Table Of ContentTHE RIGHTS .AND DUTIES OP THE PUPIL
A Project
Presented to
the Facility of the School of Education
The U niversity of Southern C alifornia
In P a rtia l F ulfillm ent
of the Requirements fo r the Degree
Master of Science in Education
Uy
W illiam Rainney Poulson
June 1950
UMI Number: EP46020
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation PuNiahing
UMI EP46020
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
'ya P f l S Prvj*
This project report, written under the direction
of the candidate’s adviser and approved by him,
has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty
of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Education.
Adviser
Dean
TABLE OP CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE PREFACE.................................................................... 1
The p r o b l e m ....................................................... 1
Purpose of the p ro b le m .............................. 2
Scope of th e p ro b le m ...................................................<■. 2
Method used ................................................................... 3
I I . ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND COURT CASES . . . . ' ' 4
■ Parents* re s p o n sib ility ............................................... 4
Reasonable requirem ents ....................................... 4
R esidentiary requirem ents ....................................... 5
Non-residence and receiving school . . . . 7
M atriculation fees ......................................................... 7
Assignment of students .............................................. 8
Race segregation .............................................................. 8
Health reg u latio n s ......................................................... 9
W ritten examinations ’................................... 10
Court c a s e s ............................................................. 11
I I I . ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS AND COURT CASES . . . 57
Parents* o b lig ation .................................................... 57
Compulsory school law ande xceptions . . . 57
Court c a s e s ............................................................. 59
IV. PUPIL CONTROL AND COURT CASES ....................................... 69
A uthority invested ........................................................ 69
CHAPTER PAGE
Flag s a l u t e ........................................................................ 69
A c tiv itie s outside of school ............................... 70
Scholarship, graduation and diploma . . . 71
Leaving school grounds .............................................. 72
Damage to b u i l d i n g s .................................................... 72
Court c a s e s ............................................................................. 73
V. SUMMARY......................... 102
CHAPTER I
PREFACE
Everyone today is aware of the emphasis often placed
upon the statu s of individuals and groups. Behind the
question of economic and so c ial statu s lie , often r e la tiv e
ly unnoticed, many leg al p rin cip les and p rescrip tio n s.
These leg al aspects are to be found in c o n stitu tio n a l pro
v isio n s, s ta tu te s , court decisions and legal theory. These
areas can not be overlooked by the p ro fessio nal fie ld of
teaching.
The problem . The question as to what c o n stitu tes
the rig h ts and du ties of the pu pil, presents i t s e l f every
day, in class room in stru c tio n , school ad m inistration and
so cial or physical a c tiv itie s of the school. Through leg
is la tio n and the courts some e ffo rt has been made to pro
vide fo r and to safeguard the rig h ts of ch ildren . I t is
not only of supreme importance to the educator but also
to parents and other laymen to have an understanding of
the rig h ts and duties of the pupil. Wide spread informa
tio n and leg a l in te rp re ta tio n s w ill prevent needless contro
versies and w ill help improve school laws where inadequa
cies are found.
2
Purpose of the problem. This p ro ject Is presented
with the hope that some of these questions may he answered,
not as a sp ecific c a s e ,* hut as a guide to the teacher or
adm inistrator in making his decisions when sim ilar ques
tions are presented. Some sta te s have an educational code
for a guide while others have only the c o n stitu tio n and
sta tu te s of the s ta te . Therefore, th is should not he con
sidered a complete leg al guide for any one area. What
might be leg a l in one s ta te might he ju st the opposite in
another sta te . This p ro ject attem pts to give a n a tio n a l
p ictu re of court decisions in the fo rty -e ig h t s ta te s . The
main theme, i f i t can he said court decisions have such,
is based on one word, reasonable. The courts w ill not
in te rfe re w ith the ru lin g s and regulations of the education
a l a u th o ritie s i f they are reasonable and have not v io lated
the c o n stitu tio n or sta tu te s of the sta te or fed e ral govern
ment .
