Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

AUUTIN 11. -lwxAn
DAXIEL
PRICE
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
December 3, 1949
Bon. Jack C. Altares opinion lo. v-954.
County Attorney
Johns on Caunt y Re : The rpplioability OS
Cleburne, Texas compulsory school at-
tenddsnce laws to chll-
dren who are seventeen
and have not completed
Dear sir: the ninth grade.
We refer to your Inquiry Srcm which we quo-,
in substance, aa follows:
“Article 2892, V.C.S. and Article 297,
V.P.C., reqube every child In the State who
18 7 years and not more than 16 pears OS age
to attend public aohoola in the district of’
hls residence for not less than 120 days an-
nually . ~rtiole 2893 subd. 5, v.c.s., and
Article 298, subd. (ej, V.P .C ., exmpts a
ohlld from school attendance who 18 more
than 16 :years OS age vho has satlsfactoPl1~
oompleted the work of the ninth grade and
whose services are needed for the support
of a perent, et cetera.
“The quertlon here presented in whether
or aot 8 child who la 17 fears (or any age
ever 16 yew8) and vho hea not satlsirotoalL~
oapletod the work of the ninth #?&IO i8 lab-
ject to ooapulroy rohool rttentlrnoe.m
The civil Law, Artlola 2892, and the oorrespoad-
lng penal law, Article 297, read as follows:
“tvery chLld in the gtate who io reren
years and not more than sixteen years & age
ahall. be mqulred to attend the publio sohools
in the dlatrlet of its residence, or In some
other district to which It may be transferred
aa provided by lav, for a period of not less
than one hundred and twenty days. The period
OS compulsory school attendance at each school
shell begin at the opening OS the sahool term
Hon. Jack C. 4ltarO8, Page 2 (V-954)
unless otherwlse authorized by the district
school trustees and notice given by the trus-
tees prior to the beginning of such school
term; provided that no child shall be mquir-
ed to attend school for a longer period than
the maximumterm of the public school in the
district where such child reaiddea.’
The civil statute, subdlvialon 5 OS Arttile
2893, and the corresponding penal law, Article 295, sub-
division (e), as amended by House Bill No.630, Aota 49th
Legislature, 1945, read as follows:
“The Sollowlng classes of children are
exempt from the requirement of this law:
,I. . .
“(0) Any child more than sixteen (16)
years of age who ha8 aatiafaotorlly complet-
ed the work of the ninth grade, and whose
services ara needed in support of a parent or
other person standing in parent81 relation to
the child, msy, on presentation of proper evi-
dence to the county superintendent, be exempt-
ed from further attendance et school.”
It is an elementary rule OS contruction that
a statute which is part of an existing scheme OS legio-
lotion upon a given subject must ba 80 coastrued ao to
bring It in harmony with all other provlalons, ii the
language of such statute is fairly ausceptlble OS ouch
interpretation. Bishop v. Houston I.S.D., 119 Tex.403,
29 S.W.2d 312 (193mlso to note that
Articles 2892 through 2898 of the Civil Statute8 ad AP-
icles 297 through 300 of the Penal Statutes, prior to
their codification in Revised Statutes of 1925, each had
their origin in the compulsory education law of 1915.
R.~.402, Acts 34th Leg,, 1915, pp, 92 to 98.
Back in 1917 when the law, which is now codi-
Sled as Article 2892, V.C .S., provlded that every child
OS eight years and not more than fourteen years old
should be required to attend public school, et cetera,
it was held that a child who attained the age of Sour-
teen years before the beginning OS the public free
schools in his district was not subiect to the DrOVi-
slons of that compulsory attendance-law. Butler v.
State, 81 Tex.Crim.167, 194 S.W. 166 (1917mct
Hon. Jack C. Altaraa, Page 3 (V-%4) L
OS 1925 (S.B.49, 44th Leg., p.409) aubatltuted ‘aeven
years Tor “eight yearaN and “alxteen yearaw rm *row-
teen yeara. ’ Applying that deolalon to Artlole 2892,
V.C.S., aa aended la 1935, It would follov that a
ohlld who attalna the age of sixteen yeara heiore the
beginning o? the pub110 aahoola In hla dlatrfot la not
subject to the prorialona o? the capnlaory attemdanae
1aV.
