by municipal laws. 10 One of the most important natural duties of the parent is the obligation to educate his child; and this duty he owes not to the child only, but to the commonwealth.11 If he neglects to perform it, or wilfully refuses to do so, he may be coerced by the law to execute such civil obligation.12 Free schooling furnished by the state is not so much a right granted to the pupils as a duty imposed on them for the public good.18 Ill health is generally made by statute a ground for excuse from school attendance, and a parent will not be convicted under such statute if he withdraws his child in good faith on account of illness. 14 A law will be held unreasonable and unconstitutional which requires a parent to procure the consent of the school board to his child's staying away from school in order to protect himself from the penalty of the law. It is sufficient if it is apparently reasonably necessary for the child's health and welfare that he should be kept out of school.15 It is also held in some cases that a child living at a great distance from any school is not obliged to attend school if no conveyance is furnished.16 A parent will not be forced to send his children to school, where the location of the only available school makes the approach of his children so dangerous that in the exercise of ordinary prudence the parent should not permit his children to go.17 The application of the school laws to Indians is treated in another place.18

81. What Constitutes Compliance.-The question as to what constitutes compliance with compulsory education statutes is of importance. These statutes do not require that children be sent to the public schools, but they vary greatly as to what shall constitute sufficient schooling in lieu thereof.19 Statutes requiring the attendance of children at public schools usually except from their provisions children who are otherwise educated for a like period in the subjects

10. State v. Bailey, 157 Ind. 324, 61 N. E. 730, 59 L.R.A. 435; State v. Jackson, 71 N. H. 552, 53 Atl. 1021, 60 L.R.A. 739.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1912A 373. 11. State v. Bailey, 157 Ind. 324, 61 N. E. 730, 59 L.R.A. 435.

12. State v. Bailey, 157 Ind. 324, 61 N. E. 730, 59 L.R.A. 435; State v. Jackson, 71 N. H. 552, 53 Atl. 1021, 60 L.R.A. 739; Fogg v. Board of Education, 76 N. H. 296, 82 Atl. 173, Ann. Cas. 1912C 758, 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1110; State v. Counort, 69 Wash. 361, 124 Pac. 910, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 95.

13. Bissell v. Davison, 65 Conn. 183, 32 Atl. 348, 29 L.R.A. 251; Fogg v.

Board of Education, 76 N. H. 296, 82 Atl. 173, Ann. Cas. 1912C 758, 37 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1110.

14. Note: Ann. Cas. 1912A 375. 15. State v. Jackson, 71 N. H. 552, 53 Atl. 1021, 60 L.R.A. 739.

16. Note: Ann. Cas. 1912A 375.

17. Williams v. Board of Education, 79 Kan. 202, 99 Pac. 216, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 584.

18. See INDIANS, vol. 14, pp. 122

At

pursued at the public schools. Under such a statute sending a child to a private day school approved by the school committee is enough to comply with the requirement of the law, without further inquiry. If the school committee has not approved of a particular school, or has expressly refused to approve of it, then the person having control of a child, if he sends the child to that school, must take the respon sibility of being able to prove that he has been sufficiently and properly instructed there.20 Some statutes require that children shall attend public or private schools. And the question then arises as to what constitutes a private school within the meaning of the statute. tempted instruction at home does not, unless a regular school is maintained there, comply with such a requirement, though undoubtedly a private school may be maintained in a private home in which the children of the instructor may be pupils. This provision of the law is not to be determined by the place where the school is maintained, nor the individuality or number of the pupils who attend it. It is to be determined by the purpose, intent, and character of the endeavor. Private tutoring in the branches taught in the public schools, for a sufficient length of time daily, generally fulfils the requirements of the statute.3 Other statutes provide broadly that children must attend the public schools unless they are under efficient instruction in some other manner. In such cases it is held that it is not necessary that outside instruction shall be in the identical branches taught in the public schools, or of equally high standard, provided it be such as to give the child an effective education.*

82. Who May Attend Schools.-Generally the statutes establishing free public schools make provision for defraying the expense of maintaining the schools located in a particular municipality or district by taxing the inhabitants thereof. The policy of these statutes is to impose on the taxpayers of each district the expense of educating the children of the inhabitants thereof. As a general rule, therefore, the free school privileges of a district, town, or city are open only to children, otherwise eligible, who are bona fide residents of that district, town, or city. The privilege accorded to the children

20. Note: Ann. Cas. 1912A 373 116 Ky. 484, 76 S. W. 354, 3 Ann. et seq. Cas. 692 and note.

1. State v. Counort, 69 Wash. 361, 124 Pac. 910, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 95. Note: Ann. Cas. 1912A 374. 2. State v. Counort, 69 Wash. 361, 124 Pac. 910, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 95. 3. Notes: 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 95; Ann. Cas. 1912A 374.

