Test Bank For School Law and The Public Schools A Practical Guide For Educational Leaders Plus Myedleadershiplab With Pearson Etext Access Card Package 5 E5th Edition
Test Bank For School Law and The Public Schools A Practical Guide For Educational Leaders Plus Myedleadershiplab With Pearson Etext Access Card Package 5 E5th Edition
Test Bank For School Law and The Public Schools A Practical Guide For Educational Leaders Plus Myedleadershiplab With Pearson Etext Access Card Package 5 E5th Edition
CHAPTER 2
Religion is one of the most emotional and controversial issues facing public schools as there are strong
advocates for the inclusion of prayer and Bible reading in the nation’s schools as well as those who vehemently
oppose their inclusion. This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of religious issues that impact public
schools with an emphasis on separation of church and state, the principle of neutrality, and the basic intent of the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding religion.
Page 15 provides an overview of the omission of religious liberties in the constitution as defended by
Madison along with Jefferson’s view that a religious provision in the Bill of Rights was needed. These actions led to
a series of proposals that included amendments aimed at preventing encroachment by the government into the rights
and liberties of all citizens. These proposals eventually became the Bill of Rights. Noticeable among these rights
was the separation of church and state. It is interesting to note that the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court may
affect how separation of church and state is defined. Strict interpretation of this principle is found in the Lemon v.
Kurtzman and Early v. Dicenso cases on page 21. A more liberal view is found in the Agostini case on page 20.
In a rather unusual move, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its decision in the 1985 Aquilar v. Felton case
which disallowed federal funds to cover salaries for public school teachers who teach in parochial schools. In a 5-4
decision, the court held that it was an unconstitutional establishment of religion for public school teachers to provide
remedial classes in religious schools. Justices Powell, Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens voted against
providing aid to parochial schools while Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Burger and White supported aid to parochial
schools. Interestingly, the Agostini case was also a 5-4 decision. Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy,
and Thomas constituted the new majority that supported aid to parochial schools. Justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer,
and Ginsberg voted against aid to parochial schools.
School sponsored prayer and Bible reading are emotional issues that permeate public schools today as the
Congress, legislators, and President Bush advocate the return of prayer and Bible reading to public schools. A
number of states have passed legislation calling for silent prayer and meditation in public schools. These efforts
have largely been unsuccessful. In spite of a lack of success, states continue their efforts to achieve this goal.
Intelligent Design
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Theory of Evolution
Epperson v. Arkansas
People of State of Illinois ex rel and McCollum v. Board of Education of District No. 71, Champaign County,
Illinois
Zorach v. Clauson
Pledge of Allegiance
Engle v. Vitale
Discussion: New York state law mandated a brief non-denominational daily prayer to be recited aloud by each
class in the public schools in the presence of a teacher. Children who did not wish to recite the prayer were excused
from this exercise. This practice was challenged by parents on constitutional grounds as an impermissible
accommodation to religion.
Points of Emphasis:
Points of Emphasis:
1. The primary effect test was invoked by the court to determine the impact of the statute and practice relating to
each case.
2. If the primary effect of a law or practice has the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion or creating excessive
entanglement between church and state, then it is not permissible.
3. The principle of neutrality is breached when there is no clear line of separation between church and state.
4. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was made applicable to the states by virtue of the 14th
Amendment.
5. The court did not suggest that the use of the Bible as a historical literary, ethical or philosophical document is
impermissible if a secular purpose is clearly served.
Wallace v. Jaffree
Discussion: The Alabama legislature passed a statute authorizing a daily one minute period of silence for meditation
or voluntary prayer in the public schools. The court held that a silent meditation statute which does not demonstrate
a clearly secular purpose does violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Points of Emphasis:
1. The statute in Jaffree failed the first prong of the tripartite test which found that no secular purpose was
served.
2. There was a clear legislative intent to re-establish prayer in the public schools as evidenced by the sponsor of
the bill.
3. The inclusion of the phrase “voluntary prayer” suggested that the statute was enacted to convey state approval
of a religious activity which again violated the first prong of the Lemon test and the First Amendment
Establishment Clause.
In cases where evidence reveals that the aid directly benefited the child rather than the parochial school,
courts have been permissive in allowing certain types of aid under the child benefit theory. This theory is valid if
parochial children are the primary beneficiaries of a public-supported service provided for all children. Conversely,
if the aid serves to benefit primarily parochial schools, it will be deemed impermissible and a violation of the First
Amendment. When state activities cannot be clearly separated from religious activities, excessive entanglement
occurs, thus preventing a clear line of separation between the two.
Lemon v. Kurtzman and Early v. Dicenso
Discussion: These two cases are among the most significant early cases involving state aid to parochial schools. The
U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Pennsylvania statute that provided state funds to finance the operation of
parochial schools.
