Page images
PDF
EPUB

or is exempted in accordance with other exemption clauses of the statutes. No case has been found which denies this right. In a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court case, Justice Rosenberry defined the relations of the state with those of parents in this regard in very decisive terms:

"It may well be that there are parents in the state of Wisconsin who do not fully understand the purpose and objects of our recent legislation in regard to the education, protection, and reformation of children, and that such legislation. imposes upon parents a positive duty and a much higher obligation that that under which many parents suppose themselves to labor. The parent no longer has the right to decide whether his child shall attend school or work; the law determines that for him."18

Thus, when the statutes of New York State provided that a child of compulsory school age must be in attendance upon instruction in a public school or elsewhere unless physically or mentally unfit, the New York County Court held that improper physical and mental condition was the only defense against prosecution for violation of the compulsory attendance laws. 19

The intent of the compulsory school attendance legislation is an attempt only to insure the educational rights of children against interference from selfish and short-sighted parents and employers, rather than a discrimination against private and parochial schools. This is evidenced by the fact that forty-three states provide by statute that attendance upon private or parochial schools exempts from the requirements of attendance upon public schools. 20 The Kansas State Court held in 1916 that a parent who sent his child to a private, denominational, or parochial school in lieu of public school attendance was not subject to the penalties of the truancy law. 21

18In re Alley (1921) 174 Wisc. 85, 182 N. W. 360, 362

19 People v Himmanen (1919) 178 N. Y. S. 282, 283, 108 Misc. Rep. 275 20See key number 1327, Summary Chart X, post 21State v Will (1916) 99 Kan. 167, 160 P 1025

The Federal District Court of Oregon has held in a decision of March 31, 1924, that an act adopted by initiative petition on November 7, 1922, in Oregon, which proposed to ignore private school attendance as a legitimate cause of exemption from public school attendance, was unconstitutional. 22 The court held that such an act, if put into effect on September 1, 1926, as contemplated, would deprive the private and parochial schools of property rights, without due process of law, and therefore violated the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court held that the act would also violate the Fourteenth Amendment in that it would inhibit the inherent privilege of a guardian or parent from sending his child or ward to such schools as the parent or guardian desired.

This decision of the Federal District Court of Oregon was sustained by the United States Supreme Court in a decision rendered on June 1, 1925. The Court declared that to sustain the Oregon law would deprive the parochial and private schools of thousands of dollars worth of property without due process of law. Justice McReynolds, in rendering the opinion of the Court, expressed the unanimous opinion of the Court as follows:

"We think it entirely plain that the (Oregon) act of 1922
unreasonably interferes with the liberty erty of parents and
guardians to direct the upbringing and education of
children under their control. As often heretofore pointed
out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be
abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to
some purpose within the competency of the State.

"The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all Governments in this Union repose excluded any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only." 23

22Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary v Pierce, Governor of Oregon, et al (1924) 296 Fed. Rep. 928, 931, 932, 938. Also Hill Military Academy v same (same references)

Pierce, Governor of Oregon, v Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (1925) 268 Us. 510. Also Pierce, Governor of Oregon, v Hill Military Academy (1925) 268 U. S. 510.

Some states have included in the statutes as a cause for exemption the completion of such branches of learning as are included in certain stipulated grades. Twenty-seven states have such provisions. 24 In the absence of such legislation, however, the courts have held that students within the compulsory attendance age must attend high schools after completing the eighth grade. 25

In addition to statutes requiring attendance upon full-time schools which all states have, twenty-four states have compulsory part-time continuation school attendance laws. 26 The State Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that such a law in Wisconsin was constitutional. The law was held to be:

"One of the numerous child labor laws which the legislature
has seen fit to place on the statute books for the purpose of
promoting the welfare of minors and preparing them for
adult activities." 27

The following Key Code X and Summary Chart X indicate in detail the principal legal provisions relative to compulsory school attendance in the forty-eight states of the Union.

Key

Number

KEY CODE X

Provision for Compulsory Attendance

Provision

1315 A census of children of school age is required (47)* 1316 The statutes of certain states require the appointment of attendance officers in cities (16)* 1317 The statutes of certain states authorize city boards to appoint attendance officers at their discretion (optional) (3)*

24 For specific details see key number 1329, Summary Chart X, post

25State v O'Dell (1918) 187 Ind. 84, 118 Ν. Ε. 529, 530; Miller v State (1922)

77 Ind. App. 611, 134 N. E. 209, 210

26 See key number 1330, Summary Chart X, post

27State v Freudenberg (1917) 166 Wisc. 35, 163 N. W. 184, 186

* The figures in parentheses indicate the number of states having this provision

[blocks in formation]

1318 The statutes of certain states require the appointment of attendance officers in districts (5)* 1319 The statutes of certain states authorize district boards to appoint attendance officers at their discretion (optional) (12)*

1320 The statutes of certain states require the appointment of attendance officers in counties or parishes (17)*

1321 The statutes of certain states permit the appointment of attendance officers in counties (3)* 1322 The statutes of the various states prescribe the

ages of compulsory attendance (48)*

1323 The statutes of certain states provide for fines upon parents or guardians who do not require their children to obey the compulsory attendance laws (48)*

1324 The statutes of certain states provide for exemption from compulsory attendance on account of undue distance from school or transportation (22)* 1325 The statutes of certain states provide for exemption from compulsory attendance when "age and schooling" permits are issued (27)*

1326 The statutes of certain states provide for ex

exemption from compulsory attendance because of physical or mental incapacity (48)*

1327 The statutes of certain states provide for exemption from compulsory attendance because of private or parochial school instruction (43)*

1328 The statutes of certain states provide for exemption from compulsory attendance because of financial need of dependents (10)*

1329 The statutes of certain states provide for exemption from compulsory attendance after the completion of prescribed amount of schooling (27)* 1330 The statutes of certain states provide for compulsory part-time school attendance of children who work under authority of work permits (24)*

* The figures in parentheses indicate the number of states having this provision

[blocks in formation]

1331 The statutes of certain states require compulsory

evening school attendance (10)*

1332 The statutes of certain states provide that employers who employ minors violating the compulsory part-time attendance law are subject to a fine (22)*

1333 The statutes of certain states provide that employers who employ workers violating the compulsory evening school attendance law are subject to a fine (5)*

*The figures in parentheses indicate the number of states having this provision

« PreviousContinue »