The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1917-02-23
COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE.

Sanger, N. D., Feb. 90, II.
Editor The Tribune,
Bismarck, y. D.
Dear Sir:
As current comment relative to our
compulsory school attendance Law
seems to be growing, a few remarks
anent the subject appear to be in or
der
Such law Is universally perceived
and acknowledged as both suspicious
and propitious, and nothing here in
preached is calculated to express
sentiment derogatory to the general
idea or rules expressed by the statute.
But it is intended to attract attention
to the fact that, as framed, the law is
not altogether an unmilitated benign
ity
In common school districts the
school board has rather prerogatory
power to name any seven, or more
months out Of the IL calendar months.
as constituting school terms And, in
order to make these terms convenient
for the older pupils who wish to work
during spring, summer and fall sea-
sons, the winter time is custOmarily
fixed on as one continuous period of
| school time.
There is no discretionary power, in
herent or otherwise (Outside of a few
| limited and we'll defined lines) per-
hitting the excuse of nOn-attendance:
! the spirit of the law (presuming it
has one) is set forth in body and
! form of memorable print-words un-
ambiguous and strictly mandatory to
the effect that, provided the school
board tenders an amount varying lin
their dscretion) from 15c to 35c a
day for any one family.
| (This is merely nominal presump-
tive payment Of transportation where
none is actually furnished by the
board and is rendered to those resid-
ing over 2A miles from the nearest
! school, direct route.) Every child OF
school age (fere means from to -
wears of age) within five miles of the
school house must positively go to
school every school day. (Statute
says "the entire time schools are
| in SESSION.
This may be reasonable in town,
but it most assuredly is not in the
rural territory, especially in the thin
ly settled districts. where, often, the
full distance home. even up to five
miles. is gone over without passing
close to dwelling. Who can justly
say that parent shall. every day (no
matter how situated whether without
means of locomotion, or health. per-
hitting his exposure to the weather,
| regardless of the amount Of chores,
etc, he may have to perform, or OF
exigencies temporarily arising be in
excusably held to take and get the
children? Yet, here stares him in the
face this stringent law pronouncing a
penalty OF from S. to $50 for first Of
Tense and from SO to $50 for each
subsequent offense. fAnd every single
days absence is probably separate
offense.)
Instead of being criminal not to
send children, in our sparsely settled
communities. in country where such
treacherous, suddenly changing and
extremely severe conditions obtain as
are prevalent here, it should be actu-
ally criminal negligence or worse tn
permit children to go the distance,
often necessary, alone. It is folly, to
far degree. to suppose child can.
with any safety, start four miles
across these monumentless, landmark
less, almost trackless sections, even
in clear weather, where storms blow
up so suddenly and where adults are
| frequently caught and perish; where
| it is not uncommon, in a sense, to
read in newspaper: Lost while 60
ing from the barn to the house in Fri
days raging blizzard"
I venture the statement that at
least half of the members of our rural
school boards, realizing these things,
are adverse to full enforcement and
agree that the strict letter Of the law
/ is vicious. And expect many Of the
little tads, with frost gnawed extremf-
ties thrust upon them through COM
pliance with this law, would say it
was not only repugnant to reason but
next to heinous.