Duty of Care for Students Western Australia - Report Example

Running head: DUTY OF CARE FOR – WA Duty of Care for – Western Australia The following paper is a document analysis pertaining to the Western Australia Duty of Care for Students policy document from the Department of Education. The paper is focused on how the policy might impact parents, teachers, students and others in a primary school context including a description of particular application to three specific school scenarios. Duty of Care for Students – Western Australia The aim of this report is to perform a document analysis on the Department of Educations Duty of Care for Students1 that came into effect in June 2007. The analysis will include three different scenarios: (1) Children arriving early to school; (2) a teacher coaching students from the school after hours and at a near by oval area and (3) a student teacher being asked to watch a class of students while the teacher uses the phone about 50 meters away. In each case the assumption will be made that the children are of primary school age. The Policy The Duty of Care for Students (2007) was written to establish the boundaries of care that teachers and other individuals have to the students who attend a school. The document sets out what measures might reasonably be expected for school personnel to “protect students from risks of harm that reasonably ought to be foreseen” (p.3). The policy also covers when teaching staff can discharge their duty of care responsibilities; how the duty of care can be balanced to ensure that students can learn from their experiences without coming to any harm thereby encouraging their independence. A second aspect of the policy deals with non teaching staff that includes non-teaching staff members of the school, volunteers and external providers. In certain situations they will have a duty of care to the students they interact with, but that duty of care must be asked for and approval gained from the individual before such a duty of care is considered valid. The concept of Duty of Care is actually a legal term that is used frequently to determine safe school practices and policies. In Teachers and the Law, Part 1 (n.d.) the authors explain that this duty of care springs from the fact that there is a legal requirement in Western Australia that all parents should send their children to school between certain ages. Because it is compulsory to send children to school and because it is the government who is making that mandate, then the school should have a similar duty of care to their students, to that which is held by the parents. Issues that the policy covers The Duty of Care for Students (2007) document makes very clear distinctions between the action required by teachers and others and the concept that any harm might come to the child. Teachers are not expected to never let harm befall a child because accidents happen. What they are expected to do though is to take as many steps as necessary to ensure that “reasonable care” has been taken to reduce the risk of any harm suffered on the part of the child. Given that if a child has been hurt and it is determined that this harm was caused through negligence by the school or a teacher, then the parents of the children can sue for compensation; the legal ramifications of this distinction is evident. The policy covers guidelines for what is deemed “reasonable care”. According to the policy reasonable care “will vary according to the circumstances” (Dept. of Ed., 2007, p.3) and that the term “reasonable” will depend on the situation, the age, experience and capabilities of the child concerned, and then whether or not the child has a disability, medical condition, behaviour characteristics that might cause a child to behave in a manner that can cause harm to self or others, and the type of school activity being considered and the environment that the activity is taking place in (p 3-4). The next section deals with working out the risk that might be involved in any school activity. Considerations there include the probability that a risk can occur, how big that risk will be; and the problems associated with alleviating the risk (costs, difficulty and inconvenience). These details are needed so that a determination can be made as to whether the risk of the proposed activity outweighs or is too large for the benefits such an activity could bring to the students. In 3.3 of the document teachers are given guidelines on when a duty is owed, to who the duty is owed and when is it possible to discharge that duty. For example the policy notes that “the teacher-student relationship is not necessarily confined to students enrolled at the school at which the member of the teaching staff is employed”. This would cover situations like supervising students from a number of schools at a school sporting event for example. There are also examples of what the duty of care should cover, such as supervision, safe grounds, bullying prevention and getting medical assistance for a student who is hurt or sick. Section 3.4 covers the extent of people who are bound by the policy – this not only includes teachers and non-teaching staff members at the school but external providers and volunteers as well. Ground staff and contractors are also covered by this policy – for example “a farm supervisor who sprays pesticides on the school’s fruit trees should take reasonable care to ensure that the pesticide will not be harmful to the health of the students” (Dept. of Ed., 2007, p.7). Why the policy is important The policy is important to the teachers and school administrators because it gives some clarification as to what the common law “duty of care” means in a school setting and clear boundaries about when a teacher has that duty and when he or she can discharge it. Because negligence is likely to be one of the few areas that a teacher could be sued, then it is an important area that needed the clarification (Newnham, 2000). The policy also sets out action plans for what should occur