Court Opinion

ID: 9851129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:07:42.420426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:49.303312
License: Public Domain

BebRy, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the majority opinion for the simple reason that I do not think the statute providing for transportation of school children at public expense applies to parochial or private schools.
The part of the statute pertaining to this matter, Code, 18-5-13, subsection (6), as amended, reads as follows:
“(6) To provide at public expense adequate means of transportation for all children of school age who live more than two miles distant from school by the nearest available road and to provide at public expense and according to such regulations as the board may establish, adequate means of transportation for school children participating in board-approved curricula and extracurricular activities; and provide in addition thereto, by rules and regulations and within the available revenues, transportation for those within two miles distance * * (Emphasis supplied. )
It appears to be clear that under this subsection the boards of education must furnish transportation at public expense to all children of school age who live more than two miles from the school they attend who participate in board-approved curricular and extracurricular activities. Certainly the parochial and private schools in this State do not desire the boards to control and approve all of the curricular and extracurricular activities of their schools because if this was done they would in effect be the same in this respect as public schools. The boards would have the authority to control or approve the activities of such schools, such as all religious *126activities, military training and any other related activity including any prayers given in the classrooms.
The entire statute, Code, 18-5-13, as amended, applies to public schools and not to private or parochial schools. It is therefore apparent that the Legislature intended the transportation of school children at public expense to apply only to all public school children.
It was stated by this Court in the case of Gissy v. Board of Education, 105 W.Va. 429, 143 S.E. 111, that the State Board of Education had no supervision over schools other than public schools because there was no statute that gave it such power or jurisdiction and if such was the case such schools would scarcely be private. Therefore, if the statute in question is applicable to parochial and private schools it in effect makes them public schools under the supervision of the boards of education in connection with the curricular and extracurricular activities of such schools.
I do not think it was the intention of the statute with regard to transportation of all children of school age to give such regulation or supervision over such schools to the boards, and if this is true the statute applies only to public school children of school age over which the boards have such jurisdiction and not to school children in parochial or private schools.