Education managers’ understanding and implementation of due process during learner discipline by Nicholus Tumelo Mollo 2015 © University of Pretoria Education managers’ understanding and implementation of due process during learner discipline by Nicholus Tumelo Mollo Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree PhD in the Faculty of Education University of Pretoria Supervisor: Prof. HJ Joubert January 2015 i © University of Pretoria DECLARATION I, Nicholus Tumelo Mollo (Student number 04315103) declare that Education managers’ understanding and implementation of due process during learner discipline is my own work and that it has never been submitted in any form for a degree or diploma before in any tertiary institution. All the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. Signature : ________________________ Date : ________________________ ii © University of Pretoria DEDICATION This study is dedicated to my wife Cathrine and my children Tshepiso, Tswelopele and Hlonolofatso, who have played an important role in my studies. Your patience, understanding, encouragement, sacrifice, support and love made the completion of this study possible. iii © University of Pretoria ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, my acknowledgement is extended to God the almighty for His protection, strength and wisdom that He gave me throughout the process of my studies. My sincere gratitude and appreciation is also extended to the following people who contributed towards the completion of my study: my supervisor, Prof Rika Joubert, for her expert and professional guidance, support, motivation and advice throughout the study my language editor, Alexa Barnby, for her professional language editing Gerry Barnby for assisting me with document formatting R Mthupi for motivation and support E Kgwete and G Nkambule for the motivation they provided as fellow team members during our MEd and PhD studies my circuit manager for Ms N Motloung for her understanding and support the Mpumalanga Department of Education and especially the participants of this study for their support and participation all the other people who have contributed in any way to my achievement. iv © University of Pretoria LANGUAGE EDITOR’S DECLARATION Alexa Barnby Language Specialist Editing, copywriting, indexing, formatting, translation Mobile: 071 872 1334 [email protected] Tel: 012 361 6347 [email protected] 32 Camellia Avenue Lynnwood Ridge 0081 Pretoria 28 September 2014 To whom it may concern This letter serves to confirm that I, Alexa Kirsten Barnby, ID No. 5106090097080, a fulltime language practitioner with the University of South Africa and a member of the South African Translators' Institute, have edited Nicholus Tumelo Mollo’s doctoral thesis entitled, “Education managers' understanding and implementation of due process during learner discipline". The onus is, however, on the student to bring about the changes suggested and address the comments made. AK Barnby v © University of Pretoria ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to investigate how education managers conceptualise due process and how their understanding of due process influences the way in which they discipline learners. It adopted a qualitative approach that was based on an interpretative paradigm and followed a case study design. The data collection techniques that were used include semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Research was conducted in eight secondary schools. The findings of this study indicate that the majority of education managers have a good understanding of preliminary disciplinary investigation, a right to information, the disciplinary committee, who should participate in a disciplinary hearing and the appeal process. The minutes of few selected schools provide that schools do consider the school’s code of conduct for learners when disciplining learners. The study found that education managers lack sufficient understanding the implementation of due process and the correct steps to follow when conducting fair disciplinary hearings. Misunderstandings about the learners’ right to information, who should be involved in disciplinary committees, the involvement of witnesses and learner representation were common. Most schools did not include sufficient information in their notices for hearings. Some participants indicated that, for various reasons, they often avoid holding hearings and others avoid following correct procedures of learner discipline. In addition, there is a lack of understanding that the reasons given for a decision by a disciplinary committee must based on the evidence presented during the hearing. Some participants do not know which acts/laws/policies and learner disciplinary documents apply to learner discipline and did not ensure the safekeeping of minutes for their disciplinary hearings. Most schools do not keep detailed minutes of the hearings conducted and the majority did not have disciplinary policies. Moreover, thre is still a lack of understanding about which learner behaviours constitute serious misconduct and whether a disciplinary hearing should be organised for learners who have committed criminal offences in a school. Only about a half of participants consider the age of learners when they discipline them. Some are not sure about number of days that are required for learner and parents to lodge an appeal. vi © University of Pretoria Key words: education managers, understanding, implementation, due process, learner discipline, preliminary investigation, disciplinary hearing notice, disciplinary hearing, decision, appeal vii © University of Pretoria Table of contents DECLARATION ....................................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... iv LANGUAGE EDITOR’S DECLARATION ................................................................................................ v ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ vi Table of contents ................................................................................................................................... viii List of figures ..........................................................................................................................................xii List of tables ...........................................................................................................................................xii CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 RATIONALE .................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE ........................................................................................ 7 1.4 WORKING ASSUMPTION ............................................................................................ 8 1.5 PROBLEM STATEMENT .............................................................................................. 9 1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................ 9 1.6.1 Main research question ................................................................................................. 9 1.6.2 Sub-questions ................................................................................................................ 9 1.7 DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY ................................................................................ 10 1.8 EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL STANCE ............................................... 10 1.9 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................... 11 1.10 CONCEPT CLARIFICATION ...................................................................................... 13 1.10.1 Due process ................................................................................................................ 13 1.10.2 Procedural due process .............................................................................................. 13 1.10.3 Substantive due process ............................................................................................. 13 1.10.4 Learner discipline ........................................................................................................ 14 1.10.5 Hearing of evidence ..................................................................................................... 14 1.10.6 Deciding on action ....................................................................................................... 15 1.10.7 Notice of disciplinary hearing ...................................................................................... 15 1.10.8 Learner disciplinary hearing .......................................................................................