# Hartzell v. Connell

> California Supreme Court · April 20, 1984 · 35 Cal. 3d 899

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585615

## Case

- **Full name:** BARBARA HARTZELL Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MARGARET A. CONNELL Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 20, 1984
- **Citations:** 35 Cal. 3d 899; 201 Cal. Rptr. 601; 679 P.2d 35; 1984 Cal. LEXIS 171
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Grodin
- **Judges:** Mosk, Grodin, Kaus, Bird, Richardson
- **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585615

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting “financial hardship is no defense to a violation of the free school guarantee”

## Opinion text

GRODIN, J.
I concur in the conclusion of the Chief Justice that the fees here in issue are impermissible.
I agree that the values implicit in the constitutional “free school” guarantee extend beyond the mere acquisition of credit and embrace the more fundamental benefits of education, both social and individual, so eloquently described in the opinions of the Chief Justice and Justice Mosk. I agree also that the charges sought to be imposed by the Santa Barbara High School District in this case, well motivated as they undoubtedly are, constitute a breach of that basic compact. 1
As Justice Kaus observes in his concurring opinion it is difficult for this court to anticipate the variety of contexts in which the validity of school-related fees may be questioned, and for that reason I think it wise to proceed with caution. Here, the District seeks to impose fees for the privilege of participating in activities which occur on school property, under the instructional supervision of school personnel, and which not only provide “important educational experiences, ” as the District concedes, but are functionally and intimately related to the District’s established curriculum. A child interested in drama is told, in effect, “you may attend the drama class, study about plays, and participate in rehearsals, but when it comes to the actual performance you must remain backstage unless you pay a fee.” 2 I have no hesitation in saying that such an artificial bifurcation of the educational experience is incompatible with the constitutional mandate.
While title 5, section 350 of the California Administrative Code arguably provides a nonconstitutional basis for arriving at the same result, that regulation was itself adopted on the authority of the constitutional “free school” guarantee. The validity of the regulation is thus linked to interpretation of the constitutional provision.
It is unclear from the record, but I would assume that a student who is to remain backstage during a production will not have opportunity to play major roles during rehearsals.
Hereafter, section references are to the Education Code.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585615. Public record. Not legal advice.