|
Released Time Education: By John Ferguson
"When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions." Justice William O. Douglas wrote these words in the then-controversial case of Zorach v. Clauson on April 28, 1952. Justice Douglas’ majority opinion upheld New York’s released time program, allowing students to be excused from class to receive religious instruction during the school day. Still prevalent in some areas, "released time" is an issue that continues to cause confusion and controversy in communities around the nation. So what are released time programs, and why are people concerned about them? Background Groundbreaking in its day, the Zorach decision surprised many, as only four years earlier the Court had addressed the issue of released time by striking down a program in Illinois. In McCollum v. Board of Education, an 8-1 decision held that the practice of releasing students for religious instruction during the school day, on school premises, was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court said that using compulsory education laws to provide students for a religious group was coercive and exactly the type of aid to religion that the Establishment Clause forbids. Local groups on both sides of the issue were quick to respond. While many perceived the Court’s decision as hostile to religion and vowed to fight for release-time programs around the country, others clung to the decision as the foundation they needed to challenge other programs already in existence. In New York, a similar released time program had been in effect since 1940, but it required that the classes be conducted off school grounds, that the school incur no expense due to the program, and the school have no substantial connection to the activities or curriculum in the programs. In effect, this modified version resulted in a free-standing religious education program that had no connection to the school. The school released the students and received attendance records from the religious programs. Following the McCollum decision, a group of New York City parents challenged a local program as a violation of the Establishment Clause. The case, Zorach v. Clauson, wound its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. There the Justices found enough differences between the programs to rule New York’s program constitutional. In particular, the Court was swayed by the fact that the program was held off campus and that the costs were born entirely by the families and religious communities. The resulting opinion held that such programs were permissible accommodations of the religious needs of students, but fell far short of finding a constitutional right to such an accommodation. The dissenters in the opinion harangued the majority for not following the logic of the McCollum decision. Justice Black argued strenuously that if the school wanted to allow students time for religious instruction, and if the school day interfered with students’ ability to receive such instruction, then the only fair thing to do would be to let all students out of school an hour early and let them do as they wish. Continuing Tradition Fifty years later, released time classes are still legal, and in parts of the country, an important element of community educational networks. This accommodation allows students with particular religious training needs to fulfill their obligations of conscience without having to withdraw completely from public education. In Utah, released time programs are common, with students leaving the schools once or twice a week to attend religious training centers. Many of these students have only to walk across the street, as the centers are often located adjacent to school property. In Alabama, released time programs allow Muslim students to leave early on Friday afternoons for community prayers. Some South Carolina schools allow for released time during lunch so that students may attend Bible classes at a local Protestant church. While these programs work in some communities, they may not work in all. In any event, the high court recognized released time programs as a permissible constitutional accommodation, not a First Amendment right. So while school district officials may choose to provide a released time program, they are not required to do so. If a school does decide to create a released time program, it must still follow certain guidelines: Schools may, and should, require parental permission before students participate in a released time program. Released time classes must be conducted off school premises. The school or the state may not pay for the released time classes, or any expenses associated with them. Private groups must undertake all expenses. (The religious institution providing the classes usually funds the classes.) The school may not encourage, discourage, or otherwise influence student decisions pertaining to participation in a released time program. Providing extra credit or otherwise influencing students to participate in the program is prohibited. While schools may require the institutions providing the classes to report student attendance, the school may not bear any of the costs of such administration, nor may the school become excessively entangled in the administrative functions of such programs. For practical purposes, schools are limited to requiring released time providers to report student attendance reports. While released time programs continue to be popular in some portions of the country, other school districts are having second thoughts. Schools are increasingly concerned about students missing any instructional time, and creating a program that facilitates such absences is not a high priority. With current federal standards and testing requirements, schools are increasingly judged based on student scores on standardized tests. Concerns have arisen over struggling students who participate in such programs, and as a result of the lost instructional time perform poorly or even fail the standardized tests. To avoid the penalties associated with poor ratings and the eventual funding reductions, many schools are opting to avoid such initiatives entirely. Communities and their schools must continue to weigh the benefits of released time programs versus the cost of such accommodations in both student performance and funding. Whichever decision communities make, they truly do "follow the best of our traditions" when they recognize and respect the First Amendment by accommodating the religious needs of all citizens, while maintaining a stringent separation of church and state. John Ferguson is a Religious Freedom attorney with the First Amendment Center. He holds Master of Divinity and Juris Doctor degrees from Vanderbilt University and is an ordained Baptist minister. |
|
||
|
|