Delconte v. State, 9PA84
| Citation | 313 N.C. 384,329 S.E.2d 636 |
| Decision Date | 07 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 9PA84,9PA84 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | , 25 Ed. Law Rep. 643 Larry DELCONTE v. STATE of North Carolina. |
Thomas E. Strickland, Goldsboro, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. by Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., Sr. Deputy Atty. Gen., and Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State appellee.
John W. Whitehead, Manassas, Va., Holleman & Stam by Paul B. Stam, Jr., Apex, for The Rutherford Institute.
Ware, Parker, Johnson, Cook & Dunlevie by Wendell R. Bird, Richard W. Summers, Atlanta, Ga., for The Rutherford Institute of Georgia Legal Defense Foundation, amici curiae.
Frank J. Sizemore, III, Greensboro, and Richard B. Harper, Durham, for The Christian Legal Society, amicus curiae.
Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove by George T. Rogister, Jr., and Ann L. Majestic, Raleigh, for The North Carolina School Boards Ass'n, amicus curiae.
Plaintiff educates his children at home. The dispositive question for decision is whether plaintiff's home instruction is prohibited by our compulsory school attendance statutes. 1 We conclude that it is not. We do not, therefore, reach the question whether these statutes would violate plaintiff's constitutional freedoms if they prohibited him from so educating his children.
Delconte instituted this action seeking a declaratory judgment that his home instruction was not prohibited by our statutes on school attendance and, if it was, then these statutes contravened certain freedoms guaranteed to him by the state and federal constitutions.
Evidence at trial tended to show the following:
In March 1981 plaintiff, Larry Delconte, moved from New York to Harnett County, North Carolina with his wife, Michelle. They have four children, two of whom, Seth James and Mia Faith, are school age. Delconte graduated from the United States Merchant Marine Academy with a degree in Maritime Science. He did substitute teaching in New York and is currently employed in North Carolina as a machinist. His wife, who finished high school and attended college for one year, is not employed.
The Delcontes are deeply religious, fundamentalist Christians and hold religious services in their home on a regular basis. They believe the Bible is authoritative and obliges them to teach their children at home.
They began educating their two oldest children, Seth and Mia, in their home while they lived in New York after being granted permission to do so from the local board of education. Delconte and his wife shared the teaching responsibilities at that time, working closely with the local school principal in obtaining materials and having Seth and Mia regularly tested.
After the Delcontes moved to North Carolina, the principal of the local public elementary school visited them to discuss the status of Seth and Mia. Subsequently, Delconte advised the Harnett County School Superintendent that he wished to continue educating his children at home. On 1 September 1981 Delconte wrote to Calvin R. Criner, State Coordinator of the Office of Nonpublic Education, requesting approval of his home as a school for the education of his children, naming his school the "Hallelujah School," and enclosing all information required by one seeking to operate a nonpublic school. 2
Criner, relying entirely upon an opinion of the Attorney General that home instruction did not fulfill the requirements of an approved nonpublic school, 3 responded on 4 September 1981 that the Hallelujah School could not be acknowledged as a nonpublic school "within the meaning of the law." Criner testified that he had approved a nonpublic school with as few as three students, but none with as few as two.
Delconte continued the practice he had begun in New York. He was subsequently prosecuted for violating our compulsory school attendance laws, but the state voluntarily dismissed these criminal charges.
The Delcontes still educate their children at home. They use books and materials obtained from sources in New York and the Wake Christian Academy. The instruction covers skills in basic reading, writing, and mathematics. The Delcontes have set aside a room in their home, equipped with a blackboard and desk, as a classroom. In addition to formal academic instruction, Seth and Mia's daily routine includes chores, playtime, and Bible study. The Delcontes' instruction for their children continues during most of the year. No other children are included.
Standardized test scores and school work show that both Seth and Mia are achieving at average or better than average rates academically and "getting at least a good, average education, or better." They scored in most areas in the "upper quartile" 4 for their age and grade levels and are "well-behaved ... quite normal little children."
Delconte testified that his objections to public schools were both religious and "sociopsychological." He expressed a deep religious conviction that children should be taught at home. The Delcontes disagree with some teachings in public school. They do not believe, for example, in evolution and feel children should not be exposed to it, since for them it is contrary to the Bible. Delconte explained his sociopsychological basis for home instruction in several ways: Sending children from the home at an early age signifies to them rejection by their parents. Young children are too susceptible to undesirable influences of both teachers and other students. Children should not be exposed to the community at large, either in or out of school, until they can have more of an effect on their environment than their environment can have on them.
