Page images
PDF
EPUB

all circumstances. But I am utterly unable to understand how this simple rule or regulation, requiring the pupil in certain cases to bring a written excuse from its parents to the teacher, is an attack upon, or an abridgment of, our inalienable rights as citizens of this free country." (13 Ill A 520)

Tardiness is among the most serious obstacles to successful discipline and instruction, and may be rigorously suppressed.

Tardiness, that is, arriving late, is a direct injury to the whole school. The confusion of hurrying to seats, gathering together books, etc., by tardy ones, at a time when all should be at study, cannot fail to greatly impede the progress of those who are prompt and regular in attendance. The rule requiring prompt and regular attendance is demanded for the good of the whole school. (31 Ia 562, 111 Ind 472)

In Oregon tardiness for more than one hour counts as a half-day's absence in reckoning the absence for which a pupil may be suspended.

In 1853, the superintendent decided that "teachers have the right to close the doors of their school-room against all pupils who may claim admission fifteen minutes after the time of opening the school." (D 1687). Later decisions have ruled that the teacher should not keep tardy pupils in the entry, especially in cold weather (605, 87 Ill 393). See pages 165, 6.

In Wisconsin, the superintendent decides that "to lock the door against tardy pupils, say at ten o'clock, is of doubtful propriety. The schoolhouse is a public place. The tardiness may not be the fault of the child. It might be a serious discomfort to the child to be Let the school be made attractive." ness is, of course, a great annoyance. how far the courts would sustain rules school for being late. It is doubtful

turned back home.. And again: "TardiIt is difficult to say excluding pupils from whether it is good

policy to turn tardy scholars into the street, perhaps to get into mischief; perhaps to suffer from cold, from waiting outside; certainly to lose more time. Persuasion, attractive lessons in the morning, an attractive school, privation of recesses, final degradation to a lower class if all fails, would perhaps be better remedies."-Wis. Journal of Eďn, 1877, p. 125.

One of the pupils in one of the public schools of Shelbyville, Ind., came to the school-room door on an extremely cold morning in Jan., 1885, and found it locked. She therefore returned to her home through the cold and snow, and as a result both feet were frozen and permanently injured. Judge Niblack said that tardiness is a recognized offence against the good order and proper management of all schools, and that a tardy pupil ought not, therefore, to complain of some inconvenience or annoyance of having to remain in some other part of the building for the short period of time required to complete the morning exercises; but he said that in enforcing such a rule, due regard must be had to the health, comfort, age, and mental circumstances attending each particular emergency.

He went further, and said that teachers should relax somewhat from the strict enforcement of rules in cases of physical or mental infirmity, and that no rule, however reasonable it might be in its general application, should be enforced when that would inflict actual or unnecessary suffering. He said that the habit of locking the door during the morning exercises was not unreasonable under ordinary circumstances, but that when done on an extremely cold morning, special care and attention should be given to such pupils as might be obliged to wait in some other part of the building. (69 Ind 295)

(12 Allen 127, 8 Cush 160, 79 Ill 567, 87 Ill 303, 56 Ia 476, 38 Me 376, 105 Mass 475, 59 N H 473, 29 Ohio 89, 23 Pick 224, 32 Vt 224, 24 Wis 683, 35 Wis 59, 63 Wis 234)

Absence is also a direct interference with both the discipline and the progress of the school and, reasonable regulations against it may be enforced.

In Mo., suspension for 6 half days' absence in 4 consecutive weeks has been upheld, and in Ia. for 6 half days' absence and 2 instances of tardiness in the same time. In this last case, Judge Beck said: “It requires but little experience in the instruction of children and youth to convince any one that the only means which will assure progress in their studies is to secure their attendance, the application of the powers of their mind to the studies in which they are instructed. Unless the pupil's mind is open to receive instruction, vain will be the effort of the teacher to lead him forward in learning. This application of the mind in children is secured by interesting them in their studies. But this cannot be done if they are at school one day and at home the next; if a recitation is omitted or a lesson left unlearned at the whim or convenience of parents. In order to interest a child he must be able to understand the subject in which he is instructed. If he has failed to prepare previous lessons he will not understand the one which the teacher explains to him. If he is required to do double duty, and prepare a previous lesson, omitted in order to make a visit or do an errand at home, with the lesson of the day, he will fail to master them and become discouraged. The inevitable consequence is that his interest flags and he is unable to apply the powers of his mind to the studies before him. The rule requiring constant and prompt attendance is for the good of the pupil and to secure the very objects the law had in view in establishing public schools. It is therefore reasonable and proper.