Uhen la a ohlld “not more than a~o;omma
o? age?’ We quote iroot Glbam (1. roo~lt, l 8
99 P a o .333:
*In one aenae a child la alxteen yeara
of age until it ia seventeen; 00 ala0 It la
aixtaen when it la eighteen; but, In the trus
aenae, It la alxteen and over whenersr it hoe
passed beyond the first day of the alxteenth
amlvera~ of lta birth. Hed it been the ln-
tentlon to Include children up to the tlma they
reach their seventeenth blxWxlay, the General
Assembly would naturally htive said %hlldren
under aeventeen years OS age’ . . . A child la
sixteen years OS age on the alxteenth amlmr-
aary OS hi8 birth, arid thereafter ia over alx-
teen yura of age . . .’
unmr v. State, 57 Tu.Crlm.385, 122 S.U.875
At rlrst blush, lubaectlom 2 or Artlale 2893
exempt.1 from compulsory lttendanoe luy child more than
sixteen Y 16) years OS age who hoe . . . oarpleted . . .
ninth grade, and whore aervloea are needed In 8uppoH of
a parent, et oetera,,” appears to oonillot 81th @Wale
2892 rod alao to amount to an exemption fra a uomlition
which do ernot lxlat .
Eovever, a oloae uulaatlen
of &tlole 2892,
and In the light of Putlef v. gtate, au-
the deolalon in
pro, ~111 reveal that it prorider
that mre a ohlld hoe
not lttalued tha age of alxteen ymarm kfon the kgln-
ning of the pub110 aohoola in hla dlrtriet,ho la aubjwt
to the provlalorra of that caopulaorJ lttaadame law, sod
"rho11 be required to rttomd . . . pablio aohoola . . .
Boa. Jeer C . Altono, page 4 (V-95b)
pub110 lohool . . .” It doer not for exmple, luth o r la e
or per&it l ohlld lttalnlng the age of sixteen yeera any
tl8e otter the begioaing OS the public school in hla dla-
trlot to lleot within that OWr8nt aohool year not to go
to rohool. 8uoh g ohild mat attend lohool tee the time
required or .authm%aed by Artiole 2892,ualoaa he oaea
within one of the uemptloaa in Artlole 2893.
Under aubdlvlalon 5 o? Article 2893, quoted
hemlnebove, auoh a ohlld who haa attained the age of
al%teen dur the aohool year, who her completed the
vork of the i”nf nth grade, aad whoae~aarvloea era needed
In ma port of a parent or other peraon atandlng in pa-
rant8 P relation to him, may, In aooordanae with the pro-
viifon&hereof, ba exempted from the 9rovlaloua eS Al&
Aa thus oaatrued lobdlvlalon 5 of Article
2893, r.o:fL, aad aubdlrialon (0) of Article 298, V.P.C .,
hoe rpplloatlon Od urnlng. It will not be presumed
thrt the Leglaletw emoted a nanlnglaaa or ueeleaa
law.
Aooordingl~, it la oup oplf~10a that e child TIIO
attaina the age oi aUtoen or over before the beginning
ot the pub110 free roboolr in hla dLatl%ot la not aub-
jeet to the provlaima .o? the papulaory attendawe lawa,
whethop or not he bar o-let& the 0-k of the ninth
6Frda. But a child who attrlaa the age of airteen a?-
ter the beglnnlng of the pub110 free aohoola in hla dla-
trlat la rubjeot to the prwlaloaa oi the oapulaory at-
teadance 16~ for thrt aohool period, udlraa he hra been
ted troa it0 ev%alona In aeoorbmoe with Article
@w
2 ,lcrbdlvlaZon $ , V. C. S.
For purpoaea of thla oplalon we hrre rammed
that the exe io uato p o In
d luMlrlaloaa 1 thmugh 4
of Arttlole 28
T 3 era not involved in tha submitted qwa-
tioa.
A ohlld rho attalna the 8 e OS alxteen
or over beSore the beglmlng o$ the pub110
free aohoola In hi8 dlatrlot la not aubjeot
to the provlalona OS the compulsory atten-
dance lst, whether or not he hoe oompleted
the work OS the ninth grade. Art.2892, et
seq., V.C.S., Art.297,et aeq-, V.P.C.;
utler v. State 8l Tex.Crlm.167, 19 3-U.
. But a chlid who attains the age o?
Hon. Jaok C. Altaraa, pege 5 (V-ff%)
sixteen after the begInnIng m? the public
free school8 Ln hia distrlot IS rubjeot
to the provlslot~ of the 00m$ala0~ atten-
danoe law for that rohool ybag``lga~;
has been exempted fxa Its
aooordanee vith Art1016 089y, rubdlvl8laa
5, V.C.8.
Your0 vem truly,
ATTORNBYGWlRALOF!PEXAS
CEO:mw BY
Cberrkr 1. Olllron
A8818tant
APPROVZD