Title: Choal v. Lyman Independent Sch. Dist. No. 12 Bd. of Ed.
Citation: 214 N.W.2d 3
Docket Number: 11242-REV-JMD
State: south-dakota
Issuer: south-dakota Supreme Court
Date: January 10, 1974

214 N.W.2d 3 (1974) Sue CHOAL and Everett Fletcher et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. LYMAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 12 BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellant. No. 11242-rev-JMD. Supreme Court of South Dakota. January 10, 1974. *4 Johnson &amp; Johnson, Charles Rick Johnson, Gregory, for plaintiffs and respondents. Brost &amp; Brost, Dallas E. Brost, Presho, for defendant and appellant. DOYLE, Justice. This appeal involves the question of whether the action taken by the Board of Education for the Lyman Independent School District No. 12, by assigning the seventh and eighth grade students of Reliance to the Kennebec Junior High School, amounts to a closing of the Reliance Elementary School. The present Lyman Independent School District No. 12 is the result of the reorganization of four former independent school districts, Vivian, Presho, Kennebec and Reliance. The district operates one high school at Presho, a junior high at Kennebec and four elementary schools, one at each of the above-mentioned towns. The sixth, seventh and eighth grade students from Kennebec and Presho and the seventh and eighth grade students from Vivian are assigned to the junior high school in Kennebec. The controversy arose in June 1972, when the appellant at a regular school board meeting, upon motion, assigned the seventh and eighth grade students of Reliance to the Kennebec Junior High School.[1] This assignment was against the wishes and without the approval of the parents and resident voters, the respondents herein. The respondents brought action and the circuit court ruled that the appellant was required by SDCL 13-6-9 to operate grades one through eight at Reliance until such time the resident voters voted to terminate the operation of the elementary school. The respondents contend the action taken by the appellant constituted a closing of the elementary school without the requisite approval of the voters pursuant to SDCL 13-6-9. SDCL 13-6-9 in relevant part provides: The respondents argue that the legislature intended the term "elementary school" to mean the first eight grades. Therefore, the appellant has in effect closed the Reliance Elementary School by its failure to maintain all eight grades there. Although we find no explicit definition regarding the number of grades necessary to constitute an elementary school, we cannot accept the respondents' view that eight grades are necessary. It is our opinion that the appellant had the power to make the assignment under SDCL 13-28-15. SDCL 13-28-15 provides: The record is clear that the Reliance school is presently open and operating with grades one through six. This being the case, we cannot agree with the trial court's conclusion that the school had been closed by the action taken by the appellant. Reversed. BIEGELMEIER, C. J., and WOLLMAN and DUNN, JJ., concur. WINANS, J., dissents. WINANS, Justice (dissenting). I dissent from the opinion in the foregoing case for the reason that the majority opinion misstates the problem involved when it says, as it does say, "We cannot accept the respondents' view that eight grades are necessary". It is plain to me that if there are no seventh graders or eighth graders or any other graders from one to eight, whatever remains is still an elementary school, and respondents do not contend to the contrary. What the respondents do contend, however, and what the lower court held, is that the school board had no authority to transfer the seventh and eighth grade students from the Reliance elementary school to Kennebec against the wishes of the parents until the resident voters of the area vote to cease operating said school or grades as required by SDCL 13-6-9. The lower court expressed the law well in a memorandum decision and I wish to borrow from that memorandum decision because I believe it expresses the problems involved here as well as the governing law much better than the majority opinion of this Court. Quote from the opinion of the lower court: "SDCL 13-6-9 in its present form states: It is my opinion that the circuit court recognized the problem and the law applicable to that problem and that this Court should sustain rather than reverse its judgment. I further believe that the ruling by this Court that the school board could make the transfers of the seventh and eighth graders without an election will allow them to transfer other grades in coming years, calling it a Junior High School or some other name than "elementary", and thus allow them to do by indirection what SDCL 13-6-9 absolutely prohibits. Another point that should be considered, and which the majority opinion completely overlooks, is that the statute on which the school board appears to be relying (SDCL 13-28-15) states specifically that the school board shall take into consideration the wishes of the patrons as well as the best interests of the students in the district. It is clear beyond doubt, and not even questioned, that the patrons of the district, parents of the children in the seventh and eighth grades so transferred, did not wish the transfer to be made. Whether the best interests of the students so transferred are served under such circumstances is an unresolved question. I would affirm. [1] According to the record seven students are involved in the assignment. [2] Ch. 85, § 8, S.L.1973 amended the statute and substituted: "former common school district area" for "area" in the first sentence, and made other changes not pertinent herein.