"In another view it is required by the best interests of all the pupils of the school. Irregular attendance of the pupils not only retards their own progress, but interferes with the progress of those pupils who may be regular and prompt. The whole class may be annoyed and hindered by the imperfect recitations of one who has failed to prepare his lessons on account of absence. The class must endure and suffer the blunders, promptings and reproofs of the irregular pupils, all resulting from failure to prepare lessons which should have been studied when the child's time was occupied by direction of the parent in work or visiting.” (31 Ia 562) S. B. vii. 10.

(12 Allen 127, 8 Cush 160, 13 Ill 520, 137 Ill 296, 31 Ia 562, 116 Mass 363, 18 Mich 400, 48 Vt 444)

In Ore. whenever the unexcused absences amount in one term to 7 days, the teacher may suspend him.

Even in a private school constancy of attendance may be required. A girl attending Lasell seminary was taken away by her mother over Sunday against the rules of the school and was expelled. The mother sued to recover the money advanced for board and tuition and failed, the court holding that the conditions of the catalogue were reasonable. (46 NE 110)

A law school, however, cannot dismiss a student or refuse to permit him to graduate, for irregularity of attendance, when it was understood that payment of the required fees and completion of the work were all that was required or necessary. (Baltimore Uv. vs. Colton, Md Supreme Court, Feb. 19, 1904)

In 1874 the board of education of Hornell adopted a rule that in every case of absence of a pupil for more than 5 days during any term for any other cause than sickness or death in the family, or religious observance, the absentee should be suspended until the beginning of the next term. Its legality being questioned, the superintendent replied:

Under the provisions of the law cited in your letter of the 19th inst., your board of education possesses the power to suspend pupils from school for causes which seem to merit such treatment. In my judgment, however, it would be unwise to enforce strictly the rule referred to in your letter. The object and intention of the law is to get pupils into the schools-not to keep them out.

In another case the same superintendent, Mr. Gilmour, went still further.

Among the regulations of District No. 2, Ellington, was this: "Any scholar absenting himself from any examination or part thereof, appointed by the teachers, without necessity duly certified beforehand, either by himself or his parents or guardian, shall not be admitted to the school afterwards, except by permission of the board and the approval of the principal."

On Feb. 4, 1875, before the written examination, the mother of three boys asked by written note that they be excused from the last days of the term, and withdrew them from the school. On the opening of the next term, the three boys were refused admission under the above rule, the note not being accepted as a sufficient compliance with the regulation. This was over-ruled by Sup't Gilmour, who decided that boards of education have no right to make any regulation under which children are liable to perpetual exclusion from school for an act of the parent (603).

This view was carried yet further under Sup't Ruggles. In September, 1884, the St. Johnsville board of education established the following rules:

The principal and teachers of the different rooms may suspend pupils under their immediate control for: 1. Three cases of absence, unless the absence be caused by personal sickness, or serious illness or death in the family, or by some pressing emergency. But one case of absence can be counted in the same day. * * *

The power of reinstatement shall be limited to the board of education or the principal.

* *

Any pupil suspended for any cause shall not be entitled to any privileges of the school until reinstated.

For four such absences the father of Clarence Sanders refused to give any reason; and on Nov. 5, the boy was suspended, and on presenting himself at school the next day was refused admission. His father appealed to the state department, which on March 20, 1885, decided that the boy must be reinstated, on the grounds (1) that the power of suspension should not be delegated from the board to a

« PreviousContinue »