This is the published version: Trimble, Allison J., Cranston, Neil and Allen, Jeanne M. 2012, School principals and education law : what do they know, what do they need to know?, Leading & managing, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 46‐61. Available from Deakin Research Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30062774 Reproduced with the kind permission of the copyright owner. Copyright : 2012, Australian Council for Educational Leaders Leading & Managing, Vol. 18, No.2, 2012, pp. 46-61 School Principals and Education Law: What do they know, what do they need to know? 47 School Principals and Education Law: Preamble The genesis of this study was a playground conversation between the first author and a primary What do they know, what do they school principal who advised her that physical contact between teachers and students was banned because 'touching a child was against the law'. The principal's misunderstanding of the law on need to know? non-sexual physical contact between teachers and students raised questions about the impact of the law on the work of school principals, the legal issues they dealt with, and their understandings about legal matters. As a qualified lawyer, the author's interest in examining principals' education ALLISON J. TRIMBLE law knowledge was triggered. University afTasmania Ernail: atrimble@posto!fice.utas,edu.au Introduction and Background NEIL CRANSTON There is little doubt that in recent years the roles and responsibilities of school leaders have UniversityafTasmania become more complex and challenging (Cranston & Ehrich, 2009). Indeed. the recently released Email: [email protected] National Professional Standard for Principals in Australia which 'sets out what principals are expected to know, understand and do' noted that principals needed to 'embrace uncertain, JEANNE M. ALLEN complex and challenging contexts and work with others to seek creative and innovative solutions' University of Tasmania (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, 2011, p. 2). However, what is noticeably absent in the writing and research about the 'new' principalship, En <>1 full Tellt reslS with the \>wner and. under the c~.~:;;~~~: 'o'Oy,(lglht ::'.j,.ril.fl<~-·' -~ ... ~ ""... «;r1<>r<>t;nn nf thp lpo-~l fl"np.r.t" evident in the role. Indeed, the agent or bV way of a licence from Agency limited. about such - n proh,blted without the lll!fmlssiM of the owner or . CopY"lg~'t on (02) 93947600 (ph) or (02) 93947601 (lax) nowledge reqUIred by ABSTRACT: Principals now work in complex and challenging environments where uncertain principals when it refers to principals having knowledge of 'relevant federal and state legislation' and cJ~~nge are the halb~lQ~ks of their roles and responsibilities. As such, the knowledge at~ (p. 6). While there is no expectation that principals need to be legal 'experts', matters of education capablltty demands on prmclpals have expanded, including those related to education law While law certainly arise on a regular basis in their work. At one level, this is acknowledged by the these ~natters attracte~ s~me research interest a number of years ago, there has been little' recent national professional association for school leaders in Australia, the Australian Council for work in the area of prmclpals and education law. This article reports on an exploratory study into aspects ?f the legal knowled'!e held by Tasmanian government school principals, particularly Educational Leaders, whose quarterly publication (The Australian Educational Leader) contains a concermng n~n-sexLlal physical contact between teachers and students. The research was regular feature on 'Schools and the Law'. contributed by Dr Keith Tronc for some decades. This lindeltaken llSI~lg a small-scale~ mixed-methods research design, which required principals to series of articles is one of the few national sources of legal knowledge available for principals. respond to ~anolls legal scenarIOS. Three key findings emerged from the study. First, principals While some principals, as noted in the study reported here, have had some (mainly ad hoc) support used two different levels of working knowledge about education law - one related to legal in developing their education law knowledge, in an increasingly litigious WOrld, the lack of prob~ems, and the other to legally-related routine activities. Second, on the particular topic of attention by school systems and schools to the legal knowledge (or access to legal knowledge) physI~al contact, Some knowledge held by principals was not legally accurate Third flo . legal Issues (" t' d' d I h . ,r major required by principals is potentially problematic. The findings of this study certainly support this . ' par lClpa!l s 1I1 lcate t zat t ey acquired access to information from legal ex erts The s~tuatIOn for r?lItm~ legal matters was less clear, although in-service training and pra~ticai contention. :xpenence were Identified as potential sourCes of knowledge. Participants recognised the Despite the potential importance for principals to have an accurate