It is always difficult to sympathise with teachers when they take industrial action.

In doing so, they deprive their charges of their education, and often cause massive inconvenience to parents who must make child care arrangements on the fly, miss work or let their children wander the streets when a wildcat action like Friday's at CedarBridge takes place.

But there is another side to the coin, and in this case it is difficult to do anything but sympathise with the CedarBridge teachers who came to together to protest when a student's five-day suspension was temporarily revoked following an appeal by the child's parent.

In this case, it must be accepted that the teachers' meeting, and the subsequent departure of some 900 students for points unknown around the Island, was driven by frustration with the Code of Conduct that supposedly governs discipline in in the Island's public schools.

Indeed, the remarkable speed with which the suspension was revoked seems to have caused the teachers' frustration. As Bermuda Union for Teachers president Lisa Trott said, suspensions are supposed to allow for a cooling off period for both the student and the teacher. But when the student is back in school within 30 minutes, tempers are still certain to be hot.

In addition, Ms Trott noted this was hardly the first time this particular student had been in trouble, having had eight disciplinary referrals since last October, including referrals for fighting, disrupting class, insubordination, disrespect, misuse of electronic equipment, refusal to follow school rules, profanity, verbal abuse and sexual harassment.

On that basis, it is amazing the teachers did not take more severe action.

Education Minister Terry Lister, in a statement late on Friday, seemed to say as much, commenting: ""I appreciate the concerns of the faculty at CedarBridge Academy, and I want to assure them that the disrespect of our teachers will not be tolerated.

"There are policies and procedures in place that allow for due process to occur. All efforts will be made to address and resolve the concerns."

Those statements are welcome, and it is also worth noting that the Code of Conduct enacted in 2003 is under review.

Friday's action shows the flaws in the Code, which is well-intentioned but often unworkable. In the past, this newspaper has criticised it because it has the same set of rules for children from the ages of five to 17 and because it reduces the discretion of head teachers to use their best judgment quickly and effectively.

Friday's incident is a good example of the latter problem, and also shows that the layers of warnings, disciplinary referrals and appeals make the Code a convoluted and inefficient mechanism.

That is is not to say that students and their parents do not have rights. But there are risks that the system can be manipulated in such a way that discipline becomes a joke.

Ms Trott noted that parents should take Friday's incident seriously, because the affected student is not the only one with rights. The vast majority of students in the public school system are working hard, want to learn and behave themselves. And it is their interests that are damaged when a single student can be so disruptive that they can prevent any learning from taking place.

And if teachers come to feel that they are powerless to impose discipline because the Code of Conduct is so labyrinthine that it is pointless to pursue any kind of action, then the system will collapse.