Take that student back

A ruling that Lynfield College must reinstate an expelled student raises issues for all schools, reports Kris Hall
A High Court judge has ordered a Mt Roskill school to reinstate an expelled student.
Justice Patrick Keane's decision to force Lynfield College to take back the teenager - believed to be the first case of its kind in Auckland and the second in New Zealand history - could have "far reaching' consequences for schools across the country when dealing with suspending and expelling pupils.
Board of Trustees chairman Brian Cadzow admits a review of procedures is now under way at the decile-7 school, but refuses to criticise Lynfield's governance and managerial procedures.
"This has implications, not just for Lynfield, but the whole of New Zealand in terms of how things are handled. Certainly, it changes the playing field in terms of how you can apply the rules relating to suspension and expulsion.
"[The ruling] raised questions about the management of all schools - the way Lynfield deals with these situations is no different to most schools in New Zealand and that's evidenced by ERO's [2006] report.'
Somewhat ironically, Education Review Office's chief review officer, Charlene Scotti, wrote of the school in December: "ERO is confident that the board of trustees can manage the school in the interests of the students and the crown.'
But, last month, Justice Keane ruled that Lynfield's principal, Stephen Bovaird, and board of trustees had overlooked certain legal requirements, resulting in "breaches of natural justice' when twice suspending and, ultimately, excluding a 16-year-old student.
Trustees moved to expel the pupil in April after alleged incidents of truancy, drug use and, later, misbehaviour while on a geography trip to Mt Tongariro.
"The judge has a different view of what's required, which he's entitled to,' Cadzow told The Aucklander.
"We're not appealing the reinstatement. Our view is a significant amount of disruption has already occurred.' Lynfield, adds Cadzow, won't contest paying costs either, which could run into thousands of dollars and hamper future curriculum budgets.
The ruling could end a long-standing reluctance on the part of courts to intervene in matters of school discipline. The Aucklander believes the case to be second in the country's history, the other involved a Palmerston North boys school in 1990, when an expulsion was overturned.
"This High Court case reveals the courts in New Zealand are now more inclined to be supportive of arguments built around the rights of children rather than the need for respect of school rules and authority,' says John Caldwell, author of the 2006 judicial review of school discipline.
``This does have far reaching consequences. ``It sets out,' the professor adds, ``procedural requirements for principals before they suspend. It also insists both boards and principals must consider the student and not just a particular incident in deciding if there has been gross misconduct.
But the mother of one pupil previously suspended by the school believes independent tribunals are the only sure way of dishing out discipline.
"Our children have less rights in schools than they have in any other environment in New Zealand.'
Ministry of Education figures reveal 6804 stand-downs and suspensions from state schools across the region in 2005. Nearly 500 students aged under 16 were excluded.