PRICE 

### DAXIEL

ATTORNEY GENERAL AUUTIN 11. -lwxAn December 3, 1949

Bon. Jack C. Altares opinion lo. v-954. County Attorney Johnson Caunty Cleburne, Texas Re: The rpplioability OS compulsory school attenddsnce laws to chlldren who are seventeen and have not completed Dear sir: the ninth grade.

We refer to your Inquiry Srcmwhich we quo-, in substance, aa follows:

“Article 2892, V.C.S. and Article 297, V.P.C., reqube every child In the State who 18 7 years and not more than 16 pears OSage to attend public aohoola in the district of ’ hls residence for not less than 120days annually

. ~rtiole 2893 subd. 5, v.c.s., and Article 298, subd. (ej, V.P.C., exmpts a ohlld from school attendance who 18more than 16:years OSage vho has satlsfactoPl1~ oompleted the **work** of the ninth grade and whose services are needed for the support of a perent, et cetera.

“The quertlon here presented in whether or aot 8 child whola 17 fears (or anyage ever 16 yew8) and vho hea not satlsirotoalL~ oapletod the **work** of the ninth #?&IOi8 labject to ooapulroy rohool rttentlrnoe.m The civil Law, Artlola 2892, andthe oorrespoadlng penal law, Article 297, read as follows:

“tvery chLld in the gtate whoio reren **years** and not more than sixteen years & age ahall. be mqulred to attend the publio sohools in the dlatrlet of its residence, or In some other district to which It maybe transferred aa provided by lav, for a period of not less than one hundred and twenty days. The period OScompulsory school attendance at each school shell begin at the opening OSthe sahool termHon. Jack C. 4ltarO8, Page 2 (V-954)

unless otherwlse authorized by the district school trustees and notice given by the trustees prior to the beginning of such school term; provided that no child shall be mquired to attend school for a longer period than the maximum

term of the public school in the district where such child reaiddea.’ The civil statute, subdlvialon 5 OSArttile 2893, and the corresponding penal law, Article 295, subdivision (e), as amendedby House Bill No.630, Aota 49th Legislature, 1945, read as follows:

“The Sollowlng classes of children are exempt **from** the requirement of this law: ,I

. . .

“(0) Anychild **more**than sixteen (16) years of age whoha8 aatiafaotorlly completed the work of the ninth grade, and whose services ara needed in support of a parent or other person standing in parent81 relation to the child, msy, on presentation of proper evidence to the county superintendent, be exempted from further attendance et school.” It is an elementary rule OScontruction that a statute which is part of an existing scheme OSlegiolotion upon a given subject must ba 80 coastrued ao to bring It in harmony with all other provlalons, ii the language of such statute is fairly ausceptlble OSouch interpretation. Bishop v. Houston I.S.D., 119 Tex.403, 29 S.W.2d 312 (193mlso to note that Articles 2892 through 2898 of the Civil Statute8 ad APicles 297 through 300 of the Penal Statutes, prior to their codification in Revised Statutes of 1925, each had their origin in the compulsory education law of 1915. R.~.402, Acts 34th Leg,, 1915, pp, 92 to 98.

Back in 1917 when the law, which is nowcodiSled as Article 2892, V.C.S., provlded that every child OSeight years and not more than fourteen years old should be required to attend public school, et cetera, it was held that a child who attained the age of Sourteen years before the beginning OSthe public free schools in his district was not subiect to the DrOVislons of that compulsory attendance-law. Butler v. State, 81 Tex.Crim.167, 194 S.W. 166 (1917mctHon. Jack C. Altaraa, Page 3 (V-%4) L

OS 1925 (S.B.49, 44th Leg., p.409) aubatltuted ‘aeven years Tor “eight yearaN and “alxteen yearawrm *rowteen yeara. ’ Applying that deolalon to Artlole 2892, V.C.S., aa aended la 1935, It would follov that a ohlld whoattalna the age of sixteen yeara heiore the beginning o? the pub110aahoola In hla dlatrfotla 

### not subject to the prorialona o? the capnlaory attemdanae 1aV.
o? age?’ Uhen la a ohlld “not more than a~o;omma

We quote iroot Glbam (1.

### roo~lt, l 8 99 Pao.333:*In one aenae a child la alxteen yeara of age until it ia seventeen; 00 ala0 It la aixtaen whenit la eighteen; 

### but,Inthetrus aenae, It la alxteen and over whenersrit hoe passed beyond the 

### firstday of the alxteenth amlvera~ of lta birth. Hed it been the lntentlon to Include children upto the tlma they reach their seventeenth blxWxlay, the General Assembly would naturally htive said %hlldren under aeventeen years OSage’

. . . 

