People v. Bennett
501 N.W.2d 106, 442 Mich. 316 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent's Fourteenth Amendment right to direct a child's secular education is not a fundamental right, and thus state regulations like teacher certification are subject to rational basis review. However, parents operating a home school must be afforded an administrative hearing under the private and parochial schools act before they can be prosecuted for violating compulsory education laws.
Facts:
- John and Sandra Bennett withdrew their four children from the public school system due to dissatisfaction with the quality of education, not for religious reasons.
- The Bennetts began educating their children at home, enrolling them in a program sponsored by Clonlara, Inc.
- Neither John nor Sandra Bennett was a certified teacher.
- The Bennetts held classes for their children approximately five hours per day, five days per week, and submitted curricula proposals to the local school district.
- The children had contact with certified teachers from Clonlara for four to six hours per month, both in person and via speakerphone.
- At the end of the school year, standardized achievement tests showed that three of the four children were performing at or above their grade level, while the fourth, who had been behind in public school, was making steady progress.
Procedural Posture:
- John and Sandra Bennett were charged and convicted in the 35th District Court on four counts of failing to send their children to school.
- The Wayne Circuit Court, an appellate court of first instance, affirmed the convictions.
- The Bennetts' application for appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals, the state's intermediate appellate court, was initially denied.
- The Michigan Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions.
- On a motion for rehearing, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the convictions.
- The Bennetts again sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which again remanded the case to the Court of Appeals, this time for reconsideration in light of a new precedent.
- The Court of Appeals for a third time affirmed the convictions.
- The Bennetts then appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court for a final determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a state's teacher certification requirement for home schools violate a parent's Fourteenth Amendment right to direct their child's education in a challenge not involving religious convictions? 2. Are parents operating a home school entitled to an administrative hearing under the private and parochial schools act before being prosecuted for violating compulsory education laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Brickley, J.
1. No, the state's teacher certification requirement does not violate a parent's Fourteenth Amendment right to direct their child's education. The right to direct a child's secular education is not a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny. Therefore, the regulation need only satisfy the minimal scrutiny of the rational basis test, which it does because ensuring teacher competency is a legitimate state interest, and certification is a reasonable means of furthering that interest. Cases like Wisconsin v. Yoder are distinguishable because they involve First Amendment religious claims, which are not present here. 2. Yes, parents operating a home school are entitled to an administrative hearing before prosecution. The compulsory education law exempts children attending a 'state approved nonpublic school,' which is defined as one complying with the private and parochial schools act. Since the state prosecutes home schools for failing to meet that act's requirements (like teacher certification), the home school must also be afforded the act's procedural protections, including the right to a hearing to determine compliance before criminal charges can be brought against the parents.
Concurring - Levin, J.
Agrees with the majority's conclusion that the Bennetts were entitled to a statutory hearing before being prosecuted. Joins in vacating the convictions on that ground alone without addressing the constitutional issue.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Boyle, J.
Concurs with the majority's constitutional analysis that the teacher certification requirement is valid under rational basis review. Dissents from the holding that a hearing is required, arguing that the private school act (governing school operators) and the compulsory education law (governing parents) have different purposes and distinct remedies that should not be merged.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Riley, J.
Concurs with the majority that the Bennetts were entitled to a hearing before prosecution. Dissents from the constitutional holding, arguing that the teacher certification requirement is an unreasonable regulation that is not rationally related to the educational achievement of the Bennett children, who were demonstrably succeeding. As applied to the Bennetts, the requirement unconstitutionally abridges their liberty to direct their children's education.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the constitutional standard for state regulation of secular homeschooling in Michigan, confirming that it is subject only to rational basis review, a low bar for the state to meet. By refusing to classify the right to direct a secular education as fundamental, the court preserves significant state authority to regulate educational standards. However, the decision also creates a critical procedural safeguard by treating home schools as 'nonpublic schools' for the purposes of the private and parochial schools act, requiring the state to provide an administrative hearing before initiating criminal prosecution, thereby protecting parents from arbitrary enforcement of compulsory education laws.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Bennett