22-12-2.  Compulsory school attendance; responsibility.

Text

A. Except as otherwise provided, a school-age person shall attend public school, private school, home school or a state institution until the school-age person is at least eighteen years of age unless that person has graduated from high school or received a high school equivalency credential. A parent may give written, signed permission for the school-age person to leave school in case of hardship approved by the local superintendent.

B. A school-age person subject to the provisions of the Compulsory School Attendance Law shall attend school for at least the length of time of the school year that is established in the school district in which the person is a resident or the state-chartered charter school in which the person is enrolled and the school district or state-chartered charter school shall not excuse a student from attending school except as provided in that law or for parent-authorized medical reasons.

C. Any parent of a school-age person subject to the provisions of the Compulsory School Attendance Law is responsible for the school attendance of that person.

D. Each local school board and each governing body of a charter school or private school shall enforce the provisions of the Compulsory School Attendance Law for students enrolled in their respective schools.

History

HISTORY:
1953 77-10-2, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 170; 1967, ch. 133, § 1; 1972, ch. 17, § 2; 1974, ch. 7, § 2; 1975, ch. 332, § 3; 1975, ch. 338, § 2; 1981, ch. 7, § 1; 1985, ch. 21, § 4; 1997, ch. 194, § 1; 2001, ch. 183, § 1; 2004, ch. 28, § 2; 2006, ch. 94, § 41; 2007, ch. 307, § 6; 2007, ch. 308, § 6; 2015, ch. 122, § 13.

Annotations

Amendment Notes. 

The 2004 amendment, effective May 19, 2004, in Paragraph A(4) and in Subsection C, deleted “guardian or person having custody and control” following “parent”; and added Subsection D.

The 2006 amendment, effective July 1, 2007, inserted references to charter schools throughout the section.

      2007 amendments. —

Identical amendments to this section were enacted by Laws 2007, ch. 307, § 6 and Laws 2007, ch. 308, § 6, effective July 1, 2007, rewriting this section to the extent that a detailed comparison is impracticable.

The 2015 amendment , effective July 1, 2015, substituted “high school equivalency credential” for “general educational development certificate” at the end of the first sentence of A.

Notes to Decisions

Constitutionality.

Attendance.

Home schooling.

No contractual relationship.

Parent’s responsibilities.

Private schools.

      Constitutionality.

In an action against a school teacher for damages for the wrongful death of a student, the representative of the decedent failed to establish constitutional deprivation with regard to the school teacher’s liability because compulsory attendance laws did not impose severe restraints on individual liberty that implicated the due process clause. Maldonado v. Josey, 975 F.2d 727, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 21838 (10th Cir. N.M. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 914, 113 S. Ct. 1266, 122 L. Ed. 2d 662, 1993 U.S. LEXIS 1184 (U.S. 1993).

      Attendance.

Compulsory education does not require that every child attend public school but does require that every child attend some recognized school — public, private, or institutional. Santa Fe Community Sch. v. New Mexico State Bd. of Educ., 1974-NMSC-005, 85 N.M. 783, 518 P.2d 272, 1974 N.M. LEXIS 1354 (N.M. 1974).

      Home schooling.

Parents who were home-schooling their children were found to be in violation of compulsory attendance law. Home instruction exclusion from the definition of private school was held to be constitutional, although this exclusion has since been removed. State v. Edgington, 1983-NMCA-036, 99 N.M. 715, 663 P.2d 374, 1983 N.M. App. LEXIS 702 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 99 N.M. 644, 662 P.2d 645, 1983 N.M. LEXIS 2301 (N.M. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 940, 104 S. Ct. 354, 78 L. Ed. 2d 318, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 2170 (U.S. 1983).

      No contractual relationship.

Statutes providing for free public schools and compulsory school attendance did not give rise to a contractual relationship for which parents and students may seek relief in the event of a breach. Rubio v. Carlsbad Mun. Sch. Dist., 1987-NMCA-127, 106 N.M. 446, 744 P.2d 919, 1987 N.M. App. LEXIS 775 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987).

      Parent’s responsibilities.

Statutes or case law imposing duties on parents to ensure school attendance or to provide child support do not relate to a parent’s responsibilities in conjunction with filing a medical malpractice cause of action. Jaramillo v. Heaton, 2004-NMCA-123, 136 N.M. 498, 100 P.3d 204, 2004 N.M. App. LEXIS 107 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004).

      Private schools.

A mother withdrew her children from public school and established a new school program; the enrollment of the children in the program satisfied New Mexico’s compulsory school attendance statute. Strosnider v. Strosnider, 1984-NMCA-082, 101 N.M. 639, 686 P.2d 981, 1984 N.M. App. LEXIS 685 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984).

Compulsory education statute only gives the board authority to approve the courses of instruction in private schools; the board did not have the authority to supervise or exercise control or management over private schools. Santa Fe Community Sch. v. New Mexico State Bd. of Educ., 1974-NMSC-005, 85 N.M. 783, 518 P.2d 272, 1974 N.M. LEXIS 1354 (N.M. 1974).

OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Analysis

Married students.

Pregnant students.

School not within district.

      Married students.

Proposed rule or regulation prohibiting married students from participating in band, glee club, dramatic events, school newspapers, school clubs, school sponsored trips and school athletics was arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore void. 1967 Op. At’ty Gen. No. 67-117, 1967 N.M. AG LEXIS 115.

      Pregnant students.

Proposed rule which would have required the withdrawal of a student when it is known that she is pregnant and when the school officials do not believe that such attendance is proper clearly violated compulsory attendance law. 1967 Op. At’ty Gen. No. 67-117, 1967 N.M. AG LEXIS 115.

      School not within district.

Compulsory attendance law does not require that students attend a school within their district, and can be satisfied by attendance at a school outside the district. 1973 Op. At’ty Gen. No. 73-59, 1973 N.M. AG LEXIS 522.

Research References and Practice Aids

      Cross references.

Early childhood education programs required, 22-13-3 NMSA 1978.