Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

December 7, 1961

Honorable Alton R. Griffin Opinion No. ~~-1216
County Attorney
Lubbock County Re: Whether a child under slx-
Lubbock, Texas teen years of ago who'has
completed the ninth ~grade
and whose services are
needed for the support
of his parents is required
to attend school under the
compulsory
. -.. attendance
.. laws,
Dear Mr. Griffin: ana relatea questlon.

Youhave requested an opinion of this Department on
the following two questztons:
"(1) Is a child under sixteen (1.6)years of
age who has completed the ninth (9th) grade and
whose services are needed for the support of his
parents, required to attend school under the com-
pulsory school attendance laws?
"(2) Is a child over sixteen (16) years of
age required to attend school until he has com-
pleted the ninth (9th) grade?"
The "Compulsory School Attendance Laws" to which
you refer In your letter are codified in the Civil Statutes
as~Article 2892, Vernon's Civil Statutes, and the correspond-
ing penal provision as Article 297, Vernon's Penal Code, and
read In part as follows:
"Every~chlld in the State who is seven (7)
years and not more ~than sixteen (16)'years of
age shall be required to attend the public
schools In the district of its residence, or
in some other district to which It may be
transferred as provided by law, for a period
of not less than one hundred and twenty (120)
days annually. . . ."
Article 2893, Vernon's Civil Statutes, and Article
298, Vernon's Penal Code, read in part as follows:
Honorable Alton R. Griffin, page 2 (~~-1216)

11
. . .

"5. Any child more than sixteen (16) years
of age who has satisfactorily completed the work
of the ninth grade, and whose services are needed
in support of a parent,or other person standing
In parental relation to the child, may, . ,,,. be
exempted from further attendance at school.
We will consider your last question first, because
it has been answered by this office In Attorney ‘General’s
Opinion V-954 (1949), In which It was held that a child whd
attains the age of sixteen or over before the beginning of
the public free Schools In his district Is not subject to
the provisions of the compulsory attendance law, whether or
not he has completed the work of the ninth grade, We are
enclosing a copy of this opinion and your second question
Is correspondingly answered In the negative.
As to your first Inquiry, you reverse the above and
ask whether a child under sixteen years of age, who has com-
pleted the ninth grade, etc., Is required to attend school
under the compulsory school attendance law. We are of the
opinion that this question should be answered In the affirma-
tive.
You are referred to the original caption of the
compulsory school attendance act of 1915, Acts, 34th Leg.,
ch, 49, p. 93, which reads as follows:
“An Act to compel attendance upon public
schools of Texas b $: children between the ages
of 8 and 14 years.
In Butler v. State, 194 S.W, 166, (Tex.Crlm. 1917),
It was held that a child who attained the statutory age of
fourteen before the beginning of the public free sc,hools In
his Qistrlct was not,sub,ject to the provisions of that com-
pulsory attendance law, This case was decided when the law
which Is now codified as Article 2892, Vernon’s Civil Statutes,
and Article 297, Vernon’s Penal Code, provided that every child
of not more than fo~vrteen years was subject to the corn ulsory
attendance law, In 19X5, the law W.&U amended (Aots, 4Eth Leg.,
ch. 160, p, 409) to substitute “aeven years” for “eight years”,
and “sixteen years” for “fourteen years”.
We point out the foregoing because we bellave that
it is the legislative intent , and the construction of such by
the courts, that the governing factor should be the age of the
child at the beginning of the school term which confrolti, In
Honorable Alton R. Griffin, Page 3 (~~-1216)

arriving at the legislative intent, it is of primary Importance
to ascertain the purpose for which the statute was enacted.
Harris County v. Tennessee ProductsPipe Line Co., 332 S.W.2d
('('1 I Civ. App. 1960) The apparent purpose of this statute is
simply to compel thl attendance of children between the ages
of seven and sixteen In the public schools of Texas.
We recognize that there is an apparent inconsistency
within the provisions of~the statute itself regarding the effect
of the provision as to completing the ninth grade. However, in
Wood v. State9 133 Tex. 110, 126 S.W.2d 4 (1939), the Court
used the following language:
"It is the settled law that statutes should
be construed so as to carry out the legislative
intent, and when such Intent is once ascertained,
it should be given effect, even though the literal
meaniflg of the words used therein is not followed.
. . .

Thus, we are of the opinion that a child under six-
teen years of age who has completed the ninth grade is subject
to the compulsory school attendance law, and a child over six-
teen years of age is not subject to such, regardless of whether
or not he has completed the ninth grade.

SUMMARY

(1) A child under sixteen (16) years of age
who has completed the ninth (9th) grade is subject
to the provisions of Article 2892, Vernon's Civil
Statutes, and Article 297, Vernon's Penal Code.
(2) A child over sixteen (16) years of age
is not required to attend school under Article
2892, Vernon's Civil Statutes, and Article 297,
Vernon's Penal Code, regardless of whether he
has completed the ninth (9th) grade or not.
Very truly yours,
WILL WILSON

EBS:dhs
 . ^

Honorable Alton R. Griffin, page 4 (~~-1216)

APPROVED:
OPINIONCOMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Henry Braswell
Malcolm L. Quick
Joe B. McMaster
REVIEWEDFOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Houghton Brownlee, Jr.