Defining 'reasonable' in the school setting : the legal standards for school principals, administrators, and educators in South Africa and the United States

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Date: 01 January 2014
• Published date: 01 January 2014
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC162994
• Pages: 118-133
• Published By: UNISA Press
• Author: Phillip T.K. Daniel,Scott Greytak

JD, EdD, William and Marie Flesher Professor of Educational Administration and Adjunct Professor

*

of Law at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.

JD, attorney with Campinha Bacote LLC in Washington, DC, United States.

**

The term ‘principal’ is used in South Africa, whereas principals are considered one type of school

1

‘administrator’ in the United States.

Davis et alSchool leadership study: Developing successfu l principals (2005) 3.

2

The terms ‘learners’ and ‘educators’ are preferred in South African law and policy, while ‘students’

3

and ‘teachers’ are used in America. In this article these terms will be used interchangeably.

Defining ‘reasonable’ in the school

setting: The legal standards for school

principals, administrators, and educators

in South Africa and the United States

Phillip T.K. Daniel and Scott Greytak

***

1 Introduction

The expectations and barriers that public school managers face in today’s

1

educational atmosphere are extensive. They include a multitude of problems

requiring a range of different responses. In a study published in the United States

by the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, researchers asserted that

modern school principals are expected to be both well-versed in legal,

contractual, and policy matters and to act as ‘educational visionaries …

assessment experts, budget analysts, facility managers, [and] special program

administrators’. At the same time, principals are charged with tending to the

2

needs of often-conflicting parties, including students, parents, school district

leaders, teachers, teachers’ unions, and a variety of state and national

governmental agencies.

3

Unfortunately, in analysing whether a principal is fulfilling his or her legal

duties, the standard used by courts in South Africa and the United States only

invites further inquiry: school principals and administrators are required to act

‘reasonably’. Usually, this vague yet definable standard of ‘reasonableness’

reflects how a society – through its laws – believes that an objective person in

society should act. Furthermore, in the case of school principals or administrators,

Defining ‘reasonable’ in the school setting119

See Daniel and Greytak ‘An analysis of the “right” to education in South Africa and the

4

United States’ (2012) 27(2) SA Public Law 355-364.

reviewing courts in both South African and the United States have implicitly

customised this objective standard as a reasonable schoolprincipal (or

administrator), thus incorporating a specialised and tailored standard that reflects

the unique context of the school environment.

The purpose of this article is to explore how these two nations define and

describe a reasonable principal when addressing conflicts between a school and

its students. In exploring this standard, the meaning of such ‘reasonableness’ is

drawn from many sources, including the constitutions, legislation, judicial

opinions, and laws of tort and delictual liability of the United States and South

Africa. Ultimately, the legal duties of the ‘reasonable school principal’ are found

to be multidimensional, complex, and roundly demonstrative of the ever-evolving

nature of two distinct social landscapes.

2The reasonable administrator in the United States

Unlike the South African Constitution, the United States Constitution (hereinafter

US Constitution) makes no provision for a system of public education, nor does

it explicitly guarantee the citizenry any right to public education. The United

4

States Supreme Court has accordingly been unwilling to read into existing

constitutional rights an implicit guarantee of public education. Thus, the right to

a public education must be found within the constitutional and statutory provisions

of the individual states, and all 50 states do in fact guarantee some form of

education to their residents. However, the amount and type of education, the

specific beneficiaries, and the degree of financial support offered to schools differ

significantly among both the states and the individual districts within the states.

This is not to say that the federal government has no role in enacting

education-related legislation or influencing state education systems. Rather, the

federal government has promulgated several pieces of legislation with a direct

bearing on state educational policy, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 (addressing race, gender and national origin discrimination), Title IX of the

Education Amendments of 1972 (addressing gender discrimination in education),

and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (addressing handicapped

students in pre-K through twelfth grade). Once a state undertakes to provide

education, rules governing access remain subject to constitutionally protected

rights and must be reasonable. Accordingly, courts have found state statutes and

regulations unconstitutional because they limit access to public education based

on race, sex, religion, marriage, wealth, pregnancy, or physical or mental

disability.