## Facts

- Clara V. Clark operated private day-care centers in Jefferson and Shelby Counties, Alabama.
- The Jefferson County Board of Education operated child-care programs through its Community Education Department in response to community requests across multiple areas of the county.
- The Board’s child-care services were conducted in existing public school facilities and supervised by the Board.
- Program services included recreational supervision, snacks, homework assistance, and, when requested, tutorial programs coordinated with students’ regular schoolwork.
- Participation was voluntary and fee-based; the Board asserted the programs were self-supporting through collected fees.
- Clark claimed the Board’s child-care program competed with her private centers and argued the Board lacked statutory authority to operate day-care services, particularly for children under five.
- The Board relied on statutory provisions granting broad authority to administer and supervise public schools and the county’s educational interests, and pointed to state-level educational policy materials supporting community education uses of school resources.

## Issues

1. Whether Alabama law authorizes a county board of education to operate a child-care (day-care) center as part of its community education activities.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court’s denial of injunctive relief.
- The court held that the Board had legal authority to operate child-care centers within the broad powers granted to county boards of education.
- The court concluded the Board’s program was sufficiently related to educational purposes because it functioned as an adjunct to the regular school program and included homework and tutorial support.

## Legal Principles

- County boards of education are statutory entities, but statutory grants giving “general administration and supervision” of public schools and the county’s “educational interest” confer broad operational authority.
- A county board may undertake programs reasonably connected to its educational mission even if the specific activity (e.g., “day care” or services for very young children) is not expressly named in the statutes.
- Administrative and policy actions by state educational authorities supporting community education may be considered persuasive in construing the breadth of a board’s educational authority.
- Competitive effects on private providers do not, by themselves, negate a county board’s statutory authority to operate an otherwise authorized educationally related program.

## Conclusion

The court held that a county board of education’s broad statutory authority over public schools and the county’s educational interests permits it to operate fee-based child-care programs conducted in school facilities and connected to educational support services, so injunctive relief was properly denied.


Clark v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 410 So. 2d 23 (Ala. 1982)