understanding of school ~mportance of a s~ulld k{10wledge of educ~tion law, especially for dealing with security and safety law (tenned education law in Australia) the available research to date suggests that such ISSU:S and prefel red to access further l11formation through in-service training. Notably th knowledge held by principals is generally poor. Notably, most of the available research has been findmgs of the stl~dy are broadly consistent with those from earlier Australian and internationa~ undertaken in the United States and Canada. While there have been two major studies in Australia research, sllggestmg that much remains to be done in the area 01 principals' educat' I into the education law knowledge of school principals, both these studies were conducted some knowledge. 1011 aw years ago. The first of these by Stewart (1996) examined the legal knowledge held by government school principals in Queensland, the sources of such knowledge and its implications for legal risk management in schools. Building on Stewart's work, a later study by McCann (2006) examined the education law understandings of Catholic school principals in Queensland. Both Stewart and CopyrinlltAnency Limited (CAL) licensed copy.Further copyinO imd communication prohibited except on payment offee per Copy or Cdmm'i,kdtiiill; and otherwise i~ accordance with tile licence from CAL to ACER.F~r more In/ormation con,~act CAL on (02) 9394-7600 or i!'/o{iPcopyright!;cCfinYuli' 48 Allison J. Trimble, Neil Cranston & Jeanne M. Allen School Principals and Education Law: What do they know, what do they need to know? 49 McCann concluded that the school principals they studied had low education law knowledge. It Thirdly, the litigious nature of the Australian community (and elsewhere) is expanding. might well be expected that the complexities of the roles and responsibilities of principals have Parents and other stakeholders in education are becoming increasingly aware of their rights to take compounded, certainly since the time of Stewart's study a decade and a half ago, suggesting the legal action against schools and school staff for decisions and policies with which they disagree education law knowledge of principals warrants a contemporary investigation. and, more than ever before, are willing to pursue their complaints through the courts (Butler, The study reported here, located in Tasmanian government schools', begins to address this 2006). Together, these factors point to a need for principals to have enhanced knowledge of lack of recent research in the area by exploring aspects of the legal knowledge held by Tasmanian education law (or at least access to such knowledge). government school principals, particularly concerning non-sexual physical contact between Research from Canada and the USA is examined first, as it is here that much of the recent teachers and students. It is framed around the following research questions: relevant work in the area has been done. The limited, albeit highly relevant, Australian research is • What working knowledge of education law is held by principals? then examined to provide the conceptual framework for this exploratory study. • From which sources have principals obtained their knowledge of education law? • What implications does education law have for the professional practice of principals? USA and Canadian research Notwithstanding its small-scale exploratory nature, this is the first study on the topic of Early research on the impact of educational legalisation on principals was undertaken in the education law to be undertaken in Tasmania. While it is potentially problematic to extrapolate United States in the late 1970s, with the topic taken up in Canadian research after the enactment of from the study beyond the Tasmanian schooling context, it is likely that the findings do have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982 (see for example, Findlay, 2007; Kalafatis, 1999; wider currency. The study highlights legal issues which impact on the work of principals, thereby Militello, Schimmel & Eberwein, 2009). The Kalafatis study (1999) was a major research project raising awareness of the extent of school leaders' involvement in legal matters, emphasises the in the United States concerning the education law knowledge of school principals. The study increasing legalisation of the school environment, and identifies the support which principals adopted a narrow topical focus on the principals' legal knowledge through a survey of 91 public require to manage their schools in accordance with the law. school principals. Almost 65% of the respondents, representing elementary, middle school and high school principals, failed to meet the level of minimum competency in tenns of their legal L-nr""I"..-Io-". TC'lI'l-F'lt;<' (1000'1 t'Ant'l11.-1p.-l thprp cOr)y,bght <>1 full Tellt reslS with the o,b"o,' """w," thiS copyright materia lis p,ohlblted wlth<>ut lll!fmlsslM ofthe owner or agent or bV way of a licence from C<>PYlrlgl1t CooVI·io'lt.Ageocy limited on (02) 93947600 (ph) or (02) 93947601 (lax) and graduate levels ..