Simultaneously, the court also considered a Rhode Island case, Early v. Dicenso, which involved a statute
calling for a fifteen percent salary supplement to parochial school teachers who taught non-religious subjects that
were offered in public schools utilizing only public school teaching material.
The Supreme Court held that a law providing state subsidy for non-public teachers is unconstitutional even
when the funds are paid only to teachers who teach secular subjects. Similarly, a law providing for state
reimbursement to nonpublic schools for expenses incurred in teaching secular subjects is also unconstitutional.
Points of Emphasis:
1. The tripartite test requires that a statute must have a secular legislative purpose. It must have a principal effect
that neither advances nor inhibits religion and lastly must not foster an excessive governmental entanglement
with religion.
2. Although both statutes advocated a secular purpose, they both created excessive entanglement and fostered
religion.
3. Programs of this nature have a tendency to expand with time and create larger demands on public funds thus
creating greater concern for maintaining a clear line of separation between church and state.
Chandler v. Siegleman
Discussion: The American Civil Liberties Union challenged religious practices on behalf of Michael Chandler, an
educator in DeKalb County, Alabama. Challenging the practice of offering student-led prayer at athletic events, the
Eleventh Circuit Court upheld the students and suggested that students do not shed their rights when they enter the
school house door. The court rejected the argument that prayer is forbidden by the First Amendment and supported
the concept of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Points of Emphasis:
Points of Emphasis:
1. The primary difference in the rulings in the Chandler case versus the Santa Fe case is the school’s
involvement based on school policy.
2. The principle of neutrality was violated when student-led prayer was sanctioned and encouraged by school
faculty.
3. The school implemented a policy in the Santa Fe case that allowed the school’s student council chaplain to
deliver a prayer over the public address system before each home varsity football game.
4. The fact that the school altered its policy to authorize student elections to determine whether invocation should
be delivered and to also select the spokesperson to deliver did not alter the court’s ruling.
5. The revised policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
6. The Fifth Circuit Court held in Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District and Adler v. Duval County
School Board that voluntary student-initiated prayer without involvement of school personnel was not an
Establishment Clause violation.
7. The Sixth Circuit Court disallowed prayer at school board meetings in stating that prayer at such meetings was
potentially coercive to students who attended. Further, it has the tendency to endorse Christianity while
excessively entangling the board in religious matters.
Points of Emphasis:
1. A limited open forum exists when one or more non-curricular-related student groups are allowed to meet on
school premises during non-instructional time.
2. Review Mergens v.Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools where a district judge ruled that an
Omaha district did not create an open forum for student speech and need not allow a Bible student club to
meet at high school.
3. In a 1987 case, Garnett v. Renton School District, a U.S. district judge ruled that a Seattle district did not have
to accommodate a prayer club at the high school. The judge further ruled that the Equal Access Act did not
apply in Washington State because the state’s constitution contained stricter language regarding separation of
church and state than was found in the First Amendment. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower
court’s ruling.
4. When public secondary school officials allow one non-curricular-related student group to meet on school
property during non-instructional times, they trigger the requirements of the Equal Access Act. Thus, they
may not deny other clubs equal access to meet on school premises during non-instructional time based on the
content of their speech.
5. Criteria, rules, and regulations governing access by student clubs should be carefully drawn and
communicated to all students.
Legal challenges regarding facility use usually stem from community-based religious groups. The courts
generally rely on the free speech test in addressing church/state issues. A leading case, Lamb’s Chapel v. Center
Moriches School District involved a closed forum. An Evangelical Christian Church applied on four occasions
seeking approval to use public facilities of a local high school for various non-secular functions including family
oriented movies. School officials relied on a New York State law that bars the use of district facilities for religious
purposes. The minister of the church brought legal action against the district claiming First and Fourteenth
Amendment violations based on state law. The fundamental issue raised is whether state law violates the free speech
clause of the First Amendment by denying access to school facilities by the church.
Points of Emphasis:
1. The district, like a private owner of property, could have preserved its property for the use to which it was
dedicated and need not have permitted any after-hour use of its property.
2. Once the district voluntarily made its facilities available for use by after-hours groups, it could not enforce
rules designed to exclude expression of specific points of view.
3. In effect, the State of New York and the school district created a “limited” open forum.
4. The film in question actually included clips on child rearing and family values which was viewed by the
district as having religious connotations.
5. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the district’s rule was unconstitutional as applied to the film series.
6. The court concluded that to permit Lamb’s Chapel to use the facilities would not violate the Establishment
Clause because it would have neither the purpose nor primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion and
would not foster excessive entanglement with religion.
Points of Emphasis:
1. The use of public school facilities may be used for religious discussions if a school district has a limited open
forum.
2. Religious services may be disallowed even though the district has a limited open forum to avoid the
appearance of sponsoring religious services.
