## Facts

- John and Sandra Bennett withdrew their four school-aged children from a public school district and provided home instruction for nonreligious reasons.
- The Bennetts submitted individual curricula to the local school district and represented that instruction occurred five hours per day, five days per week, throughout the school year.
- Standardized testing showed three of four children performed at or above grade level.
- Michigan’s compulsory education scheme allowed attendance at a public school or receipt of equivalent instruction, and state authorities treated a home school as subject to private-school requirements, including use of a certified teacher.
- The Bennetts did not employ a certified teacher; the state viewed the home program as noncompliant.
- The Bennetts were charged with four counts of failing to send their children to school during the 1985–86 school year.
- After a bench trial, the district court convicted them on all counts and fined them $50 per count; the court relied on noncompliance with certification-related requirements.
- The court of appeals affirmed, applying minimal (rational-basis) scrutiny to the constitutional challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent’s Fourteenth Amendment right to direct a child’s education is a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny of a teacher-certification requirement for home schools in a nonreligious challenge.
2. Whether operators of a home-based private school are entitled to an administrative hearing under Michigan’s private and parochial schools act before criminal prosecution for violating compulsory attendance laws.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held that the parental right to direct a child’s education, in this nonreligious context, is not a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny.
- The court applied minimal (rational-basis) review and concluded the teacher-certification requirement was constitutionally permissible as a generally applicable educational regulation.
- The court held, as a matter of statutory procedure, that the Bennetts were entitled to an administrative hearing under the private and parochial schools act before prosecution could proceed.
- The court vacated the convictions and ordered the state superintendent to conduct a hearing to determine whether the Bennetts’ home school satisfied Michigan law.

## Legal Principles

- Parental direction of a child’s education, without a religious claim, is not treated as a fundamental Fourteenth Amendment right requiring strict scrutiny of neutral, generally applicable education regulations.
- A teacher-certification requirement for a home-based or private school may be upheld under rational-basis review when reasonably related to the state’s interest in ensuring minimum educational competence.
- When a statutory scheme provides an administrative compliance determination for private (including home-based) schools, the state must provide that hearing before imposing criminal sanctions for compulsory attendance violations.
- Failure to provide a required administrative hearing before prosecution can require vacatur of convictions and remand for administrative proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court rejected strict-scrutiny review of Michigan’s teacher-certification requirement in a nonreligious home-schooling challenge but vacated the Bennetts’ attendance-law convictions because the state proceeded to criminal prosecution without first affording the administrative hearing required to determine private-school compliance.


People v. Bennett, 442 Mich. 316, 501 N.W.2d 106 (Mich. 1993)