State ex rel. Bowe v. Bd. of Educ. of Fond Du Lac

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: COLE
• Citation: State ex rel. Bowe v. Bd. of Educ. of Fond Du Lac, 63 Wis. 234, 23 N.W. 102 (Wis. 1885)
• Decision Date: 28 April 1885
• Parties: STATE EX REL. BOWE v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF FOND DU LAC.

63 Wis. 234

23 N.W. 102

STATE EX REL. BOWE

v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF FOND DU LAC.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed April 28, 1885.

Appeal from circuit court, Fond du Lac county.

George E. Sutherland, for appellant.

P. H. Martin, for respondent.

COLE, C. J.

One can but express surprise that any intelligent teacher or intelligent board of education should suffer such a case as this to reach the courts. The fact that it is here can only be accounted for on the ground that either the teacher or the board of education, perhaps both, have sadly misconceived their powers and duties, or have been actuated by some improper motive in excluding the relator's son from the public school. The reasons for excluding him, as stated in the return, are, in substance, that the board of education--whichis clothed with power to make rules and regulations for the government and organization of schools, for the reception and instruction of pupils, and for the preservation of good order and discipline in schools--did, long prior to the supposed grievance of the relator, enact certain rules, among which were these: “Rule 27. Any pupil guilty of disobedience to a teacher, or of gross misconduct, may be suspended by the principal.” “Rule 29. Any pupil suspended from school by virtue of any one of the foregoing rules can be readmitted only by bringing a written permit from the superintendent.”

It is then stated that for many years there had existed in all the schools of the city of Fond du Lac, except the high school, a regulation known and approved by the board, whereby the teachers of the several schools have been authorized to and have required each pupil of sufficient age and bodily strength, upon returning from the play-ground at recess, to bring with him a stick of wood fitted for stove use, to supply the stoves with fuel in the rooms occupied by such pupils, and to keep the rooms warm and comfortable. It is for a refusal of the relator's son to conform to this regulation that he was suspended.

It is further stated that the refusal of the boy was in presence of the scholars of the school, and was without cause other than to cause a breach of the order and direction of the teacher and principal, and in defiance of their authority, and was calculated to bring such authority into contempt, etc. On account of the disobedience of the pupil to conform to this regulation, to sustain his authority over and discipline in the school, the principal and teacher caused the pupil to be suspended, and notices thereof in writing to be given to the relator and superintendent.

In contesting the sufficiency of this return, the learned counsel for the relator insists that the rule or regulation requiring pupils to bring up wood for use in the school-room is unreasonable, and not binding upon any pupil who does not wish to comply with it; that it does not relate to a subject which concerns the education of pupils or discipline in the schools; therefore that the board had no right to adopt and enforce it to the extent of excluding a pupil who did not conform to it. He says our public schools are organized and maintained for the education and improvement of children in learning; that no rule is proper which does not conduce to these ends,--that does not in some way promote the good order or government of the schools; secure the decorum and quiet in the school-room which are essential for advantageous instruction and discipline. Consequently any rule or regulation which has for its object anything outside of the instruction of the pupil--the order requisite for instruction--is beyond the province of the board of education to adopt. The requirement that school children should bring up wood, when not by way of punishment or discipline for misconduct, has nothing to do with the education of the child. It...