[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL


Opinion No. 5641

January 28, 1980

SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS:

Transportation of pupils

Where a school district operates on both a traditional school calendar year and an extended school year program and furnishes bus transportation to children attending school on the traditional calendar year, it must also furnish transportation to children attending school on an extended school year program on an equal basis.

Dr. Eugene T. Paslov

Interim Superintendent of Public Instruction

Michigan National Tower

Lansing, Michigan

Your predecessor requested my opinion on the following question:

'If a school system provides transportation to eligible pupils who attend the school in their designated attendance area which is on an extended school year program, and also permits parents the option of enrolling their children in a school in another attendance area which is operating on a traditional calendar but more distant from the children's home, must the school system provide transportation to the more distant school?'

In the School Code of 1976, 1976 PA 451, MCLA 380.1 et seq; MSA 15.4001 et seq, Sec. 1321(1), the legislature has provided:

'(1) A board of a school district providing transportation for its resident pupils, except handicapped pupils transported under article 3, shall provide transportation for each resident pupil in the elementary and secondary grades for whom the school district is eligible to receive state school aid for transportation. These pupils shall be attending either the public or the nearest state approved nonpublic school in the school district to which the pupil is eligible to be admitted. Transportation shall be without charge to the resident pupil, the parent, guardian, or person standing in loco parentis to the pupil.' (emphasis added)

In my letter opinion to your predecessor of April 11, 1978, the following facts and legal conclusion were set forth:

'You indicate that the school district in question has adopted a calendar in which some of its schools operate 45 days, followed by 15 days of vacation, on a year round basis. Order schools in the district operate on the traditional September to June calendar. Students attending schools following the 45-15 day calendar and living more than 1 1/2 miles from the schools they attend are provided transportation by the school district. Students opting to attend the schools following the traditional calendar and living more than 1 1/2 miles from the schools they attend are not provided transportation by the school district although, if such transportation were provided, the school district would be eligible to receive state school aid funds for the transportation.'

Thus, it is my opinion that, under the School Code of 1976, supra, Sec. 1321, the school district in question must provide transportation to those pupils attending the schools following the traditional calendar that live more than 1 1/2 miles from such schools for whom the school district is eligible to receive state school aid transportation funds. . . .'

As noted in the more recent request, the school district in question does provide transportation to all students that live more than 1 1/2 miles from the schools they attend and live within the designated attendance areas of the schools they attend. Such transportation is provided to students attending schools having either the year round calendar or the traditional calendar. However, where parents opt to enroll their children in other schools having different school calendars then the schools servicing the attendance areas in which they live, an option the school district permits on a space available basis, the school district does not provide transportation.

The legislature has authorized school districts to operate on either a year round basis or the traditional September to June calendar. 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 5(5) and Sec. 1284. In the situation posed by the question, however, the school district has chosen to operate schools on both calendars simultaneously. Parents are permitted to enroll their children on a space-available basis on a school other than the one they normally would attend, where the school follows the alternate calendar.

The legislature has authorized school districts to establish attendance areas. 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 1283. Further, school districts are not required to permit pupils to attend schools outside the established attendance areas in which they reside. Mason v Board of Education of the School District of the City of Flint, 6 Mich App 364; 149 NW2d 239 (1967). However, here the school district has chosen to operate schools on both calendars and to permit parents to select a school for their children to attend under either calendar.

Under 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 1321, when a school district provides transportation, it must provide transportation for any pupil for whom it is eligible to receive state school aid for transportation if the pupil is attending a public school in the school district '. . . to which the pupil is eligible to be admitted. . . .' A school district is eligible to receive state school aid for transportation of a pupil living more than 1 1/2 miles from the school he or she attends, even though the school is not the one the pupil normally would attend and the parent has chosen to enroll the pupil in the school because it follows the alternate calendar. Clearly the pupil is attending a public school in the school district and is eligible to be admitted to that school.

Under the plain meaning of 1976 PA 451, supra, Sec. 1321, transportation must be provided for such a pupil.

"It is a cardinal rule that the legislature must be held to intend the meaning which it has plainly expressed, and in such cases there is no room for construction, or attempted interpretation to vary such meaning." Dussia v Monroe County Employees Retirement System, 386 Mich 244, 249; 191 NW2d 307 (1971)

The purpose of providing transportation is to help parents get their children to and from school safely and expeditiously. Alexander v Bartlett, 14 Mich App 177; 165 NW2d 445 (1968). When a school district operates schools on both calendars and permits parents to select a school for their children to attend under either calendar, providing transportation to either school promotes this public purpose and enables parents to effectively select the option which better meets their needs.

It is, therefore, my opinion that, if a school district provides transportation to eligible pupils who attend the school in their designated attendance area which is on an extended school year program, and also permits parents the option of enrolling their children in a school in another attendance area which is operating on a traditional calendar but more distant from the children's home, the school district must provide transportation to the more distant school.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General


[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]