South Dakota's compulsory school attendance statutes (SDCL 13-27-1 through 13-27-7) list reasons a child can be excused from attending school. Do those statutory grounds also limit a school district when it lets a student miss a few days for an educational trip, or can the school board write its own policy on field-trip absences?
Plain-English summary
A state education official asked AG Gordon Mydland a series of questions about compulsory school attendance. The driving puzzle was a textual one: SDCL 13-27-1 through 13-27-7 list the only statutorily authorized reasons a school board may "excuse" a child from school attendance. The list covers things like alternative private instruction, illness, and special-needs placement. Field trips are not on the list. Did that mean school districts could not excuse students for field trips?
Mydland resolved the puzzle by distinguishing two different ideas the statute uses: membership in a school and day-to-day attendance. Borrowing language from the State Board of Education's Dictionary of Educational Terms (Bulletin 10-4, 1970), Mydland defined "membership" as the formal status of being enrolled in a school. The compulsory attendance statutes addressed whether a child of compulsory age (7-16) could be released from being enrolled in a recognized school at all. They did not address what counted as attendance on any given day.
The Bulletin 10-4 definition of "day of attendance" included days when an enrolled person is "away from the school site on an educational trip authorized or approved by the teacher, principal or superintendent." So a child on an authorized field trip is attending school, in the statutory sense, even though physically absent from the building.
That distinction unlocked the rest of the analysis. School boards have broad implied authority to formulate rules and policies governing enrolled students. Field-trip excuse policies fall within that authority. And those rules apply to all enrolled students, including students past the compulsory age of 16, because enrollment in the school imposes the obligations of school membership regardless of whether the student is still subject to compulsory attendance.
Mydland also endorsed the practice of requiring excuse requests in writing, both as a permitted board policy and as a desirable administrative practice.
Currency note
This opinion was issued during AG Gordon Mydland's tenure (1969-1975). Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. The compulsory attendance statutes in SDCL chapter 13-27 have been amended multiple times since the 1970s. Modern field-trip excuse policies, age boundaries for compulsory attendance, and home-instruction authorizations should be verified against current SDCL chapter 13-27 and any applicable Department of Education rules.
What the opinion meant at the time
For school boards, the takeaway was permissive. The statutory excuse grounds did not box them in. They had authority to adopt their own policies on field-trip absences, lesson-trip absences, and similar day-to-day excused absences. The policy could apply uniformly to all enrolled students.
For principals and teachers operating on the ground, the practical guidance was: an authorized field trip counts as a day of attendance, not an excused absence. The administrative-rules pedigree of that definition (Bulletin 10-4) gave it weight even though it was not in the statute.
For parents requesting trip excuses, the procedural takeaway was that a school district could legitimately require excuse requests in writing, and could legitimately require them in advance, as part of its board policy.
For students over 16 who were still enrolled, the opinion confirmed that the school's rules still applied. Aging out of compulsory attendance did not aging out of the discipline of school policies.
Common questions
Q: What's the difference between "membership" and "attendance" in the statute?
A: Membership is the formal status of being enrolled in a recognized school. Attendance is the day-by-day question of whether the enrolled student showed up (or was on an authorized educational trip). The statutory excuses in SDCL 13-27-3 through 13-27-6 release the student from membership; they do not control daily excused absences.
Q: Where did the AG get this membership-versus-attendance distinction?
A: From the State Board of Education's Dictionary of Educational Terms for Elementary and Secondary Education, Bulletin 10-4 (1970). The dictionary defined both "membership" and "day of attendance" in a way that supported the AG's reading.
Q: Did the field-trip policy need to be written into board policy?
A: The opinion did not require a written policy as a legal prerequisite, but it confirmed that written policies were permissible. The opinion ended by noting that "it would be desirable" for excuse requests to be in writing, signaling best practice.
Q: Did the policy apply to a 17-year-old who voluntarily kept attending?
A: Yes. The opinion held that any child who becomes a member of a school, even if over the compulsory age limit, subjects themselves to the same rules, regulations, and requirements that apply to younger students. Choosing to be enrolled meant accepting the school's discipline.
