These duties align with the broader expectation that schools act with the diligence and
care that would be expected from any prudent guardian (Squelch, 2000).
, 1.2 Analysis of Mr Dlamini’s Decision in Light of In Loco Parentis
Mr Dlamini’s decision to send Thabo and Lerato home immediately at night was
inconsistent with the principle of in loco parentis. A reasonable parent would prioritise
the learners’ safety and emotional stability over the urgency of punishment. The risks
associated with nighttime travel, the psychological impact of abrupt removal, and the
lack of a graduated response all reflect a failure to act in the best interests of the
learners (Joubert & Prinsloo, 2013).
While the school retains the authority to discipline learners under this principle, that
authority must be exercised with caution and balance. The disciplinary response must
be proportional and should not compromise the learners’ welfare. In this case, Mr
Dlamini’s choice prioritized punishment over protection, which contravenes the very
essence of the in loco parentis responsibility.
1.3 General Duty of Supervision vs Specific Duty under In Loco Parentis
The general duty of supervision obliges schools to provide reasonable oversight to
ensure a safe learning environment. This includes broad responsibilities such as
monitoring learners during school hours, especially on trips, to prevent harm (South
African Schools Act, 1996).
By contrast, the duty under in loco parentis is more specific and personal. It requires
school authorities to act with the same attentiveness and empathy expected from a
reasonable parent. This means accounting not only for the group’s safety but also for
individual learner circumstances, such as Lerato’s claim of being pressured.
Mr Dlamini’s decision neglected both forms of responsibility. The general supervisory
duty was breached by placing learners in danger during their unsupervised return. The
specific duty under in loco parentis was also violated, as he failed to consider less
harmful alternatives or engage with the learners' unique needs and emotional states.
