State ex rel. School Dist. No. 3 v. Preston, 79 Wash. 286,


140 Pac. 350 (1914).

          [No. 11701. Department One. April 27, 1914.]
      THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of School
      District No. 3, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPHINE PRESTON,
                          Respondent. 1

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS - STATE FUNDS - APPORTIONMENT -

STATUTES - CONSTRUCTION. Under 2 Rem. & Bal. Code, SSSS 4562-4574,
as amended by 3 Id., SSSS 4562 and 4567, providing for the
apportionment of state school funds according to the attendance
in the several districts credited with children attending
common schools, private schools, high schools, parental schools,
night schools, and schools for defectives, no credit can be
given for attendance in a model training school conducted as
a department of a state normal school; since the statute makes
no provision therefor.

SAME - APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDS - "COMMON SCHOOLS." A model
training school conducted as a department of a state normal
school is not a "common school," within the meaning of the law
relating to the apportionment of state school funds, where the
teaching was done by supervisors and students of the normal
school, not paid or chosen by the school district, some of whom
were not qualified by law to teach in the common schools.


1 Reported in 140 Pac. 350.

      STATE EX REL. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 v. PRESTON.      287
 Apr. 1914          Opinion Per CROW, C. J.

SAME - "COMMON SCHOOLS." The compulsory school law (Rem.
Bal. Code, SS 4714 et seq.) does not require the attendance of
children in common schools of the state or private schools;
hence does not tend to show that a model training school in
a state normal school is either a common or private school,
within the meaning of the law relating to the apportionment
of state school funds.

Application filed in the supreme court December 2, 1913,
for a writ of mandamus to the state superintendent of public
instruction. Denied.

C. R. Hovey, for relator.

The Attorney General and R. E. Campbell, Assistant,
for respondent.

CROW

CROW, C. J. - School District No. 8, of Kittitas county,
as relator, seeks a writ of mandamus directed to respondent
Josephine Preston, state superintendent of public
instruction, commanding her to apportion to Kittitas county, for
relator's benefit, certain moneys from the current state school
fund.

A number of school children residing within district No. 3
attend the model training school, a department conducted by
the state normal school located at Ellensburg. Relator
contends that these children should be considered by
respondent in apportioning to Kittitas county its share of the
current state school fund. Respondent has allowed relator an
apportionment for school children taught in two rooms of
the model training school, for which teachers are employed
and paid by district No. 3, but has refused to allow the
district any credit for children attending other rooms where
instruction is given by supervisors employed by the normal
school, assisted by junior and senior students.

It is first contended that the legislative intention was to
allow credit to each school district for every days' attendance
of pupils receiving the requisite instruction, irrespective of
the school attended. The statute relating to the apportionment
of current state school funds may be found in 2 Rem. &

 288    STATE EX REL. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 v. PRESTON.
                Opinion Per CROW, C.J.           79 Wash.

Bal. Code, SSSS 4562 to 4574, as amended by 3 Rem. & Bal.
Code, SSSS 4562 and 4567. Rem. & Bal. Code, SSSS 4563 and
4564 read as follows:

"4563. For the purpose of the apportionment the
superintendent of public instruction shall base his calculations
upon the days' attendance as shown by the several county
superintendents' last annual reports filed in his office.

"4564. The basis of the apportionment to each county
shall be on the total days of attendance in the several
districts of the county: Provided, that each school district shall
be credited with at least two thousand days' attendance."

Other sections provide that school districts shall be
credited with children attending private schools, high schools,
parental schools, night schools, and schools for defectives,
but nowhere is it provided that a district shall be credited
with the attendance of children in a model training school
conducted as a branch of a state normal school, and located
within such school district. If it had been the intention of
the legislature to allow a school district credit for such
attendance of pupils in a model training school, express
provision would have been made therefor. We cannot, by
interpretation, read such a provision into the statute when it
does not exist, but seems to have been purposely omitted.

It is next contended that, as the model training school is
conducted as an ordinary common school of the district,
Kittitas county is entitled to the credit demanded. In other
words, relator argues that the model training school so
conducted is a common school within the recognized meaning of
that term. It appears that the pupils of two rooms of the
training school, known as model or observation rooms, are
instructed by qualified teachers employed by the directors of
district No. 8. Respondent has allowed credit for the
attendance of these pupils. Teaching of pupils in the other
rooms of the model training school is done by supervisors,
legally qualified to teach under the laws of this state, assisted
by junior and senior students of the normal school. Some
of these students are qualified by law to teach in the common

      STATE EX REL. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 v. PRESTON.     289
 Apr. 1914          Opinion Per CROW, C. J.

schools of this state while others are not so qualified. The
supervisors of the model training school are chosen by the normal
school trustees, although an arrangement exists whereby the
directors of the school district may secure their dismissal.
In School District v. Bryan,
51 Wash. 498, 99 Pac. 28,
20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1033, we had occasion to determine
whether a model training school conducted by a state normal
school was a common school. Discussing this question, we
said:

"The teachers under his charge [the principal of the
normal school] may be devoted in their pursuit of the art of
teaching, but they are not teachers within the meaning of
the law which has undertaken to insure that public school
children shall be taught only by those who have met (not
those seeking to attain) a certain standard of proficiency.
In other words, the argument of counsel emphasizes the fact
that in its operation the act of 1907 would break the
uniformity of the common school system. To summarize, a
common school, within the meaning of our constitution, is one
that is common to all children of proper age and capacity,
free, and subject to and under the control of the qualified
voters of the school district. The complete control of the
schools is a most important feature, for it carries with it the
right of the voters, through their chosen agents, to select
qualified teachers, with powers to discharge them if they are
incompetent. Under the system proposed, instead of the
voters employing a teacher with proper vouchers of worthiness,
they are made recruiting officers to meet a draft for
material that the apprentice may be employed."

Applying the rule thus announced to the facts before us,
it is manifest that the model training school is not a common
school, and that Kittitas county is not entitled, in an
apportionment of the current state school fund, to a credit
predicated on attendance of children at such training school.

Relator makes some contention that the provisions of the
compulsory school law (Rem. & Bal. Code, SS 4714 et seq.;
P. C. 418 SS 859), indicates that the model training school
is either a common school or a private school, as children are

 290    STATE EX REL. LEACH v. FISHBACK.
                     Syllabus.                    79 Wash.

required to attend either a public or private school. There
is no merit in this contention. The compulsory school law
requires the attendance of children, as therein provided, but
does not provide that they must attend common schools of
the state or private schools. It therefore does not tend to
show that a model training school is either a common or
private school.

The writ is denied.

CHADWICK, ELLIS, MAIN, and GOSE, JJ., concur.