Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1874-06-18


Bile to be punished by the parents
for disobeying his orders in regard
to his studies and the teacher may
lawfully chastise HIM for not DISC
beying his parents in atparticular.
And yet this was the precise diem
ma in which the DESCENDANTS boy was
placed by the asserted authority on
the part Of parent and teacher.
Now we can see no reason what
ever for denying to the father the
right to direct what studies included
in the prescribed course his child
shall take. He is as likely to know
the health, temperament, aptitude
and Deficiencies of his child as the
teacher, and how long he can send
him to school All these matters
ought to be considered 10 determin-
ing the question what particular
studies the child should pursue at a
given term. And where the parents
wishes were reasonable as they seem
to have been in the present case and
the teacher by regarding them could
in no way have been embarrassed her
conduct in not respecting the orders
given the boy was unjustifiable. If
She had allowed the child to obey
the commands of his father it could
not possibly have conficted with the
efficiency or good order or well being
Of the school. The parent did not
propose to interfere with the grada-
ton or classification of the school, or
with anylof its rules and regulations
further than to assert his right TO d.
rect what studies his boy should pur-
sue that winter. And it seems TO us.
a most unreasonable claim on the
part of the teacher to say the parent
has not that right aud further TO in
sist that she was justified IN punish
ing the child for obeying the orders
of his father rather than her own.
| Whence again we inquire, did the
teacher derive this exclusive and
paramount authority over the child
and the right to direct his studies
contrary to the wish of his father !?
1t seems to US it is idle to say the
parent by sending his child to school
implicitly clothes the teacher with
that power in case whore the par
ent expressly reserves the right to
himself and refuses to submit TO the
Judgment of the teacher the question
as to what studies his boy should
pursue. We do not intend to lay
| down any rule which will interior e
| with any reasonable regulation
adopted for the management and
government of the public schools or
which will operate against their eff
ficiencY and usefulness. Certain
studies are required 10 be taught in
the public schools by statute The
rights of one pupil must be so exer-
cised individually as not to preju-
dice the equal rights of Others. But
the person has the right to make a
reasonable selection from the pre-
seribed studies for his child TO pur.
sue and this cannot possibly conflict
with the equal rights OF other pupils.
In the presen case the defendant
didlnot insist that his child should
take any study outside of the pre-
scribed course. But considering
that the study Of geography was less
necessary for his boy at that time
than some other branches he desired
him to devote all his time to orthog-
raphy. residing, writing and arithme-
tic. The father stated that be
thought these studies were enough
for the child TO take and he said he
was anxious the boy should obtain a
good knowledge of arithmetic in OF
der that he might assist in Keeping
| accounts. He wished to exercise
some control over the education of
his son and it is impossible to say
that the choice of studies which he
made was unreasonable or incontist-
emit with the welfare and best inter-
est of his offspring. And how it
will result disastrously to the proper
discipline, efficiency and we'll being
of the common schools to concede
this paramount right to the parent to
make a reasonable choice from the
studies in the prescribed course which
his child shall pursue is a proposition
we cannot understand. The counsel
for the plaintiff so insists in their ar
gument but as we think without war;
rant for the position. 1t is unreason-
able to suppose every scholar who at
tends school, can or will study all the
branches taught in them. From the
nature of the case some choice must
be made and some discretion be ex-
ercised as to the studies which the
different pupils shall pursue. The
parent is quite as likely to make a
wise and judicious selection as the
teacher. At all events in case of
difference of opinion between the par
ent and teacher upon the subject we
see no reason for holding that the
views of the teacher must prevail and
that she has the right to compel ODE
dience to her orders by inflicting cor
poral punishment upon the pupil.
The statute gives the school board
power to make all needful rules and
regulations for the organization, gra-
dation and government of the school,
and power to suspend any pupil from
the privileges of the school for nom
compliance with the rules established
by them or by the teacher with their
consent and it is not proposed to
throw any obstacle in the way. of the
performance of these duties. But
these powers and duties can be well
fulfilled without denying to. the parent
all right to control the education of
his children Ill
These views are decisive of this
case.I Under the. circumstances the
plaintiff had no right to punish the
boy for obedience to the commands of
his father in respect to the study of
geography. She entirely exceeded
any authority which the law gave her,
and the assault upon the child was
N ahln