1927), where the Ohio statute provided that a child would be exempted if he is being instructed at home by a qualified person in the subjects required by law. If the interpretation in Knox, supra, were followed, it would not be possible to have children educated outside of school. 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. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized career. The State presented two witnesses who testified that Barbara had been registered in the Pequannock Township School but failed to attend the 6th grade class from April 25, 1966 to June 1966 and the following school year from September 8, 1966 to November 16, 1966 a total consecutive absence of 84 days. The Massa family, all of whom were present at each of the hearings, appeared to be a normal, well-adjusted family. His testimony, like that of MacMurray, dealt primarily with social development of the child and Mrs. Massa's qualifications. It is the opinion of this court that defendants' daughter has received and is receiving an education equivalent to that available in the Pequannock public schools.
State v. Vaughn, 44 N. 142 (1965), interpreted the above statute to permit the parent having charge and control of the child to elect to substitute one of the alternatives for public school. 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. " 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. The Massachusetts statute permitted instruction in schools or academies in the same town or district, or instruction by a private tutor or governess, or by the parents themselves provided it is given in good faith and is sufficient in extent. Mrs. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized study. Massa called Margaret Cordasco as a witness. He testified that the defendants were not giving Barbara an equivalent education.
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. 861, 263 P. 2d 685 (Cal. The lowest mark on these tests was a B. He did not think the defendants had the specialization necessary *386 to teach all basic subjects. He felt that Barbara was not participating in the learning process since she had not participated in the development of the material. The other point pressed by the State was Mrs. Massa's lack of teaching ability and techniques based upon her limited education and experience. Perhaps the New Jersey Legislature intended the word "equivalent" to mean taught by a certified teacher elsewhere than at school. Have defendants provided their daughter with an education equivalent to that provided by the Pequannock Township School System? She had been Barbara's teacher from September 1965 to April 1966. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized part. In State v. Peterman, supra, the court stated: "The law was made for the parent, who does not educate his child, and not for the parent * * * [who] places within the reach of the child the opportunity and means of acquiring an education equal to that obtainable in the public schools of the state. " 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.
Mrs. Massa introduced into evidence 19 exhibits. The majority of testimony of the State's witnesses dealt with the lack of social development. State v. MassaAnnotate this Case. As stated above, to hold that the statute requires equivalent social contact and development as well would emasculate this alternative and allow only group education, thereby eliminating private tutoring or home education.
The behavior of the four Massa children in the courtroom evidenced an exemplary upbringing. 1950); State v. Hoyt, 84 N. H. 38, 146 A. COLLINS, J. C. C. This is a trial de novo on appeal from the Pequannock Township Municipal Court. The court stated that under this statute the parents may show that the child has been sufficiently and *390 properly instructed. Defendants presented a great deal of evidence to support their position, not the least of which was their daughter's test papers taken in the Pequannock school after having been taught at home for two years.
The family consists of the parents, three sons (Marshall, age 16, and Michael, age 15, both attend high school; and William, age 6) and daughter Barbara. Mrs. Massa introduced English, spelling and mathematics tests taken by her daughter at the Pequannock School after she had been taught for two years at home. 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. This case presents two questions on the issue of equivalency for determination. However, this court finds this testimony to be inapposite to the actual issue of equivalency under the New Jersey statute and the stipulations of the State. These included a more recent mathematics book than is being used by defendants, a sample of teacher evaluation, a list of visual aids, sample schedules for the day and lesson plans, and an achievement testing program. It is made for the parent who fails or refuses to properly educate his child. " In any case, from my observation of her while testifying and during oral argument, I am satisfied that Mrs. Massa is self-educated and well qualified to teach her daughter the basic subjects from grades one through eight.
If group education is required by our statute, then these examples as well as all education at home would have to be eliminated. Defendants were charged and convicted with failing to cause their daughter Barbara, age 12, regularly to attend the public schools of the district and further for failing to either send Barbara to a private school or provide an equivalent education elsewhere than at school, contrary to the provisions of N. S. A. Mrs. Massa is a high school graduate. Had the Legislature intended such a requirement, it would have so provided. 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. He outlined procedures which Pequannock teachers perform, such as evaluation sheets, lesson plans and use of visual aids. A different form of legislative intention is illustrated by the case of People v. Turner, 121 Cal. Mrs. Massa said her motive was that she desired the pleasure of seeing her daughter's mind develop. The State placed six exhibits in evidence.
Mrs. Massa satisfied this court that she has an established program of teaching and studying. She also maintained that in school much time was wasted and that at home a student can make better use of her time. He also stressed specialization, since Pequannock schools have qualified teachers for certain specialized subjects. 70 N. E., at p. 552). She felt she wanted to be with her child when the child would be more alive and fresh.
Decided June 1, 1967. In view of the fact that defendants appeared pro se, the court suggests that the prosecutor draw an order in accordance herewith.