Today I conclude my discussion on the board and the principal of public schools by examining briefly two other areas of authority entrusted to the principal.
First I look at the authority of the principal with respect to the school buildings:
Regulation 17(a), Education Regulations, provides as follows:
“Subject to the policy of the minister and the general directions of the board, every principal has control of the building, premises, apparatus, equipment and furniture of the school.”
The effect of this provision is that among other things, the principal can control access to the premises subject to the provisions of the act and the regulations.
For example, the principal could make rules governing access to the premises by parents or others.
This could relate to where pupils can be dropped off for school.
The power can also be used to prevent parents or others who may have exhibited hostile behaviour from coming onto the premises.
The other major responsibility entrusted to the principal is related to discipline. Regulation 17(c) provides that subject to the policy of the minister and the general directions of the board, the principal is responsible for discipline of the school.
It should be noted, however, that under the regulations, the board is mandated to deal with charges of serious breaches of discipline brought against a pupil of the school.
No definition is provided in the regulations of the term “serious breach of discipline”.
However, one would assume that conduct that warrants suspension or expulsion would fall into that category.
It can also include other serious breaches of discipline which in the principal’s judgment or discretion have been deemed not to require suspension. All such cases should be reported to the board.
A principal can also make reasonable rules relating to conduct and deportment. The principal can also prescribe rules and guidelines for punishment of pupils provided they do not contravene the act or regulations.
The regulations specifically mandate the principal to:
• “ensure that discipline is maintained throughout the school at all times”.
• “administer corporal punishment where necessary and delegate to the deputy principal and senior teachers, where applicable, the authority to administer punishment”.
In the English case SPIERS vs WARRINGTON CORPORATION 1954, the Court of Queen’s Bench took the view that the power to regulate dress was derived of the head teacher for discipline.
In that case the articles of Government provided that the head teacher: “shall control the internal organization management and discipline of the school.”
The facts of the case were as follows:
Eva Spiers was a student of a secondary school in Warrington.
She had suffered several attacks of rheumatic fever. Her mother responded by sending her to school in slacks in order to keep her warm.
The headmistress was not prepared to admit Eva to school unless she produced a medical certificate or be examined by the school medical officer.
Eva’s parents would agree to neither and persisted in sending Eva to school wearing slacks. On each occasion that Eva appeared at school dressed in trousers, the headmistress refused to admit her. The matter was taken to court.
In handing down the decision of the head teacher, Lord Goddard said: “The headmistress obviously has the right and the power to prescribe the discipline for the school, and in saying that a girl must come to school not wearing a particular costume unless there is a compelling reason of health, surely she is acting in a matter of discipline, and a matter which must be within the competence of the headmaster or headmistress of any school, whether it is one of the great public schools or a country secondary or primary school”.
In recent years, questions have arisen in some Barbadian schools concerning the wearing of hats, shorts and slacks and the right of the school to regulate the wearing of these items.
It would seem to follow from the Spiers case, that all these matters are within the power of the school to regulate, and provided that the rules are made reasonable and brought to the due attention of the students, then they are lawful and must be obeyed.
It is also suggested that rules banning excessive jewellery and extravagant hairstyles and other forms of adornment are perfectly lawful and within the scope of the principal’s responsibility for the discipline of the school.