Delconte testified:
It is accurate that my decision to teach my children in my home was a twofold decision; that there were two reasons underlying that decision. One reason I would describe as sociopsychological, common sense reasons. The other reason is religious in nature. It is a tough question for me to answer as to which of these reasons is more important. Of course, I put Jesus Christ above anything. However, either reason alone would be enough for me to want to teach my kids in the home. I can't answer the question of whether I would send my children to public or private schools if my sociopsychological objections to schooling outside the home changed. I have never had to consider that question. It is a decision that would take a lot of deep thought. It would take an exceptional child of 12 years old, I think, to be able to stand in the Christian principles that Christ has dictated to us with all these adult figures around him that are giving him a different view. I think it would be better for my children to stay home, but if and when my children are to the point that they can be more of an effect on their environment than their environment on them, I would not want them to go, but if they wanted to go and they wanted to use it as a field of witness for Christ, praise the Lord, let them go.
The trial court concluded: (1) Delconte's Hallelujah School was entitled to recognition as a qualified nonpublic school under Part 2, Article 39 of Chapter 115C. (2) If it were not so recognized, our compulsory school attendance laws would violate Delconte's religious freedoms as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 13 of the North Carolina Constitution.
The Court of Appeals reversed. It concluded: (1) Delconte's home instruction does not constitute a qualified nonpublic school. (2) The compulsory school attendance statutes prohibit home instruction. (3) This prohibition does not violate Delconte's constitutionally protected freedoms.
We allowed Delconte's petition for discretionary review on 6 March 1984. Believing that Delconte's home instruction does qualify as a nonpublic school and is not otherwise prohibited by our school attendance statutes, we reverse the Court of Appeals.
Our basic compulsory school attendance law, N.C.G.S. § 115C-378, a section of Article 26 of Chapter 115C, provides, in pertinent part:
Every parent, guardian or other person in this State having charge or control of a child between the ages of seven and 16 years shall cause such child to attend school continuously for a period equal to the time which the public school to which the child is assigned shall be in session.
....
The term 'school' as used herein is defined to embrace all public schools and such nonpublic schools as have teachers and curricula that are approved by the State Board of Education.
All nonpublic schools receiving and instructing children of a compulsory school age shall be required to keep such records of attendance and render such reports of the attendance of such children and maintain such minimum curriculum standards as are required of public schools; and attendance upon such schools, if the school refuses or neglects to keep such records or to render such reports, shall not be accepted in lieu of attendance upon the public school of the district to which the child shall be assigned: Provided, that instruction in a nonpublic school shall not be regarded as meeting the requirements of the law unless the courses of instruction run concurrently with the term of the public school in the district and extend for at least as long a term.
Notwithstanding this statute, the General Assembly has chosen to provide that attendance at any "private church school or school of religious charter" which meets the requirements of Part 1, Article 39, Chapter 115C, or at any "qualified nonpublic school" which meets the requirements of Part 2, Article 39, Chapter 115C, "shall satisfy the requirements of compulsory school attendance." N.C.G.S. § 115C-548 and § 115C-556.
Reading these statutes together so as to give effect to them all, we conclude that there are four ways by which school-aged children in this state may comply with our school attendance statutes. First, under N.C.G.S. § 115C-378 a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peltier v. Charter Day Sch., Inc.
...has always played a substantial role in our society as an alternative primary education method. See generally Delconte v. State , 313 N.C. 384, 329 S.E.2d 636 (N.C. 1985). Considering the long history of private schools and home schooling in North Carolina, providing an alternative method o......
-
JONATHAN L v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County
...1094]home school could constitute a “school,” or whether a “school” had to be an established institution. ( Delconte v. State (1985) 313 N.C. 384, 329 S.E.2d 636, 642.) That court concluded, “We do not agree that the legislature intended simply by use of the word ‘school,’ because of some i......
-
State v. Petersilie
...S.E.2d at 888, the Court will strive to interpret a statute to avoid serious doubts about its constitutionality. Delconte v. State, 313 N.C. 384, 402, 329 S.E.2d 636, 647 (1985). Thus if two reasonable constructions of the statute are possible, this Court will adopt the construction which r......
-
Borgers v. Borgers
...violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as applied to" religious homeschooling families); Delconte v. State , 313 N.C. 384, 329 S.E.2d 636, 646 (1985) ("[T]he principles enunciated in Yoder and Pierce raise serious questions as to the constitutionality of statutes which......