62 A.3d 1065
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Kerstetter appeals from an order denying her motion to dismiss charges under Section 1327 for alleged compulsory attendance violations.
- She enrolled her twin daughters in kindergarten at West Beaver Elementary for the 2011-2012 school year.
- The School District issued three non-traffic citations for alleged unlawful absences in Nov-Dec 2011.
- The trial court noted a potential inconsistency between the Code's definition of compulsory age and the Department's regulations, and held hearings with both sides presenting testimony.
- The issue certified on appeal was whether a child younger than eight enrolled in kindergarten is subject to compulsory attendance under the Code.
- The majority held that once a child is enrolled in public school, regardless of kindergarten, the compulsory attendance provisions apply; the order denying dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Code define compulsory age to include kindergarten enrollees? | Kerstetter: kindergarten not within compulsory age per regulations. | Commonwealth: once enrolled, children are subject to attendance under the Code. | Code controls; kindergarten enrollees are compulsory. |
| Are Department regulations controlling when inconsistent with the Code? | Regulations create an exception for kindergarten. | Code definition prevails; regulations inconsistent and not controlling. | Code definition prevails; regulations do not alter compulsory age. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Leary v. Wisecup, 26 Pa.Cmwlth. 538 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1976) (fundamental right to education is statutory, kindergarten not required)
- Slippery Rock Area Sch. Dist. v. Pa. Cyber Charter Sch., 612 Pa. 486 (Pa. 2011) (statutory construction priority; plain language governs)
- Joyce Outdoor Adven, LLC v. Dep’t of Transp., 49 A.3d 518 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (agency interpretation of its regulations is controlling unless plainly erroneous)