3. The use of school facilities by community groups created an open forum rather than a traditional forum.
Points of Emphasis:
Zorach v. Clauson
Discussion: This case involved the same subject matter—released time for religious instruction but had a slightly
different twist. This New York City case permitted public schools to release students during the school day to attend
religious instruction at religious centers at locations around the city. All administrative activities were coordinated
by religious organizations which assumed responsibility for transportation and attendance reporting. The U.S.
Supreme Court upheld this practice based on non-compulsory attendance and no use of public school resources.
Points of Emphasis:
1. While both programs were voluntary in nature, McCollum involved public school resources while Zorach did
not.
2. Public school classrooms were used during the day in McCollum.
3. Religious centers were used in Zorach rather than classrooms.
4. Public school services were provided in McCollum in the form of attendance reporting and monitoring of
students attending religious services.
5. All administrative services including attendance, transportation, etc. were provided by the religious center in
Zorach.
6. The primary difference in the two cases involved the use of school resources in one and an absence of school
resources in the other.
Wiley v. Franklin
Discussion: The court held in this case that the account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ as presented in the New
Testament constitutes the central statement of the Christian religious faith. The court also noted that the only
reasonable interpretation of the resurrection is a religious interpretation. The court concluded that it was difficult to
conceive how the resurrection might be taught as secular literature or history.
Points of Emphasis:
1. An infringement of plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights guaranteed by the Establishment Clause even for
minimal periods of time constitutes irreparable injury.
2. This is no First Amendment conflict with separation of church and state when the Bible is used appropriately
in a secular context in the study of history, ethics, literature, etc.
3. Proselytization of students by teachers of the Bible violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
4. The role of religion in the development of western civilization may not receive proper treatment based on
apprehension among school officials to allow Bible teaching in public schools.
Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design has generated considerable controversy as it has been integrated into public school
curricula by a number of school officials. Opposition has emerged from parents and some teachers who rejected
intelligent design as a viable scientific alternative to the Theory of Evolution. Parents have challenged its inclusion
into school curricula on Constitutional grounds by suggesting that Intelligent Design is a means of inserting
Christian beliefs into science classes which constitutes a violation of the First Amendment’s requirement regarding
separation of church and State. This challenge is reflected in the case below.
1. Intelligent Design is the belief that certain aspects of human and animal life depict signs of having been
formed by an unnamed guiding force.
2. Supporters of Intelligent Design attempted to demonstrate that the concept has scientific legitimacy.
3. The vast majority of scientists have rejected Intelligent Design as a scientific theory.
4. Plaintiffs argued that Intelligent Design is not a scientific concept but rather a faith based belief similar to
biblically based creationism.
5. A U.S. District Court rejected the scientific legitimacy and held that the theory has religious connotations.
Theory of Evolution
The Theory of Evolution advances the view that all life is related and descended from a common ancestor.
There have been numerous legal challenges regarding the inclusion of this theory in public school curricula. A
number of states banned evolution from public school curricula in the past based on the view that it was in direct
conflict with the Biblical version of creation. An early case based on this view is discussed below.
Epperson v. Arkansas
Discussion: The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of an Arkansas law that made it illegal for teachers
to teach the Theory of Evolution. The court held that Arkansas law could not be defended as an act of religious
neutrality. The court found that the law did not attempt to ban curricula in schools and universities regarding all
discussion of the origin of man but rather a particular theory because it was thought to conflict with the Biblical
account.
The Epperson ruling was in striking contrast to the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial” of Tennessee in 1927 in which
the Tennessee courts upheld a law that prohibited the teaching of any theory that conflicted with the Genesis version
of creation.
Points of Emphasis:
1. Legislatures in a number of states have sought to discount the Theory of Evolution in supporting the teaching
of creationism in public schools.
2. Recent attempts by legislatures to insert creationism into public school curriculum have been reflected in their
attempts to incorporate Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory.
3. In 1987, the Supreme Court invalidated Louisiana’s statutes that called for equal time for creationism science
during times in which evolution was introduced into the curriculum in the Edwards v. Aquillard case.
4. The court further concluded that the law’s intent was to discredit a scientific focus in order to advance
religious beliefs which violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
5. The First Amendment does not allow the state to require that teaching and learning be tailored to the principles
or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma according to the Supreme Court in Keyishian v. Board of
Regents.
Pledge of Allegiance
The daily ritual of reciting the pledge was heard by the Ninth Circuit Court in California. The plaintiff,
Michael R. Newdow, an atheist, filed a suit on his daughter’s behalf challenging the inclusion of “under God” in the
pledge. Newdow did not have custody of his daughter. Interestingly, the Ninth Circuit Court held in a 2-1 ruling that
the inclusion of “under God” was an unconstitutional establishment of religion by the government. A larger panel of
Ninth Circuit judges heard the case and supported the prior decision of the three judge panel. The Supreme Court on
June 14, 2004, overturned the Ninth Circuit decision on technical grounds thus preserving the contested phrase
“under God we trust” in the pledge. The court further held that Newdow as a non-custodial parent had no legal
standing to challenge the pledge since he was not the custodial parent of his ten-year-old daughter.
