South Dakota's compulsory attendance statutes (SDCL 13-27-1 through 13-27-6) require children of compulsory school age to attend school. SDCL 13-32-4 lets a school board suspend or expel insubordinate students. Can the board actually use that suspension power against a compulsory-age student, or do the compulsory attendance statutes block it?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1976. Ask about yours and see what current South Dakota law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
The question asked whether South Dakota's compulsory attendance statutes prevented a board of education from suspending a compulsory-age student for insubordination. SDCL 13-32-4 authorized school boards to suspend or expel pupils who were "insubordinate or habitually disobedient."
AG Janklow's answer was no, the compulsory attendance statutes do not create disciplinary immunity. SDCL 13-32-4 directly authorizes suspension and expulsion of insubordinate students, and the legislature did not exclude compulsory-age students from that authority.
The opinion quoted SDCL 13-32-4: the board could suspend or expel, and the person in charge of the school could temporarily suspend. Expulsion could not extend beyond the current school year. The State Board of Education could establish hearing rules to protect students' rights, and districts had to provide procedural due process hearings under those rules when suspension or expulsion extended into the fourth school day.
The compulsory attendance statutes, Janklow explained, do not "create such a rigid structure that a student who is covered by compulsory attendance is immune from discipline under SDCL 13-32-4." He did not discuss parents' duties or a school's obligation to provide education during a suspension.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1976. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. SDCL 13-32-4 and the compulsory attendance statutes may have been amended since this opinion, and the federal and state due process framework for school discipline has continued to develop. Modern questions about student suspension and expulsion procedures, due process hearing requirements, and the boundary between school discipline and compulsory attendance should be verified against current SDCL chapters 13-32 and 13-27 and any applicable Department of Education rules.
What the opinion meant at the time
For school boards, the opinion confirmed that they had real disciplinary authority over compulsory-age students. The compulsory attendance statutes did not turn into a shield against discipline. A board could suspend or expel, subject to due process.
For school administrators, the quoted statute allowed the person in charge of the school to temporarily suspend an eligible pupil. A suspension or expulsion extending into the fourth school day required a procedural due process hearing under State Board of Education rules.
For parents of a compulsory-age student facing suspension, the opinion means compulsory attendance alone did not bar discipline for insubordination. It did not decide what happened to parents' attendance obligations or how education would be provided during suspension.
For students, the opinion confirmed that the school's discipline rules applied to them regardless of their compulsory attendance status. Being "required to attend" school did not mean "exempt from school discipline."
Common questions
Q: How long could a board suspend a student?
A: The quoted statute set an end-of-current-school-year limit for expulsion, but the opinion did not state a maximum suspension length. It authorized temporary suspension by the person in charge and required a procedural due process hearing when suspension or expulsion extended into the fourth school day.
Q: What did "due process" require under this opinion?
A: The opinion did not spell out the specifics. SDCL 13-32-4 authorized the State Board of Education to set hearing rules for the protection of students' rights and required districts to provide procedural due process hearings once a suspension or expulsion extended into the fourth school day. The details lived in those State Board rules and the district's own policies, not in this opinion.
Q: What is "insubordination"?
A: The opinion did not define insubordination or evaluate any particular student's conduct. It answered whether the board's statutory discipline power applied to a compulsory-age student.
Q: What happened to the parents' compulsory attendance obligation when a student was suspended?
A: The opinion did not address this. Janklow resolved only the narrow question put to him: that the compulsory attendance statutes do not immunize a student from discipline under SDCL 13-32-4.
Q: Could a student appeal an expulsion?
A: SDCL 13-32-4 required districts to provide procedural due process hearings under State Board of Education rules. The opinion did not describe any further appeal beyond those hearing procedures.
Background and statutory framework
The request referred to SDCL 13-27-1 through 13-27-6, the compulsory attendance statutes, and asked whether they limited school discipline under SDCL 13-32-4. The AG relied on the discipline statute's express authorization.
Janklow concluded that compulsory attendance did not make a covered student immune from discipline under SDCL 13-32-4. He did not characterize the attendance statutes as conferring or withholding a particular right to education.
SDCL 13-32-4 itself built in procedural protection: it authorized the State Board of Education to set hearing rules and required districts to provide due process hearings once discipline extended into the fourth school day. Janklow's opinion tracked that text: discipline yes, with due process.
The quoted statute also named "habitually disobedient" pupils. The opinion addressed the question of suspending an insubordinate pupil and did not apply either term to specific conduct.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 13-32-4 (school board suspension/expulsion authority)
- SDCL 13-27-1 through 13-27-6 (compulsory attendance and excuses)
Source
Original opinion text
Expulsion of minor child for insubordination
Dear Mr. Casey:
You have requested an official opinion from this office as to the following question:
QUESTION:
May a board of education suspend from enrollment in a public school a minor child of compulsory school attendance age on the grounds of insubordination under authority of SDCL 13-24-4, in light of the compulsory school attendance statutes of this state, particularly SDCL 13-27-1 through 13-27-6?
SDCL 13-32-4 provides:
The school board of every school district shall assist and co-operate with the teacher in the government and discipline of the schools. The board may suspend or expel from school any pupils insubordinate or habitually disobedient, and the person in charge of the school may temporarily suspend any such pupils. Such expulsion shall not extend beyond the end of the current school year. The state board of education is authorized to establish rules for hearing procedures for the protection of students' rights. Each school district board shall provide procedural due process hearings for students in accordance with such rules when the suspension or expulsion of a student extends into the fourth school day.
In my view, the above-cited statute is quite clear; the Legislature has authorized school boards to suspend or expel an insubordinate student, even though that student might be a student covered by the compulsory attendance statutes which you refer to. Discipline in public schools is a matter which is generally left to the teachers, local administrators, and local school boards. If, in their view, a suspension is appropriate for an insubordinate student after being given his due process, it is my opinion that the Legislature has authorized this to be done. SDCL 13-27-1 through 13-27-6 do not create such a rigid structure that a student who is covered by compulsory attendance is immune from discipline under SDCL 13-32-4.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Attorney General
WJJ:DOC:jo
What does South Dakota law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1976. Ezel checks the current South Dakota statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace