Education Department [Vol. 36] of the Education Law and since said date the said districts have been operated as one district, a new school building has been erected and an academic department established. For a time branch schools were maintained in the former outlying districts but at the district meeting held in August, 1925, it was voted to close the branch schools except the school in former district No. 4 and transport the children to the central school. This arrangement became effective at the beginning of the school year in September, 1925, and apparently met with general approval. In former district No. 4 the school was maintained for the first six grades, the more advanced pupils being transported to such central school. At the annual meeting held in August, 1926, the question of closing the school in district No. 4, known as the Viewmont district, was discussed and in connection therewith the proposed transportation of all of the pupils to the central school. The predominant opinion seemed to be in favor of such closing and transportation but in view of the fact that only a few voters were present from the Viewmont district it was left for the board of education to ascertain the sentiment of the parents upon a petition to be circulated in the Viewmont district and to take action in the matter of closing the school and providing transportation in accordance with the sentiment so expressed. It appeared that a majority of the parents residing in said district manifested the desire to close the school and have the children carried to the central school whereupon the board of education at its meeting held on August 24, 1926, took the following action: "Motion made, seconded and carried, that because of a desire on the part of some of the Viewmont district to continue the school at Viewmont for another year, and a desire on the part of others of [Vol. 36] Education Department the Viewmont district for its abolishment; that we, as a board of education, after finding that a majority of parents who send children from said district seem to favor the closing and have transportation furnished, do hereby decide to close said school and provide transportation for all children of the aforesaid district to the central school. "This action is taken by us for this reason, namely: That the educational advantages which the pupils under the sixth grade would derive from attending the central school would be greater than those derived from maintaining a branch school and no serious inconvenience would result from attendance of all children at such central school; and further it would be cheaper in so doing for the whole consolidated district." This appeal was taken from such action of the board of education. The appellants aver that at the time the vote was taken to consolidate said districts in November, 1921, it was in effect agreed that the Viewmont school should be maintained, at least for the first six grades, and that because of such agreement a favorable vote was secured from the inhabitants of said district. They insist that this agreement or understanding should be kept and they further urge that the board of education was without legal authority to contract for the transportation of the children from said district to the central school. It is alleged that there are some fifty-two pupils residing in former district No. 4, of which number twenty-six are pupils of the first six grades who are now being transported to the central school. Out of this number thirteen have brothers and sisters in the higher grades who attend the central school and the parents of eight additional pupils of the first six grades have signed a petition in favor of such transportation, leaving only five pupils who would proba Education Department [Vol. 36] bly attend the Viewmont school if it were reopened. While there is some evidence to support the contention of the appellants that at the time of the consolidation there was an understanding that the school would be kept open so long as conditions warranted it, it is disputed by the respondents that there was any agreement that the school would be maintained irrespective of changing conditions and any such agreement would be without legal force or effect. It is obvious that these conditions might so change as to render it impracticable to maintain a branch school and this in substance is the contention of the respondents. It is pointed out that none of the appellants is a parent of a child attending school while a majority of the parents of children of school age who are attending school from the Viewmont section of the district are in favor of closing the branch school and transporting the children to the central school in which all of the elementary grades are taught and an academic department maintained. Under the provisions of subdivision 19 of section 275 of the Education Law the trustees of a school district have power to establish and maintain branch schools where there are any considerable number of children residing in any portion of the district so remote from the schoolhouse as to render it difficult for them to attend school in inclement weather, or where the school building is overcrowded and proper accommodations are not afforded all the children of the district, or where for any other sufficient reason suitable and proper school facilities are not provided. In the present case it cannot be said that the principal schoolhouse is either overcrowded or that proper accommodations are not afforded for the children. It is a new building with modern equipment and sufficient capacity for the housing of the pupils. The appellants insist that the children are so remote from [Vol. 36] Education Department the main schoolhouse as to render it difficult for them to attend such school but this objection is overcome if suitable transportation is provided by the district. Since the trustees have power to establish and maintain a branch school it must necessarily follow that the trustees have power to discontinue such school when the occasion therefor ceases to exist. It is in the discretion of the board of education as to whether such school shall or shall not be maintained and unless such discretion is abused the action of the board may not be overruled on appeal. The appellants have failed to establish that the action of the board of education in closing such school was unreasonable or arbitrary or against the best educational interests of the pupils concerned. The closing of the school, however, would not be warranted unless suitable transportation is provided. It appears from the evidence submitted that a majority of the parents are satisfied with the transportation that is now furnished and the evidence indicates that it is sufficient for present needs. The appellants assert that the board of education was without authority to provide transportation in that the district meeting did not definitely authorize transportation to be furnished for these pupils and that an order had not been issued by the Commissioner of Education. In my opinion the matter of transportation should be submitted to a special district meeting for action under the provisions of subdivision 18 of section 206 of the Education Law. At such meeting the question of approving the contract for transportation of the pupils concerned may be acted on and should favorable action be taken any insufficiency in authorization that may now exist will be remedied and the board will be in position to continue the contract for the balance of the school year. The appeal is dismissed in so far as it relates to the closing of the Viewmont school. Education Department [Vol. 36] It is ordered that the board of education of union free school district No. 2 of the towns of Germantown and Clermont, Columbia county, proceed immediately to call a special district meeting for the purpose of taking action on the transportation of children from former district No. 4 of the town of Germantown to the central school and for the approval of the action of the board of education already taken in such matter, and It is further ordered that the board of education continue the transportation of such pupils pending the holding of such special district meeting. In the Matter of the APPEAL FROM THE REFUSAL OF THE TRUSTEES OF COMMON SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1 of the Town of Marbletown, Ulster County, to Pay the Tuition of Certain Academic Pupils Case No. 1147 (Education Department, November 24, 1926) School districts appeal from refusal of common school trustees to pay tuition fees of its academic pupils respondent trustees not answering, truth of statements set forth in petition deemed to be conceded - appeal is sustained. GRAVES, Commissioner.-During the school year 1925-1926 fourteen pupils of academic grade residing in district No. 1 of the town of Marbletown attended the Kingston High School for various periods for whose instruction a charge has been made in excess of the State tuition amounting to $650 with a credit or rebate of the previous year amounting to $5, leaving the tuition bill charged against said district No. 1, |