Title: Norton v. BOARD OF ED. OF SCH. DIST. NO. 16, ETC.
Citation: 553 P.2d 1277, 89 N.M. 470
Docket Number: 10707
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: August 20, 1976

553 P.2d 1277 (1976) 89 N.M. 470 Cindy Lee NORTON and Jon Dwayne Norton, by their guardian and next friend, Virgil L. Welch, on behalf of themselves and as representatives for all students similarly enrolled in the elementary and secondary schools of the Hobbs Municipal Schools, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 16, HOBBS MUNICIPAL SCHOOLS, said Board Consisting of Jack D. Mussett, D.A. Cochran, Dale Cooper, Mrs. W.D. (Pat) Richards, and Bob Whitten, and the Superintendent of the Hobbs Municipal Schools, Nelson Tydings, Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellants. No. 10707. Supreme Court of New Mexico. August 20, 1976. Branch &amp; Branch, Albuquerque, Gallegos &amp; Welch, W.D. Welch, Tucumcari, for appellants. Warren F. Reynolds, Hobbs, for appellees. McMANUS, Justice. This suit was brought in the District Court of Lea County as a class action to declare those fees collected from students by the Hobbs Municipal Schools as contrary to the Constitution of the State of New Mexico which requires in Article XII, § 1, that "[a] uniform system of free public schools sufficient for the education of, and open to, all the children of school age in the state shall be established and maintained;" to enjoin the defendant, Hobbs Municipal Schools, from collecting fees from students enrolled in the Hobbs Municipal Schools; and to require the Hobbs Municipal Schools to return to the plaintiffs and to all other students similarly situated and enrolled since August, 1972, all fees collected and paid, for those school *1278 years since the date of the Attorney General's opinion (April 17, 1972) that advised the Hobbs Municipal Schools of the illegality of their action in collecting these fees. After a trial to the court, judgment was entered granting plaintiffs only partial relief by barring only fees for identification cards, physical education towels, and general science workbooks. Plaintiffs' request for judgment declaring all fees collected by the defendant unconstitutional, for an injunction to prohibit collection of such fees in the future, and for the return of all fees collected for the school years after the date of the Attorney General's opinion was denied. From that judgment, plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiffs allege four points of error on this appeal as follows: Article XII, § 1 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico reads as follows: Plaintiffs maintain that this section prohibits a school system from making charges of any kind. In Bond v. Public Schools of Ann Arbor School Dist., 383 Mich. 693, 178 N.W.2d 484 (1970), as in most other cases reported on this subject, it was held (1) that the Michigan state constitution clearly requires that elementary and secondary education be provided without cost or charge to the student, (2) that books and school supplies are an essential part of a system of free public elementary and secondary schools, and (3) that, therefore, the collection of general fees and the requirement that pupils purchase their own books and supplies were unconstitutional. We agree with this general statement, but it does not fit the exact factual situation in the case before us. In our opinion the words in our Constitution, "free public schools sufficient for the education * * *," do not mean that all courses offered should be free. Only those courses "sufficient for the education" should be "free" in the sense of this constitutional provision. See Paulson v. Minidoka County School District No. 331, 93 Idaho 469, 463 P.2d 935 (1970). Thus, we hold that courses required of every student shall be without charge to *1279 the student. Reasonable fees may be charged for "elective" courses. The New Mexico Board of Education shall define what are "required" or "elective" courses in the educational system of New Mexico. As to point II, supra, the evidence reflects a good faith endeavor to comply with the proposition that no fees be charged for required courses. Point III, supra, refers to driver's education. If this is a "required" course then such decision should be made by the new Mexico Board of Education, as this opinion indicates. Point IV, supra, refers to attorney's fees for appellants herein. Such attorney's fees are not provided for in the laws of New Mexico. Therefore, it is the opinion of the court that the decision of the trial court will be affirmed. The cross appeal of the Appellees will be denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. OMAN, C.J., and MONTOYA, J., concur.