ABSTRACT
Methods for gaining control are subject to legal constraint in some respects because the law not only provides teachers with a mandate for control by placing them in loco parentis but also obliges teachers to operate within the general laws concerning assault, theft, discrimination and moral standards. As B. Bennett and Martin (1980) point out, despite being delegated the rights of a parent over the pupils, teachers still have to work within certain other parameters set by the law when trying to establish and maintain control. This is the case particularly in their use of
Corporal punishment, where the teacher must avoid allegations of assault, actual bodily harm and indecency, and also observe LEA regulations governing the administration of corporal punishment. Following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on 25 February 1982 in the case of Campbell and Cosand, parental consent will also become a factor in law which limits the use of corporal punishment on pupils.
Confiscation of pupil property, where the Theft Act 1968 makes no explicit exception for teachers and thus requires that confiscated articles must never be kept, used or destroyed by the teacher. Even offensive or dangerous articles must be returned via the pupil’s parents or, if serious enough, handed over to the police.
Detention of pupils, where, though having the legal right to detain pupils, teachers need to observe LEA regulations which usually specify the maximum period for which a pupil can be detained and the period of notice that needs to be given.
Social and physical contact, where legislation again makes no exception for the particular circumstances of teachers and requires, therefore, that teachers avoid any social or physical contact, however intended, which might be construed as improper. Their dealings with pupils have to be beyond moral/legal reproach or suspicion of indecency because gross moral turpitude is a ground for dismissal in its own right quite apart from any prosecution which could be involved.
Discriminatory practices, where the exercise of classroom control must avoid discrimination in terms of a pupil’s sex or race in a way that would contravene the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Race Relations Act 1976.
