Please, and strawberry jam, too.
I still think the school is only wasting tax dollars by pursusing this. They've already lost in the lower courts and likely will at the SC. I also think after this next loss they'll be busy revising anything that deals with kids off school property and not at school sponsored functions.
It's simply not within their power to dictate what happens to a child who isn't under their supervision. As it stands, where do they think their power begins? When little Susie's alarm goes off and she's getting ready to go off to school? Or when she closes the front door of her house? Or when she starts the ignition? Or after she picks up Debbie, Billy, and Dexter and does it cover the stop at the park for a quickie, or after they drive through Starbucks?
Actually, that is the issue. Truancy Laws and Mandatory Attendance Laws in Alaska place the child under the jurisdiction of the state for attendance at school.
Additionally, laws about "minors" have a legal impact, I would think. There is so such thing as a minor under his own supervision. He is either under the jurisdiction of his parents, some loco parentis, or of the state. That's what it means to be a minor.
Since the truancy laws and mandatory attendance laws take him out of the jurisdiction of his parents for attendance at school, then the school board's policies make perfect sense. They have simply accepted that the child has left the supervision of the parent for a mandatory state institution.
It is impossible that a minor is under his/her own supervision. (Which raises the age of the students in question as an issue; and also the state allowance of students over 18 to finish their education, but under the jurisdiction of the school.)
The military is a very strong parallel institution. When on leave, a soldier is still under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ.
Post #33 is applicable.