Q: What about home-schooled students?
A: SDCL 13-27-3 (alternative private instruction by a competent person) was the relevant pathway in 1972. The state superintendent judged competency and the home-instructed child still had to take examinations. The opinion did not delve into the modern home-schooling regime, which was largely built out later.
Q: Did the opinion address truancy enforcement?
A: Indirectly. The compulsory attendance statutes contemplated truancy officers and even commitment proceedings for children with disabilities not receiving alternative instruction. The opinion's focus, however, was on how the statute treated excuses, not on enforcement.
Background and statutory framework
South Dakota's compulsory attendance regime in 1972 covered children aged 7 to 16. The statute required the child to attend "some public or private day school" for the entire term unless excused under one of the specific statutory grounds. Those grounds were narrow: alternative competent private instruction, certified medical or mental inability, special-needs placement, or family illness emergency.
The statutory question Dr. Barnhart raised was textual: if the only authorized excuses were the listed ones, did boards have any legal room to excuse a child for an educational field trip? Without a textual answer, school districts faced a real risk that field-trip absences had no legal basis.
Mydland's resolution was the Dictionary of Educational Terms definition, which redrew the line: the statutes were about membership, and an authorized field trip was a day of attendance, not an absence at all. That made the board's authority to set field-trip policies a normal exercise of its general rulemaking power, not a workaround of the compulsory attendance statutes.
The broader principle, restated in the opinion, is that the right to attend a public school is a privilege "conditioned on the acceptance of certain obligations" set by statute and by the school's own rules. School boards have implied authority to formulate, enforce, and revise those rules. Field-trip policies are one of many places that authority shows up.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 13-27-1 (compulsory attendance ages 7-16)
- SDCL 13-27-2 (board excuse authority)
- SDCL 13-27-3 (alternative competent private instruction)
- SDCL 13-27-4 (medical condition excuse)
- SDCL 13-27-5 (special instruction needs excuse)
- SDCL 13-27-6 (family illness excuse)
- SDCL 13-27-7 (written excuse certificate procedure)
Administrative source:
- State Board of Education, Dictionary of Educational Terms for Elementary and Secondary Education, Bulletin 10-4 (1970)
Source
Original opinion text
School attendance and compulsory membership.
Dear Dr. Barnhart:
You have requested an official opinion as follows:
13-27-1 Every person having under his control a child of the age of seven years and not exceeding the age of sixteen years, shall annually cause such child to regularly attend some public or private day school for the entire term during which the public school in the district in which such person resides, or the school to which such child is assigned to attend, is in session, until the child shall have completed the first eight grades of the regular common school course, or shall have reached the age of sixteen years, unless excused as hereinafter provided.
13-27-1 School boards of all school districts shall have authority to excuse a child from school attendance for the reasons set forth in §§ 13-27-3 to 13-27-6.
13-27-3 A child may be excused from school attendance, pursuant to § 13-27-2, because the child is otherwise instructed by a competent person for a like period of time in the branches commonly taught in the public schools. All such instructions shall be given so as to lead to a mastery of the English language. The state superintendent shall be the judge as to the competency of such instruction and the child so instructed shall take such examination as the state superintendent may require, and reports covering his work shall be filed with the state superintendent in such form and as often as that officer may require.
13-27-4 A child may be excused from school attendance pursuant to §13-27-2, because the physical or mental condition of the child is such as to render his attendance at school unsafe, impracticable, or harmful either to such child or to others. The existence of such condition is evidenced by the certificate of a reputable physician, dentist, or other persons who may lawfully treat sickness or disease under the laws of the state, or by the certificate of a psychologist employed by the state commission for the mentally retarded.
13-27-5 A child may be excused from school attendance, pursuant to § 13-27-2, because the child, as declared by a reputable physician, is mentally or physically defective and cannot receive proper instruction in the common schools, in which case, suitable provision shall be made for the instruction and training of such child by a private instructor for an institution adapted to the instruction and training of such defectives.
