Mr. And Mrs. Vaughn Both Take A Specialized

And, has the State carried the required burden of proof to convict defendants? N. 18:14-14 provides: "Every parent, guardian or other person having custody and control of a child between the ages of 6 and 16 years shall cause such child regularly to attend the public schools of the district or a day school in which there is given instruction equivalent to that provided in the public schools for children of similar grades and attainments or to receive equivalent instruction elsewhere than at school. " 1948), where the Virginia law required certification of teachers in the home and specified the number of hours and days that the child was to be taught each year; Parr v. State, 117 Ohio St. 23, 157 N. 555 (Ohio Sup. State v. MassaAnnotate this Case. Leslie Rear, the Morris County Superintendent of Schools, then testified for the State. Massa was certainly teaching Barbara something. 383 Mr. Bertram Latzer, Assistant Prosecutor of Morris County, for plaintiff (Mr. Frank C. Scerbo, Prosecutor, attorney). "If there is such evidence in the case, then the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the State, " (at p. 147). Having determined the intent of the Legislature as requiring only equivalent academic instruction, the only remaining question is whether the defendants provided their daughter with an education equivalent to that available in *391 the public schools. 384 Mrs. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized practice. Massa testified that she had taught Barbara at home for two years before September 1965. The conviction was upheld because of the failure of the parents to obtain permission from the superintendent. Massa also introduced textbooks which are used as supplements to her own compilations as well as for test material and written problems. Mr. and Mrs. Massa appeared pro se. Faced with exiguous precedent in New Jersey and having reviewed the above cited cases in other states, this court holds that the language of the New Jersey statute, N. 18:14-14, providing for "equivalent education elsewhere than at school, " requires only a showing of academic equivalence.

1. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized subject
2. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized practice
3. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized language

Mr. And Mrs. Vaughn Both Take A Specialized Subject

Mrs. Massa conducted the case; Mr. Massa concurred. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized language. 1904), also commented on the nature of a school, stating, "We do not think that the number of persons, whether one or many, makes a place where instruction is imparted any less or more a school. " The State called as a witness David MacMurray, the Assistant Superintendent of Pequannock Schools. Massa, however, testified that these materials were used as an outline from which she taught her daughter and as a reference for her daughter to use in review not as a substitute for all source material. A group of students being educated in the same manner and place would constitute a de facto school.

This court agrees with the above decisions that the number of students does not determine a school and, further, that a certain number of students need not be present to attain an equivalent education. 124 P., at p. 912; emphasis added). What could have been intended by the Legislature by adding this alternative? The behavior of the four Massa children in the courtroom evidenced an exemplary upbringing. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized subject. The court in State v. Peterman, 32 Ind. She also is taught art by her father, who has taught this subject in various schools.

Mr. And Mrs. Vaughn Both Take A Specialized Practice

A different form of legislative intention is illustrated by the case of People v. Turner, 121 Cal. He also testified about extra-curricular activity, which is available but not required. The Washington statute, however, provided that parents must cause their child to attend public school or private school, or obtain an excuse from the superintendent for physical or mental reasons or if such child shall have attained a reasonable proficiency in the branches of learning required by law. The California statute provided that parents must send their children to public school or a private school meeting certain prescribed conditions, or that the children be instructed by a private tutor or *389 other person possessing a valid state credential for the grade taught. She felt she wanted to be with her child when the child would be more alive and fresh. If Barbara has not learned something which has been taught, Mrs. Massa then reviews that particular area.

However, the State stipulated that a child may be taught at home and also that Mr. or Mrs. Massa need not be certified by the State of New Jersey to so teach. She had been Barbara's teacher from September 1965 to April 1966. People v. Levisen also commented on the spirit of the relevant statute stating: "The law is not made to punish those who provide their children with instruction equal or superior to that obtainable in public schools. The court further said that the evidence of the state was to the effect that defendant maintained no school at his home. The municipal magistrate imposed a fine of $2, 490 for both defendants. The prosecutor stipulated, as stated above, that the State's position is that a child may be taught at home and that a person teaching at home is not required to be certified as a teacher by the State for the purpose of teaching his own children. Bank, 86 N. 13 (App.

Mr. And Mrs. Vaughn Both Take A Specialized Language

Mrs. Massa satisfied this court that she has an established program of teaching and studying. 00 for each subsequent offense, in the discretion of the court. This case presents two questions on the issue of equivalency for determination. 388 The court in State v. Counort, 69 Wash. 361, 124 P. 910, 41 L. R. A., N. 95 (Wash. Sup. Mrs. Massa introduced into evidence 19 exhibits. The other type of statute is that which allows only public school or private school education without additional alternatives. Ct. 1912), held that defendant had not complied with the state law on compulsory school attendance. People v. Levisen and State v. Peterman, supra.

665, 70 N. E. 550, 551 (Ind. However, within the framework of the existing law and the nature of the stipulations by the State, this court finds the defendants not guilty and reverses the municipal court conviction. He outlined procedures which Pequannock teachers perform, such as evaluation sheets, lesson plans and use of visual aids. Cestone, 38 N. 139, 148 (App. The object of the statute was stated to be that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in a particular way. Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County Court, Law Division. Barbara returned to school in September 1965, but began receiving her education at home again on April 25, 1966. The majority of testimony of the State's witnesses dealt with the lack of social development. In quasi-criminal proceedings the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Even in this situation, home education has been upheld as constituting a private school. Five of these exhibits, in booklet form, are condensations of basic subjects, booklets are concise and seem to contain all the basic subject material for the respective subjects. See People v. Levisen, 404 Ill. 574, 90 N. 2d 213, 14 A. L. 2d 1364 (Sup. Examples are the child prodigy whose education is accelerated by private tutoring, or the infant performer whose education is provided by private tutoring. This interpretation appears untenable in the face of the language of our own statute and also the decisions in other jurisdictions.

His testimony, like that of MacMurray, dealt primarily with social development of the child and Mrs. Massa's qualifications. The evidence of the State which was actually directed toward the issue of equivalency in this case fell short of the required burden of proof.