Commonwealth v. Kerstetter, 626 Pa. 89

The Pennsylvania School Code defines compulsory attendance and the enforceability provisions (24 P.S. §§ 13-1326, 13-1327) and allows districts to offer kindergarten as a discretionary program.
If a district offers kindergarten, it is part of the elementary system, with a stated minimum attendance term; districts are not required to provide kindergarten.
Appellant enrolled her twin five-year-old daughters in the district’s 2011-12 public kindergarten program; multiple unexcused absences prompted summonses under § 13-1327.
The trial court and Commonwealth Court ruled that enrollment in kindergarten, where permitted, triggers compulsory attendance under the Code, despite the age distinctions in other provisions and regulatory definitions.
This Court granted jurisdiction to resolve whether compulsory attendance applies to kindergarten enrollment and whether the Department’s regulation conflating 'beginner' with 'compulsory school age' is valid.
The Court held that enrollment in kindergarten activates compulsory attendance under § 13-1326 and § 13-1327, and that the Department’s regulation using 'beginner' is inconsistent with the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does kindergarten enrollment trigger compulsory attendance?	Kerstetter argues kindergarten is not compulsory and attendance is only for beginners in first grade.	Commonwealth argues enrollment in school (including kindergarten) triggers compulsory attendance under § 13-1326 and § 13-1327.	Yes; enrollment in kindergarten triggers compulsory attendance.
Is the Department regulation equating compulsory school age with 'beginner' valid?	Kerstetter asserts the regulation conflicts with the statute by excluding kindergarten from compulsory attendance.	Commonwealth argues the regulation is inconsistent with the statute and should be invalidated.	Regulation invalid; plain-language statute controls.
Does O’Leary control whether kindergarten is subject to truancy penalties?	Kerstetter relies on O’Leary to limit compulsory attendance to beginners in first grade.	Commonwealth distinguishes O’Leary and relies on enrolled status triggering attendance regardless of grade.	O’Leary rejected; enrollment in school triggers attendance despite kindergarten status.
Should 'withdrawal and waiting' affect enforceability of attendance for enrolled kindergarteners?	Amicus and Kerstetter concern withdrawals as a humanitarian exception to enforceability.	Commonwealth emphasizes the case record shows no withdrawal; regulation should not create absurd enforcement.	Withdrawals not resolved here; case remanded for disposition consistent with ruling.

O’Leary v. Wisecup, 364 A.2d 770 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1976) (kindergarten attendance not addressed as absolute compulsory)
Mercury Trucking, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm’n, 55 A.3d 1056 (Pa. 2012) (statutory construction rules and intent guidance)
Commonwealth v. Gilmour Mfg. Co., 822 A.2d 676 (Pa. 2003) (administrative interpretations must track statute’s meaning)
Slippery Rock Area Sch. Dist. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 983 A.2d 1231 (Pa. 2009) (regulations must be consistent with statute; regulatory deference limits)