## Facts

- Merritt Beattie, age 13, resided in Antigo, Wisconsin, and was mentally capable of keeping up academically but had severe physical and speech-related disabilities, including uncontrollable facial contortions and drooling that soiled clothing and books.
- Merritt attended Antigo public schools through fifth grade; teachers had difficulty understanding him and limited his oral recitations because his speech was slow and hard to comprehend.
- The Board of Education asserted Merritt’s condition caused a depressing and nauseating effect on teachers and students, required disproportionate teacher attention, distracted other pupils, and interfered with discipline and school progress.
- Merritt was offered placement in a special program for speech-defective pupils, but he and his parents refused and sought his return to the regular classroom.
- Although Merritt’s initial exclusion was informal, the board later considered reinstatement at a regular meeting; a motion to reinstate received no second, which the board treated as a decision to continue exclusion.
- Merritt’s father, on relation of the State, sought a writ of mandamus to compel Merritt’s readmission; a jury verdict and judgment granted the writ, and the board appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a school board with statutory supervision and management authority may exclude a school-age child from regular public school when the child’s physical condition is found harmful to the school’s best interests.
2. Whether a court may use mandamus to override a school board’s exclusion decision absent proof the decision was illegal or unreasonable.
3. Whether the board took sufficient formal action to make the exclusion a valid board determination.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the judgment granting mandamus and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition.
- The court held that a child’s right to attend public school is not absolute and may be denied when the child’s presence is harmful to the school’s best interests.
- The court concluded the board acted within its statutory authority, and its determination was not shown to be illegal or unreasonable.
- The court held the later meeting’s failure to second a motion to reinstate constituted formal board action to exclude Merritt.
- A dissent was noted (Eschweiler, J.).

## Legal Principles

- A student’s entitlement to attend regular public school yields when the student’s presence is harmful to the school’s best interests.
- A school board vested with general supervision and management authority may, acting in good faith, exclude a student whose physical condition materially impairs school welfare, discipline, or instruction.
- Courts should not interfere with a school board’s discretionary educational judgment unless the decision is illegal or unreasonable.
- Mandamus will not lie to control or substitute judicial judgment for lawful administrative discretion; it applies only to compel performance of a clear legal duty.

## Conclusion

The court held that the school board could, in good faith and under its statutory management authority, exclude a physically disabled student from a regular classroom when the board determined his presence harmed the school, and that courts could not compel readmission by mandamus absent illegality or unreasonableness.


Beattie v. Bd. of Educ. of Antigo, 169 Wis. 231 (1919)