in various common scenarios that occur between the parents, students and the school environment. For example “where an activity is not school activity it is good practice to advise parents/guardians of that fact, and that the school assumes no responsibility for the supervision of the students or for any aspects of the activity (Dept. of Ed., 2007, p.10). There are a number of social changes that have made this type of legislation important. For example in many households both parents work and are often not home when their children finish school. The school needs to set clear boundaries about where the child’s safety is the responsibility of the school and when it becomes the parents again. Another example is that many schools have a problem with bullying and it is important to determine where the responsibility of the school fits in with the victim children’s interaction with those bullies. Three Common Scenarios Covered by the Policy Children arriving to school early The policy makes a very clear case that although schools should not be responsible for the students from the moment they leave their home, they are responsible in most cases for students on the school grounds before the classes start. In situations when there are school buses dropping children off at a particular time in the morning then the school has a responsibility to those children from the moment they arrive at school. If teachers are aware that the students are arriving before any teacher is on the school grounds then they have a responsibility to those children as well. The policy states, “Refusing to open school gates or forcing students to remain on the street verge will not remove a school’s responsibility” (Dept. of Ed., 2007, p.11). The policy goes on to explain the action plan a school should follow including (1) that the school could instigate a roster system among the teachers so that there is at least one teacher on the grounds when children arrive: (2) Arranging a set time with teachers and other outside school groups when the school will accept responsibility of the children, and (3) parents could be notified via newsletter that the school will not be responsible for children before that time of the day. (4) In cases where the parents might still have their children go to school before the teachers arrive they should be contacted individually and asked to come to the school and discuss the matter. A teacher coaching a sports team outside of school hours and outside school grounds. This situation is one where the policy is really helpful. In this case a teacher is using some of his students from school in a community football team. They play at an oval by the school (not on school grounds) and the team wears the school colours and refer to the team by the schools name when they talk about it. On page 13 the policy explains that if the activity is not an authorised school activity then the staff member will be acting as a private person rather than a school teacher (Dept of Ed., 2007, p.13). This is reinforced by the fact that the games are not played on school grounds. But in terms of liability it could be that because the team is coached by a teacher, the students wear school colours when they play and they refer to the team by the school name, that parents of the students could assume that this is something that is sanctioned by the school and should be covered by them as far as duty of care is involved. To prevent this (because it is a reasonable assumption) the principal should get in touch with the parents and guardians and let them know that the school doesn’t accept any responsibility for care when the children are playing on the team. A student teacher supervising the classroom while the teacher makes a phone call 50 m away This situation is covered by the policy that states that a teacher can ask a person who is in the classroom to take over in some situations. The person must be experienced, able to do the job required and understand the importance of the supervision duties and agree to abide by them. In this situation the teacher should (1) ask the student teacher if she feels that she can handle the class for a short period of time (2) point out those students that need special handling (3) indicate what duties need to be completed while the teacher is gone and (4) secure an agreement from the student teacher that she is confident in supervising the class while the main teacher is busy making her call. This action plan is based on the assumption that the student teacher has had her Working with Children Check. The aspect about the disruptive children might be a factor, but this person is training to be a teacher herself, so the experience should be a learning experience for her and with the class teacher only 50 meters away this should not be a problem. Conclusion The Duty of Care for Students (2007) was created so that there were clear boundaries between the duty of care owed to students in a school environment, and the duty that parents have to care for their children outside of those hours. Basically the policy document defines the concept of “duty of care” as ensuring that students will not be hurt or fall ill as a result of a situation within the school environment, within reason. The policy applies to teachers, non-teaching school staff members and external providers in a school environment. Teachers are informed when they can discharge their duty of care and the policy provided action plans for coping with situations such as children arriving at school early in the morning and sport training situations. References Department of Education. (2007). Duty of Care for Students. WA: The Government of Western Australia. Newnham, H. (2000). When is a teacher or school liable in negligence. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 25(1). Teachers and the Law. Teachers and the Duty of Care (1). (n.d.) SSTUWA http://donpugh.dyndns.org/Psych%20Interests/PD/Rockingham%20teacher%20conference/Teachers%20and%20the%20Duty%20of%20Care.pdf Read More