Case Name: Jimmy WILLIAMS, by Marie WILLIAMS, His Mother and Next Friend v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE MARIANNA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1982-01-11
Citations: 274 Ark. 530
Docket Number: 81-72
Parties: Jimmy WILLIAMS, by Marie WILLIAMS, His Mother and Next Friend v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE MARIANNA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Judges: Purtle, J., dissents.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 274
Pages: 530–536

Head Matter:
Jimmy WILLIAMS, by Marie WILLIAMS, His Mother and Next Friend v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR THE MARIANNA SCHOOL DISTRICT
81-72
626 S.W. 2d 361
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered January 11, 1982
Charles Q. Grimm, of East Ark. Legal Services, Inc., for appellant.
Daggett, Daggett & Van Dover, by: Jimason J. Daggett, for appellee.

Opinion:
Darrell Hickman, Justice.
The Circuit Court of Lee County, Arkansas, refused to issue a writ of mandamus to the Board of Education for the Marianna School District to reinstate the appellant as a student. Jimmy Williams, the appellant, was expelled from school for excessive absenteeism and sought the writ. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
Williams, a sixteen year old, was a sophomore in the Marianna schools. He had missed his physical science class fourteen times in one semester and was expelled. He went before the principal, superintendent and school board objecting to the decision.
On appeal from the circuit court decision, Williams raises four arguments for reversal: That the court failed to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law as requested by Williams; that he was denied due process; that state law does not permit a school board to dismiss a student for nonattendance; and, that the school board failed to follow its own rules and that the rules are vague, indefinite, unreasonable, and, therefore, unconstitutional. The only issue of substance raised is the one regarding the school rules and policy.
It is argued that the rules only permit a student to be expelled if he has missed twelve days, not twelve classes, and that the school officials wrongly expelled him. The school rules were not all a part of the record, but we do have before us provisions of those rules which read:
Attendance: A pupil is expected to attend every day of school and to attend every class to which he is assigned during each day of school. An account must be made of each instance wherein a pupil fails to meet this expectation.
A pupil may miss no more than twelve (12) days per semester excused or unexcused from any class and receive credit for course work.
Excessive absenteeism is sufficient grounds for expulsions of any pupil. Excessive absenteeism shall be defined as failure to attend school a sufficient number of days to be eligible for credit in course work.
These provisions obviously permit a student to be expelled for what Williams undisputably did; he missed one course over twelve times and, for that reason he could not receive credit for the course, and he could be expelled. Williams admitted that he missed the classes stating that he could not understand the course. He stayed on the school grounds during that class period, usually watching football practice. He argues that the rules mean that he had to miss school a total of twelve days without attending any classes before he could be expelled. Williams actually was absent only four full days but he had missed the physical science class ten other times.
We cannot say that the school rules or their interpretation by school authorities are unconstitutionally vague or indefinite. Certainly, we cannot say that the court was wrong in denying a writ of mandamus on such a discretionary matter.
The other issues are also without merit. Before trial the appellant filed a motion for written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The motion was not renewed and there is no evidence that such a request was made to the court during or after the hearing. The court, orally from the bench, elaborated on why the writ was denied. We cannot find any prejudicial error on this issue.
The argument that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 80-1656 (Repl. 1980) does not permit a student to be expelled for nonattendance was precisely the argument in Fortman v. Texarkana School Dist. No. 7, 257 Ark. 130, 514 S.W. 2d 720 (1974). We held that that statute allows schools and school boards to make reasonable rules and regulations necessary to orderly administration.
Williams and his mother met with the principal. Williams' mother met with the school superintendent. Williams and his mother appeared before the school board with a lawyer and a record was made of that hearing. There was an abundance of due process in this case.
The decision to dismiss Williams was one within the power of the board. This court does not have the power to substitute its judgment for that of such a board. Safferstone v. Tucker, 235 Ark. 70, 357 S.W. 2d 3 (1962); Pugsley v. Sellmeyer, 158 Ark. 247, 250 S.W. 538 (1923). We can only determine whether the judgment was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. We cannot so find in this case.
Affirmed.
Purtle, J., dissents.