In the event that a blind, deaf, or mentally retarded child is not given such instruction, it shall be the duty of the truancy officer to institute action in the county court for the commitment of such child to the state institution maintained for such defective, unless such child be excused from attendance by the superintendent of such institution.
13-27-6 A child may be excused from school attendance, pursuant to §13-27-2, because of serious illness in his immediate family, making his presence at home an actual necessity, or his presence in school a menace to the health of other pupils.
13-27-7 All applications for excuse from school attendance shall be in writing, and if granted, a certificate shall be issued by the president of the school board having jurisdiction over the district in which the child resides, stating the reason for such excuse and the period for which it is issued.
Although the above statutes make reference to excuses from school attendance, it is generally understood that these statutes refer to excuses from membership (enrollment) in a recognized school and that excuses from attendance for pupils who are a member (enrolled) in a recognized school are not subject to the requirement of these statutes. Based on these statutes and the general observations cited above, it is requested that you issue an official opinion on the following questions:
-
Do the above cited statutes apply only to excuses for pupils of compulsory attendance age from membership (enrollment) in a recognized school?
-
What are the statutory requirements for excusing a pupil who is a member (enrolled) of a recognized school from attending regularly scheduled classes for the purpose of taking an educational trip of limited duration?
-
If there are no statutory requirements, may the school board adopt a policy for making such excuses?
-
If a policy is adopted by the school board for excuses for such educational trips, are such pupils who are not subject to the compulsory attendance statutes subject to such board policy?
-
When such excuses are granted, must they be in writing?
With reference to your question No. 1, the South Dakota Dictionary of Educational Terms for Elementary and Secondary Education, Bulletin 10-4 (1970) adopted by the State Board of Education defines the word membership in part as follows:
A person is a member of a school from the date he presents himself at school and is placed on the current roll until he permanently leaves or withdraws from such school during a school term.
It is my opinion that the above cited statutes apply only to excuses for pupils of compulsory attendance age from membership in a recognized school as set forth in the above definition.
In answer to your question No.2, I am unaware of any specific statute applicable to the question you have asked.
In answer to your question No.3, the South Dakota Dictionary of Educational Terms for Elementary and Secondary Education, Bulletin 10-4 (1970) adopted by the State Board of Education defines attendance, day of as follows:
A day in which an enrolled person is present for the minimum length of time that school is in session for a person of like classification under the guidance and direction of a teacher. A day of attendance also includes those days when an enrolled person is away from the school site on an educational trip authorized or approved by the teacher, principal or superintendent who has final jurisdiction to authorize or approve such educational trip.
In addition to constitutional and statutory provisions, admission and attendance at schools are governed by rules and regulations of state and local board of education. Local boards are invested with extensive authority in educational matters. School districts through their agents, officers and employees must regulate the conduct of pupils if an orderly process of education is to be achieved. The authority to formulate rules, regulations, and policies is by implication inherent in the educational enterprise and includes the authority to enforce them. It is my opinion that the answer to your question No.3 is in the AFFIRMATIVE.
With reference to your question No.4, it has been said that the right to attend a public school is not a private right but a privilege held in common by all members of the community within specified ages. It is a privilege conditioned on the acceptance of certain obligations which have been spelled out by the statutes and the courts over a period of time. The purpose of establishing and supporting public schools and requiring school attendance is not solely to benefit the child or the parent, it is also for the well being and safety of the state itself. Its major purpose is the benefit of all society. Education is a state function under the control of the state legislature. School attendance is a privilege which imposes obligations on the child and his parent. To claim this privilege, a child must be willing to abide by the reasonable rules and regulations of the school district.
In answer to your specific question No.4, it is my opinion that any child who becomes a member of a school, even though he may be over the compulsory attendance age requirement, subjects himself to the same rules, regulations and requirements of those students who are within the compulsory age requirements.
In answer to your question No.5, it is my opinion that the policy of the school board may require that such excuses be in writing and it is also my opinion that it would be desirable that the request for such excuse be in writing and that such a request be approved by an authorized school official.
Respectfully submitted,
Gordon Mydland
Attorney General