Points of Emphasis:
1. The U.S. Supreme Court fell short of addressing whether the inclusion of the reference to God was an
impermissible practice regarding an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
2. The case, since the court did not rule on the merits of this ruling, does not prevent a similar lawsuit in the
future on this very same issue. Another challenge has emerged by other plaintiffs and Newdow.
3. Forty-nine states filed briefs supporting the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. “In God we trust” found on U.S. coins, has been held to be a national slogan rather than the government’s
endorsement of religion.
May v. Evansville
Discussion: This case arose regarding the use of school facilities by teachers for religious meetings. A teacher
brought suit against the school board, its members, and the superintendent seeking an injunction to prohibit banning
religious meetings by teachers on school property. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment for the school
board. The teacher appealed. The court of appeals held for the school district
Points of Emphasis:
1. The court held that teachers had no right under the First Amendment free speech clause to hold prayer
meetings on school property before the school day begins and students arrive.
2. This prohibition does not preclude teachers holding such meetings at facilities away from the school before the
school day begins; thus, their religious rights may be exercised but not in public school facilities.
3. School officials in this case had consistently applied a policy of prohibiting the use of school facilities for
religious activity. Thus, the school district did not have an open forum as the teacher contended.
Multiple Choice
1. School sponsored prayer may be permitted if:
a. Students are not required to participate
b. Students are allowed to enter the building after prayer is offered
c. The community strongly support it
d. None of the above
8. Which of the following examples are legally permissible as determined by the courts?
a. Free public transportation for parochial school students
b. Tuition reimbursement to parents or parochial school children
c. Shared time and community education programs for parochial school students
d. State financing of auxiliary services and direct loans for instructional equipment and materials for
parochial schools
9. Public schools may use religious symbols if:
a. They are discussed in conjunction with various holidays
b. They are placed on the bulletin board during various holidays
c. They are used to explain various cultural and religious groups
d. None of the above
13. Release time for religious instruction off school grounds involving students was ruled unconstitutional in:
a. Cochran v. Lawson
b. McCollum v. Board of Education
c. Everson v. New Jersey
d. Zorach v. Clauson
15. Which cases did address the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools?
a. Newdow v. United States and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
b. Meltzer v Board of Public Instruction of Orange County and Tudor v. Board of Education of Borough of
Rutherford
c. Garnett v. Renton School District and Clark v. Dallas Independent Schools
d. Lanner v. Winner and Johnson-Loehner v. O’Brien
1. The Establishment Clause is intended to establish a clear separation of church and state.
True False
4. Students can be released to attend religious instruction in public schools with parental consent.
True False
6. The use of public funds to provide instruction for Title I students does not violate the Establishment Clause.
True False
7. The inclusion of the phrase “under God” found in the pledge is unconstitutional.
True False
8. High school students in religion clubs may be denied access to meet on school property if the school does not
have a limited open forum.
True False
9. School officials may disallow religious groups to use school facilities in an effort to avoid a conflict of church
and state even though other nonreligious groups use the facilities.
True False
10. A student may be disallowed from distributing religious literature in public schools.
True False
11. Religious displays in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
True False
12. The Lemon test suggests that certain practices in public schools must have a sectarian purpose.
True False
13. Public school students in some jurisdictions may initiate student-led prayer in schools.
True False
14. Public schools may observe holidays through school sponsored programs, if they do not create a devotional
atmosphere.
True False
15. Public school teachers may use religious exhibits to discuss various holidays.
True False
16. A teacher may refuse to teach certain subjects that conflict with his/her religious beliefs.
True False
17. Teachers’ religious rights are covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
True False
Essay Questions
1. Discuss the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause and illustrate by example how a school
administration may violate each. (Be specific)
2. You have just been appointed principal of a high school of 1200 students in a conservative community. You
discover on your very first day that prayer is recited over the intercom, a scripture is read and blessings are
given before some students eat.
A. What specific components of the First Amendment are involved here?
B. Discuss these violations with your faculty in the context of the following:
a. Establishment Clause
b. Free Exercise Clause
c. Excessive entanglement
d. Principle of neutrality
e. Devotional atmosphere
C. What steps should be taken to address the violations cited above?
Chapter 2
Answer Key
Multiple Choice
1. d.
2. d.
3. d.
4. c.
5. d.
6. a.
7. b.
8. a.
9. d.
10. c.
11. d.
12. c.
13. b.
14. d.
15. a.
True/False
1. T
2. F
3. F
4. F
5. F
6. T
7. F
8. T
9. F
10. F
11. T
12. F
13. T
14. T
15. F
16. F
17. T