Court Opinion

ID: 9553087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:21:55.386934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:40.225436
License: Public Domain

Brachtenbach, J.
(dissenting) — While it is not at all clear, the majority seems to premise its decision upon the notion that enrichment of educational opportunity does not provide a reason for release of a student to another district.
The majority's summary analysis does not go to the heart of the matter. The statute, RCW 28A.58.242, authorizes a release if the superintendent of public instruction finds a "detrimental condition of a[n] . . . educational . . . nature . . ."To say that enrichment of an educational opportunity is to be denied defies the very essence of a detrimental condition of an educational nature. It is an absolute non sequitur to hold that a detrimental educational condition is not solved by providing an educational enrichment. Otherwise stated, the regulation says that we must consider the fact that the student is not receiving an adequate educational experience, but that the student cannot be released to another district which could provide a better educational opportunity because that would be an educational enrichment which the regulations prohibit.
The statute does not contemplate nor authorize such a regulation. Therefore, it is beyond the authority of the adopting agency and cannot serve as the criterion for the superintendent's decisions.
I would affirm the trial court.
Andersen, J., concurs with Brachtenbach, J.
Reconsideration denied September 20, 1985.