Mr. and Mrs. Massa appeared pro se. The sole issue in this case is one of equivalency. A statute is to be interpreted to uphold its validity in its entirety if possible. Mrs. Massa conducted the case; Mr. Massa concurred.
In quasi-criminal proceedings the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the Knox rationale, in order for children to develop socially it would be necessary for them to be educated in a group. Other similar statutes are discussed in Rice v. Commonwealth, 188 Va. 224, 49 S. 2d 342 (Sup. The majority of testimony of the State's witnesses dealt with the lack of social development. Barbara returned to school in September 1965, but began receiving her education at home again on April 25, 1966. 1893), dealt with a statute similar to New Jersey's. The remainder of the testimony of the State's witnesses dealt primarily with the child's deficiency in mathematics. Under a more definite statute with sufficient guidelines or a lesser *392 burden of proof, this might not necessarily be the case. The court stated that under this statute the parents may show that the child has been sufficiently and *390 properly instructed. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized step. In Knox v. O'Brien, 7 N. 608 (1950), the County Court interpreted the word "equivalent" to include not only academic equivalency but also the equivalency of social development. Mrs. Massa satisfied this court that she has an established program of teaching and studying.
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. COLLINS, J. C. C. This is a trial de novo on appeal from the Pequannock Township Municipal Court. He outlined procedures which Pequannock teachers perform, such as evaluation sheets, lesson plans and use of visual aids. 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. 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. And, has the State carried the required burden of proof to convict defendants? 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. This is the only reasonable interpretation available in this case which would accomplish this end. This case presents two questions on the issue of equivalency for determination. He testified that the defendants were not giving Barbara an equivalent education. Conditions in today's society illustrate that such situations exist. If group education is required by our statute, then these examples as well as all education at home would have to be eliminated. 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 study. State v. MassaAnnotate this Case.
What could have been intended by the Legislature by adding this alternative? 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. He felt that Barbara was not participating in the learning process since she had not participated in the development of the material. The case of Commonwealth v. Roberts, 159 Mass. Mrs. Massa called Margaret Cordasco as a witness. Mr. and mrs. vaughn both take a specialized. 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. People v. Levisen and State v. Peterman, supra. There is also a report by an independent testing service of Barbara's scores on standard achievement tests. Massa was certainly teaching Barbara something.
They show that she is considerably higher than the national median except in arithmetic. 124 P., at p. 912; emphasis added). He did not think the defendants had the specialization necessary *386 to teach all basic subjects. What does the word "equivalent" mean in the context of N. 18:14-14? See People v. Levisen, 404 Ill. 574, 90 N. 2d 213, 14 A. L. 2d 1364 (Sup. 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.
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. There are definite times each day for the various subjects and recreation. There is no indication of bad faith or improper motive on defendants' part. Mrs. Barbara Massa and Mr. Frank Massa appeared pro se. The court further said that the evidence of the state was to the effect that defendant maintained no school at his home. The Massa family, all of whom were present at each of the hearings, appeared to be a normal, well-adjusted family. 70 N. E., at p. 552).
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. The State placed six exhibits in evidence. Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County Court, Law Division. The other point pressed by the State was Mrs. Massa's lack of teaching ability and techniques based upon her limited education and experience. 383 Mr. Bertram Latzer, Assistant Prosecutor of Morris County, for plaintiff (Mr. Frank C. Scerbo, Prosecutor, attorney). 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. " Bank, 86 N. 13 (App. Defendants were convicted for failure to have such state credentials. Rainbow Inn, Inc. v. Clayton Nat. 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. 170 (N. 1929), and State v. Peterman, supra. Mrs. Massa said her motive was that she desired the pleasure of seeing her daughter's mind develop.
If the interpretation in Knox, supra, were followed, it would not be possible to have children educated outside of school. The results speak for themselves. Mrs. Massa is a high school graduate. 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. "