EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of the Appeal of ARTHUR F. RILEY from the Refusal of District No. 8, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, to Provide Academic Instruction for its Pupils

Case No. 413

(Decided January 11, 1918)

Necessity for the maintenance of academic instruction in a school district of ample resources.

District No. 8, town of Hempstead, Nassau county, has an assessed valuation of $1,163,700. It employed in 1917 fourteen teachers and had 573 pupils in its school. Nevertheless it maintained no academic department. The appellant resides in the district and has a son who at the age of fifteen years has completed the school work of the grades maintained in the district. The appellant has requested that academic instruction be provided by the district but this request has been refused. It is from this refusal that the appeal herein is brought. Held, that the resources of the district are ample to justify some provision for academic instruction. Order as to the course to be taken by the board of education. Appeal sustained.

FINLEY, Commissioner.

The appellant resides in district No. 8, town of Hempstead, Nassau county. His son is fifteen years of age and has completed the school work of the grades maintained in the district. He has requested that academic instruction be provided at the expense of the district. This request has been refused.

Four

This district has an assessed valuation of $1,163,700. teen teachers were employed last year and 573 pupils were registered. No academic department is maintained. The resources of the district are ample to justify some provision for the instruction of pupils in academic subjects. A similar question was before me for decision in the matter of the appeal of Dedek from the refusal of district No. 4, Hempstead, to provide academic instruction for its pupils. It was held that: "The Department

cannot overlook the inadequacy of the provisions now made for the instruction of the children of the district who have completed all of the courses which are prescribed by its board of education. It will be the duty of the board immediately to take such action as may be necessary, either by making some suitable provisions, through the schools of neighboring districts, for the instruction of such pupils who desire or are required by law to attend, or by the employment of additional teachers and the extension of existing school facilities within the district so as to provide appropriate instruction in academic subjects for the advanced pupils of the district."

The doctrine declared in the case cited is applicable to this case and must control its determination.

The appeal is therefore sustained.

It is hereby ordered that the board of education of district No. 8, town of Hempstead, Nassau county, be and it hereby is directed to either provide for the giving of instruction in subjects in advance of the elementary grades in the public school of the district by the employment of additional teachers and the extension of existing school facilities, or to contract immediately with the school authorities of other districts for the payment of the cost of instruction of pupils of the district who desire or who are required to attend upon instruction in advance of the elementary grades; and that such board be and it hereby is directed to raise by tax levy, as provided by law, such amounts as may be required to pay the cost of such instruction.

In the Matter of the Appeal from the ACTION OF THE DISTRICT MEETING IN DISTRICT No. 12, TOWN OF DEER PARK, ORANGE COUNTY, Relative to Transportation of Pupils and Payment of Tuition

Case No. 414

(Decided January 14, 1918)

Duty of a school district to provide conveyances for pupils residing at great distances from the school-house.

District No. 12, town of Deer Park, Orange county, at a meeting held May 8, 1917, refused to provide conveyances for the pupils residing in a certain portion of the district, or to pay for the tuition and transportation of the academic pupils of the district. The appellant is a resident and taxpayer of the district and appeals from this action. Held, that the relief sought by the appellant can only be obtained by application to the town board of education. He should apply to that board and if aggrieved by its decision may then appeal to the Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.

FINLEY, Commissioner. The appellant, Chauncey I. Gumaer, is a resident and taxpayer of district No. 12, town of Deer Park, Orange county. He appeals from the action of the annual school meeting held in such district on May 8, 1917, in refusing to provide conveyance for the pupils residing in a certain portion of the district for the period of the school year and in refusing to pay the tuition and transportation of the academic pupils of such district. The petition and supporting affidavits were served on the trustee of the district on May 22, 1917. No answer has been interposed and it does not appear that the matters alleged in the petition have ever been brought to the attention of the board of education of the town of Deer Park.

Under the provisions of the Township School Law (Laws of 1917, chap. 328) the office of the district trustee was abolished and the respondent's office became vacant on August 1, 1917. The town board of education having jurisdiction over this district has ample power under the provisions of the present law to which

reference is above made to provide transportation for school children when necessary under regulations to be prescribed by it. The duty also devolves upon such board to provide academic instruction for the resident pupils of academic grade. Application may now be made by the appellant to the board of education of such township for the relief sought, and an appeal will lie in the event of the refusal of such board to afford adequate school facilities for the children.

Because of the change in the school administration effected by the Township School Law, an appeal from the action of the annual district meeting cannot now furnish the basis for a determination of the rights of the parties. The relief sought by the appellant upon the appeal may not be obtained without a presentation of the matters to the town board of education. The appellant should apply to such board for the relief sought, and if he deems himself aggrieved by the action of such board he may then bring his appeal to the Commissioner of Education,

The appeal is dismissed.

In the Matter of the Appeal from the Action of a Joint Meeting of School Districts Nos, 9 and 17 in School Unit No. 2, Town of Eaton, Madison County, Held September 7, 1917

Case No. 416

(Decided March 12, 1918)

To effect a consolidation of districts a majority of the qualified voters of each district sought to be consolidated must vote in the affirmative.

Edson A. Fuller, district superintendent of schools of the third supervisory district of Madison county, on August 17, 1917, issued an order consolidating school districts Nos. 9 and 17 in the town of Eaton, Madison county. The order was issued under the Township School Law, as added by chapter 328 of the Laws of 1917, amending section 330 of the Education Law. To determine the consolidation two meetings of the qualified electors of the two districts were held. At the second meeting the qualified electors from district No. 17 voted in favor of consolidation.

The vote in district No. 9 was a tie. It appears that ten of those who voted in favor of the consolidation were not qualified electors and could not legally participate in the meeting. Held, that the consolidation of the district did not receive the approval of the majority of the qualified electors of district No. 9 present and voting at the meeting. Because of this fact the consolidation was not effected and cannot be sustained. Appeal sustained.

Carlos J. Coleman, attorney for appellants.

FINLEY, Commissioner. The appeal herein is brought from the acts and proceedings of a joint district meeting held in school districts Nos. 9 and 17, town of Eaton, for the purpose of voting upon the question of consolidating such districts. It appears that Edson A. Fuller, district superintendent of schools of the third supervisory district of Madison county, issued on August 17, 1917, an order consolidating school districts Nos. 9 and 17 in school unit No. 2 of the town of Eaton. Such order was issued under the provisions of section 330 of the Education Law, as added by chapter 328 of the Laws of 1917, known as the Township School Law. Before such order became effective it was necessary under this section that it be approved by a majority vote of the town board of education of the school unit in which the districts were located, and be thereafter approved by a majority vote of the qualified electors of each district present and voting at a joint meeting of the qualified electors of the two districts. The town board of education of the town school unit approved the order. A meeting of the qualified electors of the two districts for the purpose of voting upon the question of consolidation was held on August 31, 1917. A vote was taken at this meeting, but because of some discrepancy between the number of voters participating and the number of ballots cast, it was decided to take a second ballot and the meeting was adjourned for this purpose until September 7, 1917. At the adjourned meeting the proposition was submitted and the vote taken by recording the ayes and noes. The qualified electors from district No. 17 voted in favor of the consolidation. The vote of the electors of district No. 9 resulted in a tie, and upon a second ballot it appears from