### A child la sixteen years OSage on the alxteenth amlmraary OShi8 birth, aridthereafteria over alxteen yura of age
. . .’

unmr v. State, 57 Tu.Crlm.385, 122 S.U.875

exempt.1Y 

### At rlrstblush,l ubaectlom 2 or Artlale 2893 from compulsory l

ttendanoe l

uy child morethan sixteen 16) years OSage whohoe

. . . oarpleted

. . . ninth grade, andwhore aervloea are needed In 8uppoH of a parent, et 

### oetera,,” appears to oonillot 81th @Wale 2892 rod alao to amountto an exemption fra a uomlition which doer

not l xlat

. Eovever, a oloae uulaatlen of &tlole 2892, and In the light of the deolalon in Putlef v. gtate, aupro, ~111 reveal that it prorider that mre a ohlld hoe not l ttalued tha age of alxteen ymarmkfon the kglnning of the pub110aohoola in hla 

### dlrtriet, ho la aubjwt to the provlalorra of that caopulaorJ l ttaadame law, sod "rho11 be required to rttomd

. . . pablio aohoola

. . .Boa. Jeer C

. Altono, page 4 (V-95b)

pub110 l

ohool

. . .” It 

### doernot 

### forexmple, l utho rlae 

### orper&it l ohlld l ttalnlng the age of sixteen yeera any tl8e otter the begioaing OSthe public school in hla dlatrlot to l

leot within that OWr8nt aohool year not to go to rohool. 8uoh g ohild mat attend l ohool tee the time required or .authm%aed by Artiole 

### 2892, ualoaa he oaea within one of the uemptloaa in Artlole 2893.

Under aubdlvlalon 5 o? Article 2893, quoted hemlnebove, auoh a ohlld whohaa attained the age of al%teen duri”f the aohool year, whoher completed the vork of the n nth grade, aadwhoae~ aarvloea era needed In maport P of a parent or other peraon atandlng in parant8 relation to him, **may,** In aooordanae with the proviifon&hereof, ba exempted from the 9rovlaloua eS Al&

Aathus **oaatrued** l obdlvlalon 5 of Article 2893, r.o:fL, aad aubdlrialon (0) of Article 298, **V.P.C** ., hoe rpplloatlon Od urnlng. It will not be presumed thrt the Leglaletw emoted a

### nanlnglaaa or ueeleaa law. Aooordingl~, it la oup oplf~10athat e child 

### TIIO attaina the age oi aUtoen or over before the beginning ot the pub110 free roboolr in hla dLatl%ot la not aubjeet to the provlaima .o? the papulaory attendawe lawa, whethop or not he bar o-let& the 0-k of the ninth 6Frda. But a child whoattrlaa the age of airteen a?- ter the beglnnlng of the pub110free aohoola in hla dlatrlat la rubjeot to the prwlaloaa oi the oapulaory atteadance 16~ for thrt aohool period, udlraa he hra been 

### ted @w troa it0 ev%alona In aeoorbmoe with Article 

### 2 , l crbdlvlaZon , V. C. S.

$ **For** purpoaea of thla oplalonwehrre 

### rammed that the exeT ioua of Arttlole 

### 28 topod In l uMlrlaloaa 1 thmugh 4 

### 3 eranot involved 

### intha submitted 

### qwatioa.

Aohlld rho attalna the 8 e OSalxteen or 

### overbeSore the beglmlng o$ the pub110 free aohoola In hi8 dlatrlot la not aubjeot to the provlalona OSthe compulsory attendance lst, whether or not he hoe oompleted the 

### workOSthe ninth grade. Art.2892, et seq., V.C.S., 

### Art.297, et aeq-, V.P.C.; utler v. State 8l Tex.Crlm.167, 19 3-U.

. But a chlid whoattains the age o?Hon. Jaok C. Altaraa, pege 5 (V-ff%)

sixteen after the begInnIng m?the public free school8 Lnhia distrlot IS rubjeot to the provlslot~ of the 00m$ala0~ attendanoe law for that rohool has been exempted fxa Itsybag~~lga~; aooordanee vith Art1016 

### 08 9y

, 

### rubdlvl8laa 

### 5,V.C.8. Your0 vem truly, ATTORNBYGWlRALOF!PEXAS

CEO :mw 

## BY Cberrkr 1. Olllron A8818tant

APPROVZD