BOY NOT AT SCHOOL

Putaruru Press, Volume XXI, Issue 1236, 26 June 1947, Page 4

BOY NOT AT SCHOOL

CASE HEARD AT COURT An unusual case was heard before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., last week, at Putaruru, when C. T. Reads, Education Board attendance officer, charged S. H. Scrivener that his son, H. S. Scrivener, who was required to attend the Putaruru District High School, did not attend school during the weeks from February 7, 1947, to April 24, 1947. Defendant, represented by Mr. J. Qrahame, pleaded not guilty. The attendance officer, .stated that following a report from the headmaster that the 'boy was not at school, a letter was sent to defendant pointing out that the boy was required to attend school until 15 years off age. Defendant had replied to the effect that as the boy would be 15 in several months time he' did not think he would benefit much by the few months' schooling, but could do more by helping on the farm. A further letter was sent by the board to the defendant pointing out that the law required that the boy must attend' school, and defendant was liable to prosecution iff the matter was not immediately attended' to. Exemption for the boy had been applied' for, but the senior inspector had not recommended exemption. Mr. Grahame drew attention to regulation 6, of the Educations Regulations, 1943, which provided . that if the director was satisfied with respect to any child who had attained the age of 14 years, and who had completed the work off form two, that the child would not be likely to derive any appreciable benefit from the educational facilities available at any convenient school or at, the correspondence school, he may grant to or in respect of that child a certificate off exemption from the obligation to be enrolled as a pupil off any school. As the boy was over 14 years of age, and as he had attained his form l two certificate, the regulation appeared to cover the case. The', boy would be 16 in three weeks’ time. Defendant was in poor health, and as the boy wanted to learn farming as soon as possible, defendant had , considered it would be off little benefit to the boy to send him to school fog the few months until his I6th birthday. The director had advised by letter that he did not Consider that regulation 6 applied in this- case. The Magistrate, stating that the case was off some importance, reserved his decision.