## Facts

- A Cambridge school-age child was excluded from the city’s public schools after the school committee recorded that he was “too weak-minded to derive profit from instruction.”
- The child was later readmitted on a two-week trial, then excluded again.
- The committee recorded that teachers and physicians reported he could not derive marked benefit from instruction, was troublesome to other children (including making noises and pinching), and could not care for himself in ordinary physical respects.
- Trial evidence strongly tended to support the truth of the committee’s stated reasons for exclusion.
- The child sued to compel admission; the city argued the committee’s good-faith decision on such facts was final and not subject to judicial revision.

## Issues

1. Whether a school committee’s good-faith decision on facts directly affecting school order and discipline, including exclusion of a pupil, is final and not subject to judicial re-examination.
2. Whether a trial court may submit to a jury the factual question whether the pupil’s presence seriously disturbed good order and discipline when the committee has already determined the matter in good faith.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court sustained the city’s exceptions.
- The court held that a school committee acting in good faith in managing the schools makes conclusive factual determinations on matters directly affecting good order and discipline.
- The trial judge erred by allowing a jury to re-decide whether the pupil’s presence was a serious disturbance to school order and discipline.
- The practical effect was to uphold the committee’s exclusion decision as not reviewable on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- A school committee’s good-faith factual determinations, within its statutory authority and directly affecting school order and discipline, are final as to a pupil’s right to attend and are not subject to judicial revision.
- The controlling inquiry is the effect of the pupil’s presence on the welfare, order, and discipline of the school, not whether disruptive behavior is willful or stems from incapacity.
- Courts may not substitute their judgment for the committee’s on such fact-bound disciplinary and management questions when good faith is shown.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that, when a school committee acts in good faith and within its authority, its factual judgment that a pupil’s presence harms school order and discipline is conclusive, and courts and juries may not re-examine the merits of that determination to compel the pupil’s admission.


Watson v. Cambridge, 157 Mass. 561 (1893)