Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1919-09-10
THE CoMPULs6RY ATTENDANCE
Law and Mr.. McDOnald's Interpreta-
& tion Of Its Provisions.
Keowee Courier:

compulsory attendance was read by
me with marked interest, first, be-
cause Of the patent lack Of logical
reasoning (Which was to be expect
: ed, and, second, because it has so
hampered me In my efforts to secure
a uniform attendance in our schools
that j have found it impossible to
continne in the position Of attend
stEce officer.
! have labored strenuously to apply
s%the law as interpreted for me by the
State Superintendent Of Education
and the Attorney Generals office. Mr..
McDonald's Interpretation offers en-
couragement to those who are op-
posed to the law, and renders my
efforts nugatory.
The accident which made Mr.. Nc
Donald member Of the General AS
:sembly at the time Of the passage of
this law lends no weight to his judg-
ment in its true Interpretation.
Though he has been nine years at,
the bar, he seems ignorant Of the
fact that our State government is
divided into three branches, viz:
The legislative, which makes the
laws; the judicial, which interprets
the law; and the administrative,
which enforces the law. Mr.. McDon-
aid belongs to the first and l to the
last class. He has nothing to do with
Its Interpretation, while 1t is my duty
to enforce the law as find it wri,-
ten. The Supreme Court alone can
decide the question of what the law
really means.
Mr.. Mcdonald says that the ques-
ton as to the months when a child
shall go to school is left to the par
'ents. II he would-consult an attor-
ney he would find that this IS not
true, but, on the contrary, our courts
must decide this
very frankly admit that the COM
pulsory attendance law Is ambigu-
Gus, poorly drawn and illogical in its
language. This is not surprising,
though, when we consider the per-
'sonnel Of the majority Of the Legis-
lature. However, the Supreme Court
must say, if it be possible, just what
the law means.
Mr.. Mcdonald says that the child
may be sent any eighty days during
the term Suppose a child should go
to school for one month, twenty con-
secutive school days, and then stop.
The attendance officer then would at
tempt to force the child in, and the
parent would say, ooh, III wait till
the last three months, and start him
in again" What could the attend
ance officer do? Nothing.
Suppose parent should keep the
child from school till the last four
months, and then the school should
stop, as our rural schools often do,
before the full term is reached? The
school ran for more than four
months. but the child did not attend.
The parent has violated the law, but
q al 10, Nm =
this till the school closed short Of
the full contemplated term. What
would Mr.. Mcdonald have us do In
this case?
Under his Interpretation child
could go to nine-months' school
two days in each week till the last
two weeks, and then put in solid
time. What GOOD would such attend
ance do? If Mr.. Mcdonald had ever
taught school he would know that
such child gets no good from the
school, but because of the time he
takes from the teacher, he is real
drawback to the other children.
| wonder If Mr.. Mcdonald can ex-
plain Section II Of this attendance
9aw. 1t follows:
THAT 1t shall be the duty Of
each teacher, principal or super
intendent of any school to noti-
fy, al once. the attendance Off
Ger Of the absence Of any child
between eight and fourteen
years Of age. from school; and
any teacher, principal or super
intendent wilfully neglecting or
refusing to report any absence
To the attendance officer shall
have deducted from his or her
salary for the current month five
dollars ($5.0O) for each offense,
the same to be deducted by the
County superintendent Of Edu-
cation
Why should the teacher be re-
quired to report the absentees IL the
attendance does not have to be con-
secntive days?
The Interpretation OF Mr.. McDon-
aid Is the Interpretation Of one anx-
ious to please. .Rut If that be the
true intent Of the law, then the
whole thing is Il farce, and the thou
sands Of dollars that he and others
appropriated for the enforcement of
this law will be wasted, and a bur
q re nOouchrl csi?s csbran csrmmmh
dth Q" cur people.
Whose Interpretation Is tho more
coincident with reason, Mr.. McDon-
AIDS or mine? Let the Supreme
Court say.
Another question I might ask in
regard to Nr. McDonald's various as
sertions is, how many does it take
TO constitute q majority OF the Wal
h":;r b@rA The number two Consti-
tues Z majority Q: no whole but
three Has the local bar suddenly
n a n nf