education and bullying

Authors Avatar

Education is a right offered to all children, but what about the cost of bullying and the schools duty of care to all students?

One must first understand exactly what bullying is to understand this topic.  A definition is:

Repeated intimidation, over time, of a physical, verbal or

psychological (including indirect and relational bullying) nature of

a less powerful person by a more powerful person or group of

persons.

Boys are more likely to engage in bullying more often than girls especially when it is by physical or direct means. Furthermore boys are more likely to bully girls than vice versa as studies have shown that boys are generally more aggressive.  A child’s temperament has been said to play a part as to whether they are bullied or are the victim.  Children who have an impulsive and aggressive temperament tend to be the bully while a child that has a shy or weak temperament would be more likely to be the victim. Just being a ‘bit different’ due to being from an ethnic group or suffering from a disability can make children vulnerable to bullying. Children with high aggression are often from homes with a lack of affection, use of physical

                                - 2 -

violence within the family and have a lack of clear guidelines for behaviour and monitoring of children’s activities.  It is not just the victim and bully that are affected but there is the distraction of the whole class which may lead to cases of negligence due to the education or lack there of that the student receives. It is difficult to make a judgment as to when someone should be denied the opportunity to an education as a school cannot easily expel a student or take a student out of a class however there needs to be measures which balance the rights of the majority not to be bullied and to receive a proper education against the rights of the bully to be educated. Often other students suffer as the teacher may be preoccupied controlling the bully. In the case of Cox v State of New South Wales the plaintiff was bullied by way of harassment and physical assault, throughout his primary and secondary education, but eventually left school before the end of year 7 having also tried distance education. Mr Cox now suffers from psychiatric conditions identified as Depression and Anxiety Disorder, Separation Anxiety Disorder, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder which are unlikely to decline.  He is unemployable and is in receipt of a disability pension. The

                                - 3 -

conduct of the school was such that it was not only foreseeable, but of which the school had actual and repeated notice.   As such the judge found that his injury was a whole of life injury.  Stephens J stated in Geyer v Downs [1977]:

“The duty which a schoolmaster owes to his pupil arises from the relationship between them and its temporal ambit will be determined by the circumstances of the relationship on the particular occasion in question.  Children stand in need of care and supervision and this their parents cannot effectively provide when their children are attending school; instead it is those then in charge of them, their teachers, who must provide it.”

As cited in Geyer v Downs Murphy and Aickin JJ cited Williams v Eady  with regards to the schoolmaster:

Join now!

“ … The schoolmaster was bound to take such care of his boys as a careful father would take of his boys, and there could not be a better definition of the duty of a schoolmaster.”

It has been found it the following two cases that a duty of care requires teachers to exercise reasonable care during the school day and outside

                                - 4 –

those hours, as well as outside the school grounds. This duty is also non delegable meaning that the duty owed by education authorities is a direct one and the task cannot be delegated ...

This is a preview of the whole essay