Court Opinion

ID: 9572233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:39:55.192732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:06.730079
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in Justice Brickley’s reasoning and result in parts i and ii of his opinion. I respectfully disagree with part in. The statutes in question, MCL 388.554; MSA 15.1924 (the private school act) and MCL 380.1599; MSA 15.41599 (the School Code) have different purposes and distinct remedies. The administrative hearing required by the private school act applies to the operator of a school and is administered by the Department of Education. The department has no statutory role in the enforcement of the compulsory education law, which is administered by the local school districts and the prosecuting attorney, and is di*347rected to the responsibility of persons in parental relation with school-age children. I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.