Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1880-08-14
THE POWER OF SCHOOL BOARDS TO
GOVERN SCHOOLS.

The following is the full text of the
opinion delivered by Judge Napton,
of the supreme court, concerning
powers OF school boards to make
rules for the government OF schools:
E. l.. King vs.. Jefferson City School
Board.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The only question in this case is
whether rule II, adopted and en-
forced by the board 10 the Jefferson
City school district, in the case OF
the plaintiffs son, is legal one.
The question arose OIL demurrer
to defendants answer, which set up
breach Of this rule by plaintiffs son
as Justification for his suspension.
The circuit court sustained the de-
murrer.
The rule II is rs follows:
"Any pupil absent six half days i'll
four consecutive weeks, without salts
| factory excuse, shall be suspended
rom school," The statute provides
(Rev. ST. 1879, 81, ,045) that "the board
shall have the power to make all need
ful rules and regulations fer the
organization, grading and govern
nent of the school in their district"
Ii is clear that the legislature have
entrusted to the school board the
duty of making regulations touching
the government OF the school of the
necessity and propriety of which they
are primarily, the Judges. They are
elected by the people Of the district /,
and must be presumed to be cohver
SAINT with the subject, and have no
motive to'make any rules except such
as i'll their best jndgn,em, are necessa-
ry and proper 10 promote the objects
| of our common sch al system. That
the judiciary might intervene in case
of rules, manifc>tly reaching beyond
| their sphere Ot action, and relating
to subjects nOwise connected with
the management or successful opera
tion of the school, was decided by
this court in Drift VS.. Snodgrass, &C
Mo. R., 2S6, aud that the courts nigh,
interfere also III case where the rule
was calculated to subvert or retard
the leading object of our Legislation
OH the subject, may be conceded. But
| .apprehend that the case should be 9
plain one.
1t is said that occasional absences
from school on the part of the pupil
or .:truancv," as it is fatniliarly term
ell, is of no Importance to any ont
except the pupil or his parents, ant
, its indulgence is therefore not TO bt
attended with such punishment a:
suspension or expulsion from schoo
entirely-that every child has righ
TO 90 to the public school, and tha
right can not be taken away by ,
rule of the boarJl; that such rule il
subversive of the object of our sys
TEN of common schools, which wa!
! designed to th,ow open the door o
the school TO all children Of the prop
er age and give them an opportuhit!
of acquiring such education as will
tit them for the after duties of life
This is true; but this right of attend
ing school necessarily requires, whel
the school is Joined, and whilst sucl
attendance continues, a su submission I,
the regulations OF the school. Sup
pose rule IL to be inverted and in
/ stead Of reading as it now stand.
should read thus "Auy pupil is a
liberty to go fishing during scheo
hours, and be absent a half day or
whole day and as many days as h,
pleases, provided he conducts him
self decently when i'll attendance OF
schools" Aud this is the point Il
which the argument OF the plaintiff
tends. The pupil, it is urged, is a
[ liberty to be absent when lie plcases
and such absence is a matter soiel,
bet tween him and his parents. Bu
the studies i'll our public school are
presume, classified according to tn
r ages and advancement OF the scholar
and the continued or repeated all
seuce of one of the class not only j
injurious to the absentee, but if al
lowed beyond a certain point is cal
culated to demoralize those who at
tend and deramge the orderly inslruc
tions Of the teacher.
Taxes are not collected to pa
3 teachers to sit in front OF empt
benches, or for pursuing truan
pupils. Such absences, when withou
excuse, are the fault of the parent:
whose business it is to see that tn
ATTENDANCE OF their child is regular
unless prevented by causes whic
will, OF course, be an excuse unte
The rule now in ques tiou. q.s 2
:. My opinion is that the rule in quei
: ton was clearly within the power O
b the board of trustees and. that it
not our business to survise its eXpe
diency, even if We might differ wit
the board on that point but all th
Judges are of the opinion that til
: rule was a reasonable and proper ont
The Judgment will therefore be IT
versed and the case remanded.