CMG3701
Assignment 4
Due 21 August 2025
,CMG3701
Assignment 4
Due 21 August 2025
Question 1
1.1 Concept of 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 as reasonable parents would in
safeguarding the welfare of learners under their care (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2015). At
Progressive Pathways Academy, during the school trip to Kruger National Park, this
principle required staff to ensure the physical safety, emotional well-being, and
appropriate supervision of Thabo and Lerato.
Specific duties included:
Physical safety: Staff were responsible for arranging safe transportation, securing
accommodation, and ensuring protection from environmental hazards such as wildlife.
Supervision: There was a duty to provide adequate oversight to prevent risky
behaviour, including monitoring for any unauthorised learner activity.
Emotional care: When concerns such as Lerato’s claim of peer pressure arose, staff
were required to respond with empathy and fairness.
Disciplinary oversight: Misconduct needed to be addressed in a manner that reflected
the fairness and proportionality expected from a responsible parent.
These duties align with the expectation that the school should act with the diligence and
care of a prudent parent (Squelch, 2000).
, 1.2 Analysis of Mr Dlamini’s Decision in Light of Loco Parentis
Mr Dlamini’s decision to send Thabo and Lerato home immediately at night deviates
from the standard of care required under in loco parentis. A reasonable parent would
prioritise the learners' safety above disciplinary action, particularly in light of the dangers
associated with night travel and the psychological impact of being suddenly removed
from the group.
This decision failed the proportionality test. It disregarded the context of the learners’
behaviour and the available alternatives. The decision-making process lacked the
caution, consideration, and flexibility that a prudent parent would have exercised in
similar circumstances (Joubert & Prinsloo, 2013). While the authority to discipline
learners is consistent with the in loco parentis role, Mr Dlamini’s choice to prioritise
immediate punishment over ensuring learner safety contradicts the core purpose of the
principle.
1.3 General Duty of Supervision vs Specific Duty under Loco Parentis
The general duty of supervision refers to a school’s responsibility to ensure a safe
environment through reasonable monitoring of learner activity, especially during school-
related events (South African Schools Act, 1996). The specific duty under in loco
parentis extends beyond this general oversight and includes a moral and legal
responsibility to care for learners as a prudent parent would, taking into account the
learners' individual emotional needs and the particular circumstances.
During the excursion, the general duty would have required ensuring the group’s overall
safety. The specific duty under in loco parentis required a context-sensitive response to
Lerato’s peer pressure claim and Thabo’s conduct. Mr Dlamini’s decision neglected
both duties. Sending the learners away at night without safe arrangements failed the
duty of general supervision, while ignoring mitigating factors and not considering less
harmful alternatives breached the specific parental duty to act with individualised care
(Squelch, 2000).
Assignment 4
Due 21 August 2025
,CMG3701
Assignment 4
Due 21 August 2025
Question 1
1.1 Concept of 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 as reasonable parents would in
safeguarding the welfare of learners under their care (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2015). At
Progressive Pathways Academy, during the school trip to Kruger National Park, this
principle required staff to ensure the physical safety, emotional well-being, and
appropriate supervision of Thabo and Lerato.
Specific duties included:
Physical safety: Staff were responsible for arranging safe transportation, securing
accommodation, and ensuring protection from environmental hazards such as wildlife.
Supervision: There was a duty to provide adequate oversight to prevent risky
behaviour, including monitoring for any unauthorised learner activity.
Emotional care: When concerns such as Lerato’s claim of peer pressure arose, staff
were required to respond with empathy and fairness.
Disciplinary oversight: Misconduct needed to be addressed in a manner that reflected
the fairness and proportionality expected from a responsible parent.
These duties align with the expectation that the school should act with the diligence and
care of a prudent parent (Squelch, 2000).
, 1.2 Analysis of Mr Dlamini’s Decision in Light of Loco Parentis
Mr Dlamini’s decision to send Thabo and Lerato home immediately at night deviates
from the standard of care required under in loco parentis. A reasonable parent would
prioritise the learners' safety above disciplinary action, particularly in light of the dangers
associated with night travel and the psychological impact of being suddenly removed
from the group.
This decision failed the proportionality test. It disregarded the context of the learners’
behaviour and the available alternatives. The decision-making process lacked the
caution, consideration, and flexibility that a prudent parent would have exercised in
similar circumstances (Joubert & Prinsloo, 2013). While the authority to discipline
learners is consistent with the in loco parentis role, Mr Dlamini’s choice to prioritise
immediate punishment over ensuring learner safety contradicts the core purpose of the
principle.
1.3 General Duty of Supervision vs Specific Duty under Loco Parentis
The general duty of supervision refers to a school’s responsibility to ensure a safe
environment through reasonable monitoring of learner activity, especially during school-
related events (South African Schools Act, 1996). The specific duty under in loco
parentis extends beyond this general oversight and includes a moral and legal
responsibility to care for learners as a prudent parent would, taking into account the
learners' individual emotional needs and the particular circumstances.
During the excursion, the general duty would have required ensuring the group’s overall
safety. The specific duty under in loco parentis required a context-sensitive response to
Lerato’s peer pressure claim and Thabo’s conduct. Mr Dlamini’s decision neglected
both duties. Sending the learners away at night without safe arrangements failed the
duty of general supervision, while ignoring mitigating factors and not considering less
harmful alternatives breached the specific parental duty to act with individualised care
(Squelch, 2000).
