Fortman v. Texarkana School Dist. No. 7, 74--71

• Decision Date: 21 October 1974
• Docket Number: No. 74--71,74--71
• Citation: 257 Ark. 130,514 S.W.2d 720
• Parties: Debra Ann FORTMAN et al., Appellants, v. TEXARKANA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 720

514 S.W.2d 720

257 Ark. 130

Debra Ann FORTMAN et al., Appellants, v.TEXARKANA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, Appellee.

No. 74--71.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 21, 1974.

James E. Davis, Texarkana, for appellants.

Ned A. Stewart, Jr., Texarkana, for appellee.

GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice.

This is an action by the appellants, two tenth-grade high school girls (suing by their next friends), for a writ of mandamus to compel the appellee school district to re-admit them to the Texarkana, Arkansas, high school.The circuit court, in sustaining the district's motion for summary judgment, held that the board of directors of the district had the authority to permanently expel the two girls.Whether that ruling was legally correct is the only issue argued by the appellants.

The material facts are not in dispute.On the evening of March 21, 1973, some sort of verbal controversy took place at a dance attended by high school students.As an aftermath to that altercation the two appellants on the following day, during school hours, attacked a third girl, Kathy Walker, on the school grounds.The attack was deliberately planned in advance.The Walker girl was kicked, beaten, and stabbed twice in the head with a six-inch pair of scissors.Her injuries were serious but not fatal.The principal of the high school promptly suspended the appellants for the remainder of the school term.

The principal then recommended to the directors that the two assailants be expelled.After a public hearing, about which no constitutional question is raised, the board voted unanimously for permanent expulsion.At the hearing the district's attorney advised the board that it would have the authority to reinstate the two girls later on if it saw fit to do so.The circuit court, in denying the requested writ of mandamus, noted that after their expulsion the girls had pleaded nolo contendere to charges of assault with intent to kill and had each received a five-year suspended sentence.

Counsel for the appellants, in insisting that school directors cannot expel a student, argues that the board's only authority in the matter must be derived from Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80--1516(Repl.1960), which was part of the comprehensive 1931 school law:

The directors of any school district may suspend any person from school for immorality, refractory conduct, insubordination, infectious disease, habitual uncleanliness or other conduct that would tend to impair the discipline of the school, or harm the other pupils, but such suspension shall not extend beyond the current term.The board of directors may authorize the teacher to suspend any pupils, subject to appeal to the board.

We are unwilling to construe the board's authority so narrowly.In the first place, the power of expulsion was legislatively recognized in Section 13 of Act 63 of 1969(Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80--1656(Supp.1973)):

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit a local school district's power to adopt reasonable rules, regulations, and policies, not inconsistent with the purposes of this Act, to insure continued orderly operation of schools, including adult education and area vocational-technical high schools, and such powers are deemed to include the right of expulsion for student participation in any activity which tends, in the opinion of the Board, to disrupt, obstruct or interfere with orderly education processes.

It is true that Act 63 was adopted by the legislature to implement Constitutional Amendment 53, which specifically confirmed the power of the General Assembly and of school districts to expend public funds for the education of persons over twenty-one or under six years of age.Nevertheless, we find it difficult...