4. Bevan v. Shears, [1911] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 936, Ann. Cas. 1912A

Note. Ann. Cas. 1913B 1017. 6. Board of Education v. Foster, 116 Ky. 484, 76 S. W. 354, 3 Ann. Cas. 692 and note; State v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, 65 Wis. 631, 27 N. W. 829, 56 Am. Rep. 653.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1913B 1017.

7. Board of Education v. Foster, 116 Ky. 484, 76 S. W. 354, 3 Ann. Cas. 692 and note; Stanford Graded 5. Board of Education v. Foster, Common School Dist. v. Powell, 145

370.

of a state to attend the public schools maintained at the expense of the state is not a privilege or immunity appertaining to the child as a citizen of the United States within the provision of the federal constitution, and, therefore, no person can demand admission as a pupil in any school because merely of his being a citizen of the United States.8 The line which is drawn between different school districts seems to apply only where the schools of each district are supported by local taxation. Where, however, neither the district in which the pupil resides nor the district in which he attends school has adopted the provisions of the school law as to local taxation, there appears to be nothing to prevent the county board of education from allowing such pupil to attend school in the adjoining district. Children of Indian parents who are not members of any Indian tribe, and who conform to the customs and habits of civilization. have the right to attend the public schools of the district in which they reside.10

83. What Constitutes School Residence.-Although there is some conflict among the decisions as to what constitutes a residence which will entitle a child to school privileges, statutes providing for a free public school system are, by the weight of authority, construed as evidencing an intention on the part of the state that all the children within its borders shall enjoy the opportunity of a free education,11 and in determining whether a person is or is not a resident in a school district within the meaning of such a rule, the usual and ordinary indicia of residence or the absence thereof should be the proper guide.12 In line with this construction of the statutes, residence entitling an infant to school privileges is distinguished from domicil, or the technical and narrow use of the term "residence," for the purpose of suffrage or other like purposes, and it is construed in a liberal sense as meaning to live in, or be an inhabitant of, a school district,13 the purpose being not to debar from school privileges any child of school age found within the district under the care, custody, or control of a resident thereof.14 Such rule does not usually require that

Ky. 93, 140 S. W. 67, Ann. Cas. 1913B 1016 and note, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 31; Lake Farm v. District Board of School Dist. No. 2. 179 Mich. 171, 146 N. W. 115, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 234 and note; Black v. Graham, 233 Pa. 381. 86 Atl. 266, 44 L.R.A.(N.S.) 693 State v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, 65 Wis. 631, 27 N. W. 829, 56 Am. Ren 653.

Note: Ann. Cas. 19150 791.

8. Lebew v. Brummell, 103 Mo. 546, 15 S. W. 675, 23 A. S. R. 895, 11 L.R.A. 829

Notes: 14 L.R.A. 581; 3 Ann. Cas. 693.

9. Note: Ann. Cas. 1913B 1019.

10. Crawford v. Klamath County School Dist. No. 7, 68 Ore. 388, 137 Pac. 217, Ann. Cas. 1915C 477 and note, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 147 and note. 11. Notes: 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 341; Ann. Cas. 1915C 791.

12. Stanford Graded Common School Dist. v. Powell, 145 Ky. 93, 140 S. W. 67, Ann. Cas. 1913B 1016, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 341.

Note: 3 Ann. Cas. 694.

13. Notes: 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 341; Ann. Cas. 1915C 791.

14. Notes: 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 341; 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 234.

there shall be a legal domicil,15 but it is sufficient if the child and its parent, or the person in loco parentis, are actually resident in the district, with apparently no present purpose of removal.16 But other cases have held the term "residence" as used in school statutes

to be equivalent to the word "domicil." 17 For school purposes a child's residence is not necessarily the residence of its parent or parents, 18 though generally a child will be held to reside where its parents reside.19 If it has assumed a permanent home with some. other person, the school residence is with such person. 20 But in some cases, it has been held that a child living in a district apart from its parents is not a resident thereof for educational purposes unless legally adopted by the person with whom it lives, even though the arrangement has every appearance of permanence,1 and in some cases it is expressly provided by statute that the residence of children for school purposes shall be deemed to be the residence of the parents or guardian. A parent going temporarily into a district to reside during the scholastic year, for the purpose of sending his children to the school of that district, is not a bona fide resident of the district, entitled to school privileges for his children without payment of tuition. On the other hand a child may be considered a resident of the district, no matter how recently he has come in, if he has come with the bona fide intention of remaining permanently. Children gathered into a poorhouse or other institution from various places are, in contemplation of law, residents of the places from which they came and are generally not entitled to free admission to the schools of the district. in which the institution is located. In some cases this has been.

