|1) Commonwealth v. Bey 70 A. 2d 693 (1950)
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a Mohammedan child, despite his parents' belief that Fridays were the sacred day of that religion, could not violate the compulsory school attendance laws through continuous absence from Friday classes. The court emphasized that "neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation." Acting to guard the general interest of the youth's well being, the State, as "Parents Patriae" may restrict the parent's control by requiring school attendance. The state's authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's absences on religion or conscience. In other words, the state has given the Board of Education broad discretion in granting excuses for a child's absences.
2) Commonwealth v. Hall 455 A. 2d 674 (1983)
The court upheld the ruling of a local school board that excused absences for "educational trips" only up to 5 days. The court stated:
The Courts are not prone to disturb a school board's decision. Indeed, they are without jurisdiction to interfere therewith unless it is apparent that the school board's conduct is arbitrary, capricious and to the prejudice of the public interest (Hall, at 676).
Local school boards, in short, have discretionary authority to determine what constitutes a sufficient excuse for absence from school (see Hall, at 677). However, local school boards must comply with the statutory requirements (section 15-1546) when granting excuses for Released Time for religious instruction.