Because of the impact of teacher strikes on education there has been a call to declare the teacher‟s profession an essential service and thus prohibit them from striking. This call was made by the Democratic Alliance (DA). The Democratic Alliance arguments in their application to the Essential Services Committee was based on the fact that education in South Africa is in a crisis and the life-altering inconvenience this caused for children. The combined teacher unions in the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) expressed their concerns over the DA‟s call for education to be declared an Essential Service. The Bill of Rights grants every employee the fundamental right to strike. This is an absolute and should always be exercised under certain controlled conditions, as stipulated by the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. Convention 87 of the International Labour Organising (ILO) recognises the right of trade unions, as an organisation of workers set up to further and defend their interest (Article 10), to formulate their programs and organise their activities (Article 3); this means that unions have the right to negotiate with employers and to express their views on economic and social issues affecting the occupational interest of their members. This constitutes the position that the right to strike is one of the legitimate and indeed essential means available to workers for furthering and defending their occupational interest. Balanced against the right of every teacher to strike is the right of everyone to have a basic education as set out in section 29 of the Constitution. In terms of section 29(1)(a) everyone has a right, enforceable against the state, to basic education. This creates a strong positive right. Aspects of the right to education are found in human rights treaties and declarations. This right to education is contained in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which states that “everyone has the right to education”. The International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural v Rights of 1966 covers the right to education comprehensively, especially article 13 and 14. In 1989 the Convention on the Rights of the Child further confirmed this right. The right to a basic education is further enhanced by section 28(2) of the Constitution “(a) child‟s best interest is of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child”. It is significant to note that in 2007 the Constitutional Court elevated the “best interest” principle to a right. This implies that the best interest of the child would be the decisive factor in each matter that affects the child. In deciding to declare the teaching profession as an essential service constitutional rights must be balanced. These are the right to strike, the right to a basic education and the best interest of the child principle.

The purpose of this study is to gather and to present information on the liability structure of our legal system in such a manner as to help the classroom teacher to understand more fully his legal responsibilities and thus relieve him of unwarranted fears regarding accidents and injuries resulting from classroom activities. It is hoped that this study will ultimately contribute to the security of those who read it and give encouragement to those who seek to enrich their classes by means of the experience type curriculum. / Typescript. / "A Paper." / "Submitted to the Graduate Council of Florida State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science." / "August, 1956." / Advisor: Edna E. Parker, Professor Directing Paper. / Includes bibliographical references.

The purpose of this study was to identify, examine and analyze judicial decisions, legislation, and agency regulations, state and federal, for those principles of law that govern the legal rights and responsibilities of Indiana public school educators. The study delineated legal principles and the process of legal reasoning in the following primary areas: (1) Tort liability of school districts and personnel; (2) Legal responsibilities regarding students; (3) Education of children with disabilities; (4) Terms and conditions of teacher employment. Three primary research methods were used in this study: The "descriptive word" or "words and phrases" approach, the topical approach, and the case method. The computer-assisted legal research service, WestLaw was used extensively in this study. The study produced the following selected general conclusions: (1) Indiana educators possess very limited protection under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and may be held personally liable for their own tortious acts. Educators are only immune from acts that constitute significant policy and political decisions generally attributable to the essence of governing. Indiana educators are personally protected from monetary loss by a "save harmless" statute. Indiana public school corporations are not protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity. School authorities may be found liable in their individual capacities for a constitutional tort if they personally violate clearly established constitutional rights of individuals. (2) Persons of school age are obligated under Indiana compulsory education laws to attend school or receive instruction equivalent to that given in the public schools. The judiciary uniformly recognizes the right and duty of school boards and school authorities to maintain order and control in the classroom and in the public schools. Students who violate school rules and regulations may be suspended or expelled from school but not without procedural due process. Students are entitled to other constitutional rights with respect to the first, fourth and fourteenth amendments. (3) The Individuals with Disabilities Act requires that children with disabilities be provided a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The right to a free appropriate education is undergirded by complex and comprehensive procedural rights afforded to parents under the IDEA. Indiana law expands procedural due process protections for children with disabilities beyond that provided by federal statute. A disabled child may be expelled from school where the misconduct is not handicap-related but educational services cannot be completely terminated. (4) Every teacher in Indiana employed by a school corporation must hold a license issued by the state and make a written teaching contract with the local governing body. A tenured teacher may be dismissed or suspended with cause but must be afforded due process in connection with the cancellation of an indefinite contract. School boards and school officials are granted broad discretion in matters relating to the method of teaching, decisions regarding the curriculum, and the selection of books to be used in the public schools. Indiana educators enjoy a liberty interest in their employment as well as other constitutional rights which are balanced by the state's interest in controlling and furthering the education mission of the public schools. / Ed. D.

Around the world, managing the behavioural rights of teachers and learners in schools remains a complex problem for all involved in the teaching and learning situation. From a legal standpoint, the crux of this study relates to why school managers and teachers feel disempowered by learners’ rights. Over and above the duty of all citizens not to infringe on other peoples’ human rights (e.g. the horizontal application of the Bill of Rights contained in Section 2 of the Constitution, SA, 1996), teachers also have a legal obligation to promote and protect learners’ rights (e.g. a vertical application of the Bill of Rights contained in Section 2 of the Constitution, SA, 1996). It is this extra mandate that results in teachers feeling disempowered by learners’ rights. Learners’ rights are protected because teachers are representative of the state and, as such, the vertical application of human rights arises where learners are protected against any possible abuse of power. Moreover, a further ‘imbalance’ is created by children’s rights (Section 28, SASA, 1996). In particular, their right to protection and to having their best interests is regarded as of paramount importance. The study examined the role of the principal, SMT, SGB and RCL in managing the behavioural rights of teachers and learners. A qualitative investigation at three public high schools in the North Metropolitan District of Cape Town was done. Data were collected by means of document analysis as well as by in-depth interviews with five teachers and five RCL members at each of the three participating schools. The findings of the study revealed that the behavioural rights of teachers and learners are managed by the school management leadership style, by the ineffective support from teacher unions, by the functionality of the SGB, by the muted voice of the RCL and in a conflicting manner by some parents. The study recommends that principals, SMTs, SGBs and RCLs be empowered in order for them to manage the behavioural rights of teachers and learners effectively. The principals, SMTs, SGBs and RCLs that adopt a democratic leadership style which favours support, collaboration and conflict resolution can thus take firm hold of a golden opportunity – the opportunity to sustain and promote the managing of the behavioural rights of teachers and learners. / Educational Leadership and Management / M. Ed. (Educational Management)