15. Stanford Graded Common School Dist v. Powell, 145 Ky. 93, 140 S. W. 67, Ann. Cas. 1913B 1016, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 341 and note.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1915C 791.

16. Stanford Graded Common School Dist. v. Powell, 145 Ky. 93, 140 S. W. 67, Ann. Cas. 1913B 1016, 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 341.

School Dist. v. Powell, 145 Ky. 93, 140 S. W. 67, Ann. Cas. 1913B 1016, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 341.

Note: 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 234.

1. Board of Education v. Foster, 116 Ky. 484, 76 S. W. 354, 3 Ann. Cas. 692 and note.

2. Black v. Graham, 238 Pa. St. 381, 86 Atl. 266, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.)

Notes: 3 Ann. Cas. 694; Ann. Cas. 693. 1915C 791.

17. Note: Ann. Cas. 1915C 791. 18. Stanford Graded Common School Dist. v. Powell, 145 Ky. 93, 14 S. W. 67, Ann. Cas. 1913B 1016, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 341.

Notes: 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 234; 3 Ann. Cas. 694.

19. Black v. Graham, 238 Pa. St. 381. 86 Atl. 266, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 693. And see DOMICIL, vol. 9, p. 547. 20. Stanford Graded Common R. C. L. Vol. XXIV.-40.

625

3. Notes: 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 343; 3 Ann. Cas. 694.

4. Note: 3 Ann. Cas. 694.

5. Lake Farm v. District Board of Dist. School No. 2, 179 Mich. 171, 146 N. W. 115, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 234 and note; Com. v. Brookville Borough School Dist., 164 Pa. St. 607, 30 Atl. 509, 26 L.R.A. 584.

Notes: 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 344; 3 Ann. Cas. 694.

based on the ground that such institutions do not pay any taxes and so do not contribute to the support of the schools. Similarly children committed by a court on probation to citizens of a district do not become residents of the district so as to be entitled to free schooling, but remain residents of the district wherein their parents or guardians reside, even though the act under which they are committed makes them wards of those in whose care they are placed, because they are in effect prisoners and are residing only temporarily in the district.8 84. Rights of Nonresidents.-Even where the cost of maintaining schools in a particular district is defrayed by local taxation, there is statutory authority in many jurisdictions for the transfer of pupils from the district in which they reside to an adjoining district. Usually these statutes are limited to cases in which attendance in another district would be more convenient for the pupils, or where there is no high school in the district in which they reside.10 In some cases it is provided that children living within a fixed distance of the boundaries of one district may attend the schools of that district.11 There are statutes which provide that a nonresident taxpayer may send his children to school in the district in which he pays taxes if the school in the district of his residence is not easily accessible.12 In some cases the legislature has left it to the discretion of the district authorities as to whether they shall admit nonresident children to the district schools. Such statutes confer no rights whatever on a nonresident child. The district may admit him or reject him as it chooses.13 The courts, recognizing the necessity of allowing school authorities large discretionary powers, have in numerous cases upheld the action of school boards in requiring pupils to attend a certain school although outside of the district of their residence or at a greater distance than the school nearest their residence; but such regulations, like all other regulations of the school authorities, must be reasonable.14 Statutes providing for the educa

6. Lake Farm v. District Board of School Dist. No. 2, 179 Mich. 171, 146 N. W. 115, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 234. 7. Oppegaard v. County Commissioners, 120 Minn. 443, 139 N. W. 949, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 936.

8. Black v. Graham, 238 Pa. St. 381, 86 Atl. 266, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 693.

9. Kent v. Town of Kentland, 62 Ind. 291, 30 Am. Rep. 182; Havelock High School Dist. No. 137 v. Lancaster County, 60 Neb. 147, 82 N. W. 380, 83 A. S. R. 525, 49 L.R.A. 343. Note: Ann. Cas. 1913B 1019. 10. Havelock High School Dist. No.

137 v. Lancaster County, 60 Neb. 147, 82 N. W. 380, 83 A. S. R. 525, 49 L.R. A. 343; Wilkinson v. Lord, 85 Neb. 136, 122 N. W. 699, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1104.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1913B 1019.

11. Edmondson v. Board of Education, 108 Tenn. 557, 69 S. W. 274, 58 L.R.A. 170.

12. Note: Ann. Cas. 1913B 1021. 13. State v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, 65 Wis. 631, 27 N. W. 829, 56 Am. Rep. 653.

14. Note: 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 584 et

seq.