Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-255_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 20

6 

MAHANOY AREA SCHOOL DIST. v. B. L. 

ALITO, J., concurring 

of the power of the parent committed to his charge, [namely,] 
that of restraint and correction, as may be necessary to an-
swer the purposes for which he is employed.”  1 W. Black-
stone,  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England  441  (1765) 
(some emphasis added). 

Blackstone’s explanation of the doctrine seems to treat it 
primarily  as  an  implied  term  in  a  private  employment
agreement between a father and those with whom he con-
tracted  for  the  provision  of  educational  services  for  his
child,9 and therefore the scope of the delegation that could 
be inferred depended on “the purposes for which [the tutor
or schoolmaster was] employed.”  Ibid.  If a child was sent 
to a boarding school, the parents would not have been in a
position to monitor or control the child’s behavior or to at-
tend to the child’s welfare on a daily basis, and the school-
master would be regarded as having implicitly received the 
authority to perform those functions around the clock while 
the child was in residence.  On the other hand, if parents
hired a tutor to instruct a child in the home on certain sub-
jects during certain hours, the scope of the delegation would 
be different.  The tutor would be in charge during lessons,
but  the  parents  would  retain  most  of  their  authority.    In 
short, the scope of the delegation depended on the scope of 
the agreed-upon undertaking.

Today, of course, the educational picture is quite differ-
ent.  The education of children within a specified age range
is compulsory,10 and States specify the minimum number of 

—————— 

9 In a sensational and highly publicized mid-19th century case, there 
was an express delegation, Regina v. Hopley, 2 F. & F. 202, 175 Eng. Rep.
1024 (N. P. 1860), but in other 19th century cases, the delegation was 
inferred.  See Fitzgerald v. Northcote, 4 F. & F. 656, 176 Eng. Rep. 734 
(N. P. 1865); State v. Osborne, 24 Mo. App. 309 (1887). 

10 See Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 660, n. 14 (1977) (noting that 
“compulsory  school  attendance  laws  were  in  force  in  all  the  States”  by 
1918).