School rules and law of the land

IN FEBRUARY 1995, Justice Gopeesingh and the Court of Appeal handed down a landmark judgement in the matter of Sumayyah Mohammed (minor) versus Moraine et al, wherein a Muslim pupil challenged the refusal of the school, Holy Name Convent, to allow her to vary the school’s uniform code to include the wearing of a hijab.

The court ruled that while the school had the right to insist on compliance with school regulations, its policy was inflexible and it had been unreasonable in the exercise of its powers in preventing the child from attending school wearing a hijab.

It also pointed out that the school failed to provide any evidence that the altered nature of the school uniform would be conducive to indiscipline or would erode the sense of tradition or loyalty to the school, nor would it accentuate distinctions between students from more affluent and less affluent homes.

The court explicitly stated that the school authorities, in the exercise of their powers under the Education Act, had been unreasonable and their actions were therefore unsustainable.

This judgement has since served as a most valuable guide for the development and enforcement of school rules given the fact that TT is a secular country and where the Constitution is the supreme law. School authorities, guided by the Ministry of Education, are therefore mindful of the law of the land in establishing guidelines for the operation of schools, cognisant of fundamental rights enjoyed by citizens under the Constitution. These rights have a direct bearing on schools when developing and enforcing school rules including the right to:

(a) Equality before the law and protection of the law.

(b) Security of the person and the enjoyment of property.

(c) Respect for private and family life.

(d) Equality of treatment.

(e) Freedom of expression.

(f) A parent to choose a school for the education of their child/ward.

(g) Freedom of conscience, religious belief and observance.

(h) Such procedural provisions as are necessary for the purpose of giving effect and protection to the aforesaid rights and freedoms.

The Education Act of 1966 also defines the responsibility of the Minister of Education for ensuring effective execution of the education policy of TT, and in particular section 7 which prohibits discrimination. All school personnel derive their authority from the act and are well advised to exercise such powers as prescribed and in tandem with their job descriptions.

While the act does not give authority to school officials to deny or suspend any of the aforementioned rights, unfortunately, and owing to our colonial legacies, many school rules that are currently enforced run afoul of the law and parents are increasingly challenging such rules all the way to the courts. Issues surrounding grooming, adherence to uniform codes and possession of property frequently form the basis of legal challenge.

Too often TTUTA is forced to guide members regarding the enforcement of school rules that are ultra vires. School officials are well advised to review existing school rules to ensure compliance with the law, and that they are acting within the confines of their delegated authority.

In developing school policy and discipline matrices, schools must be guided by curriculum objectives and not antiquated rules that promote subservience and compliance. This would have been the basis of many of these colonial-based rules and are now inimical to our society.

In many instances, the defence and retention of such rules are time-consuming and detracts from the attainment of curriculum objectives and productive school/student/parent engagement.

Ironically, many of these antiquated rules that we have been slavishly adhering to have long been dispensed with by the very colonial masters who imposed them. The time has also come for the Ministry of Education and by extension the Government to adopt a more direct role in defining national school policy, beginning with a comprehensive review of the Education Act and all related legislation.

The provisions of the Constitution must be respected and consistently upheld by all schools. Discretion and dialogue must also be guiding principles for school officials and parents, mindful that along with rights are commensurate responsibilities.

Parents/students must also distinguish between rights and privileges. A school graduation/leaving ceremony is a privilege extended by teachers to students as a gesture of love and appreciation and thus school officials would be well within their right to set the parameters and conditions for students’ access to such a privilege.