Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1906. THE DUTIES OF A SCHOOLMASTER. A LEGAL OPINION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3614, 20 February 1906, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1906. THE DUTIES OF A SCHOOLMASTER. A LEGAL OPINION.

The following is of interest to school-teachers and parents ;—“ I am asked to advise whether section 139 of ‘ The Education Act, 1904,’ which is identical with section 87 of the Original Education Act of 1877, confers on the teacher of a school the power to expel or forbid the attendance of a child for gross misconduct committed outside the precincts of the school. This raises the whole question as to the power of a teacher to take cognisance of and punish misconduct which has taken place outside the school precincts, and I am aware that in the case of D wyer v. Stagpoole, heard in November, 1904, Mr Thomson, S.M., decided that the authority of a teacher ceased when the children left the school precincts, and that according!}' he had no authority to inquire into any misconduct which took place after they had left, or to inflict punishment for such misconduct. For the reasons given more fully in the note appended hereto I think, with every respect of Mr Thomson’s decision, that it was quite wrong. Under section 100 of 1 The Education Act, 1877,’ re-enacted by section 164 of ‘ The Education Act, 1904,’ the Governor in Council may make regulations which after being published in the Gazette have the force of law. By order in Council made 14th April, 1904, and published in the Gazette On 20th April, 1904, certain regulations were accordingly made which will be found in the printed handbook issued by the Government. I refer to Regulation No. 15, which makes ‘ Manners and general behaviour of the pupils ’ one of the subjects to be included in the Inspector’s report, and more particularly to Regulation No. 48, which relates to moral instruction and enjoins on teachers the duty of inculcating moral habits both in and out of school, and declares that the moral purpose should dominate the spirit of the whole school life. The regulation in question is too long to quote at length, but reference to it will clearly show that the duties of the teacher are by no means confined to insisting on good conduct only when the children are actually at school. These regulations are very similar to the code of the Education Department • English) made by the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education under similar powers conferred by the English

Education Act, and I am of opinion that these regulalions have in New Zealand the same force as the Education Code in England. The English case of Cleary v. Booth (62 EJ.M.C. 87, and 1893) t Q.B. 465) which decides that the authority of a schoolmaster of a Board School to inflict punishment extends to acts done beyond the limits of the school itself and includes acts done by a pupil on his way to and from school, seems to me clearly in point, and is strengthened by the case of Hansen v. Cole (9 N.Z.L.R.S.C. p 272, 279) which was decided before the case of Cleary v. Booth. In that case Prendergast C. J., when deciding that the master of a public school under the Education Act has authority to correct his pupil by corporal punishment, saysIn Comstock’s edition of Kent two cases are referred to in the notes, in one of which it was held that such correction may be administered even for acts done out of school if prejudicial to its order and discipline. I am therefore decidedly of opinion that it is the duty of a teacher in a Board School in New Zealand to take cognisance of and, if necessary, to punish for acts of misconduct committed out of school, at any rate when committed on the way to or from school, and especially if committed towards a fellow pupil. And I am further of opinion that section 139 confers on a teacher the power to expel or forbid the attendance of any child for similar acts of gross misconduct when the child committing such acts may 1 fairly “be considered an injurious ; or dangerous example to the other ' scholars.’ 1

I would further point out that the object of section 139 is not so much to punish the offender as to prevent the other scholars from contamination physical or moral. I think, therefore, that when a sentence or expulsion or exclusion has been passed, both the teacher, and, if the matter be referred to them, the Committee or Board on appeal should be prepared to allow a reconsideration of the sentence at a later period if he or they are satisfied that the offender has really reformed, and that there is

no longer any reason to apprehend a repetition of misconduct or any bad consequences to other scholars. Same. F, FPtzherbert. ” Wanganui, Jan. 17, In a note following the above, the same gentleman says :—“ln my opinion the authority of the schoolmaster is not limited to the four walls of the school, and I am satisfied, on the facts of this case, that the schoolmaster acted within the scope of his authority. The question whether the punishment was excessive or not is one for the magistrates.”