Court Opinion

ID: 9578381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:44:38.186833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:53.649351
License: Public Domain

Moore, J.,
dissenting:
My interpretation of the Pupil Assignment Law, G.S. 115-176 to G.S. 115-179, differs from that of a majority of the Court. To me the conclusion seems inescapable that a child has no such vested legal right to attend a school, outside the administrative unit in which he or she resides, as will permit him or her to appeal from a denial of permission therefor by the board of education of the home unit.
It is provided that “Each county and city board of education is . . . authorized and directed to provide for the assignment to a public *625school of each child residing within the administrative unit who is qualified under the public laws of this State for admission to a public school.” G.S. 115-176. This imposes a positive duty on each board of education. It is contemplated that the assignments will be to schools in and maintained by the administrative unit. The board of education has the corellative duty to provide and maintain schools for the pupils to attend.
Obviously emergencies may arise or unusual circumstances exist which would require or make advisable the assignment of children or a child to a school or schools outside the unit. To provide for such contingency it is written: “A child residing in one administrative unit may be assigned ... to a public school located in another administrative unit upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed in writing between the boards of education of the administrative units involved and entered upon the official record of such boards.” G.S. 115-176. This provision is permissive (“. . . may be . . .”) and not mandatory, and presupposes consent and agreement in writing between the boards of education of the affected units. It confers no right upon a child in the absence of the affirmative consent of both boards involved. In the instant case there is no writing and the Fremont Board has not consented.
Ordinary general assignments are made summarily by boards of education. Parents or guardians desiring their children to be reassigned may request such in writing and if the request is denied may obtain a hearing. “If, at the hearing, the board shall find that the child is entitled to be reassigned to such school (to which assignment is desired), or if the board shall find that the reassignment of the child to such school will be for the best interests of the child, will not interfere with the proper administration of the school, or with the proper instruction of the pupils there enrolled, and will not endanger the health or safety of the children, the board shall direct that the child be reassigned to and admitted to such school.” G.S. 115-178. Patently “such school” referred to in this provision is not a school of an outside administrative unit. Certainly it was not contemplated by the General Assembly that the board of education of Unit A should pass upon and make a determination of what will interfere with the proper administration, interfere with the proper instruction of pupils, and will endanger the health or safety of students, of a school of Unit B. A board is in a position to determine the conditions in one of its own schools, but not in a school under the jurisdiction of another board. The hearing and appeal provisions of the law do not logically apply to a proceeding such as that attempted in the case at bar.
*626• It was not intended that upon a showing that á child will receive better advantages in another administrative emit, and the unit can receive the child without injury, such child thereby becomes legally entitled to transfer to that unit if the “welcome mat” is out. Carried to its extreme but logical conclusion this theory could depopulate the schools of a small county, having small schools. Weaker administrative units will be helpless to prevent their desiccation.
Bobbitt, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.