Scope of the problem . Included in th is p ro jec t are
only the most co n tro v ersial aspects of the rig h ts and duties
of the p u p il; such as, requirem ents fo r adm ission, a tte n d
ance requirem ents and th e ir exceptions and le g a lity of
ru les governing pupil control while in attendance. The
answers to these co n tro v ersial questions are a l l based
on court decisions. They w ill apply in a l l cases where the
3
sta te sta tu te s are sim ilar.an d the Im plied power granted
the educational a u th o ritie s are the same. The la te s t cases
are used hut In some questions the p rin c ip le has heen es
tab lish ed by a case in the early h isto ry o f public educa
tion and have not since been before the cou rts.
Method u sed . As th is p ro ject is a h is to r ic a l research,
the questions obtained from the American Jurisprudence Vol.
47, pages 291-464 were chosen on the bases of th e ir contro- -
v e rsia l sta tu s . The N ational Reporter System was u tiliz e d
to obtain the court cases refe rred to by these' questions.
The chapters were organized by presenting a ll the questions
f i r s t , follow ed by court cases p ertain in g to these questions.
The fa c ts of the case, the question of law, the decision
rendered and the reason fo r the decision are presented in
each case. All cases are decisions rendered by the sta te
and fed e ral co u rts. T ria l court cases, th at are not appeal
ed, can not be used because th e ir proceedings are not a v a il
able in published form.
CHAPTER II
ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND COURT CASES
P a re n ts’ re s p o n s ib ility . The question of admission
is misunderstood by many p aren ts. They think i t is an
absolute rig h t th at cannot be denied. Admission depends
on the meeting of c e rta in q u a lific a tio n s estab lish ed by
leg al a u th o ritie s . I t is a sta tu to ry obligation to cause
the children to atten d school and a re s p o n sib ility of the
parents to put them Into condition to attend , and the
parents cannot escape th is re sp o n sib ility by n e g le ct.
The c o n stitu tio n a l provisions in many sta te s es
ta b lis h certain uniform q u a lific a tio n for admission such
as age. In many sta te s certain m atters of a u th o rity are
delegated to the lo ca l school boards who in turn add stand
ards of admission In addition to those provided by the laws
of the s ta te . These standards cannot be contrary to the
sta te laws and must be a reasonable requirem ent.
Reasonable requirem ents. The term reasonable can
b est be illu s tr a te d by the case in M ississippi where the
school board denied admission to a g ir l of school age, on
grounds of being m arried, but in a l l other respects e l i
g ib le to atten d . The school board thought i t would be
d etrim ental to the good government and usefulness of the
school.1 This question is of In te re st a t present due to
the recent war and the education of m arried veterans. The
law sta te s th at a minor when m arried hecomes emancipated
from the con tro l of the home. This would not apply to the
school as the courts have ruled th at adults are under the
hoard ru les and regulations whenever they are adm itted as
stu d e n ts.
R esidentiary requirem ents. The question of residence
is one of the- le g a l requirem ents of- a free public school
attendance. When i t is considered as a residence for school
purpose i t s meaning w ill be broader than dom icile as used
in voting. If the reason for residence is not prim arily
for school, a temporary residence w ill be s u ffic ie n t. P er
sons who m erely liv e in certain d is tr ic ts , temporary, for
th e ir children to go to school, and i t can be proved, th e ir
children can be considered as an non resid en t.
In re fe rrin g to dom icile, the leg a l residence of a
ch ild is the residence of his fa th e r. If the parents are
le g a lly separated and the custody of the ch ild is given to
the mother the leg al residence of the ch ild is the m other's
residence. Where they are not le g a lly separated the c h ild 's
residence remains w ith the fath er regardless with whom the
The footnote indexes re fe r to the court' cases th a t
are used as the b asis of th is p ro je c t. They w ill be given
at the end of each chapter.
