I should add that, wholly apart from whether the particular Spartanburg Bible School class was in any way, as Rick suggests, of some secular educational value (which was, I repeat,* not* the basis for the court's holding), the South Carolina statute at issue expressly provides that "[a] school district board of trustees may award high school students no more than two elective Carnegie units for the completion of released time classes *in religious instruction**."* * *That is to say, the credits are specifically and unequivocally being awarded *for the "religious instruction" as such*. * *On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Rick, > > The statute says that the school district must use "secular criteria" to > determine whether the release time education qualifies for credits, but > those criteria have nothing to do with fulfillment of any of the secular > educational objectives of the school (they include the number of hours of > instruction; a syllabus that reflects course requirements; a "method of > assessment" used by the religious school teachers"; and whether the > teachers are certified). The School District here, for admirable > nonentanglement reasons, "entered into an arrangement with Oakbrook > Preparatory School, an accredited private Christian school, by which > Spartanburg Bible School could submit its grades through Oakbrook to > Spartanburg High School. Under the arrangement, Oakbrook agreed to review > and monitor Spar- tanburg Bible School’s curriculum, its teacher > qualifications, and educational objectives, and to award course credit and > grades given by the Bible School before transferring them to Spartanburg > High School. In carrying out the arrangement, Oakbrook reviewed syllabi, > spoke with instructors, suggested minor curricular adjustments, and > satisfied itself that the Spar- tanburg Bible School course was > academically rigorous." > > To my mind, this delegation raises a serious Larkin problem. But that > aside, the fact that the accredited school is an intermediary that > "transfers" the grades based on an assessment that the *religious *course > was "academically rigorous" does not cure the problem, which is that this > education is designed to be religious in nature, and not to advance any of > the secular objectives of the public schools. > > You quote with apparent approval Judge Niemeyer's "governing principle" > that "private religious education is an integral part of the American > school system." But that stated "principle" is the problem, not a virtue. > Providing families with the option of achieving the society's *secular > *educational > objectives at a private school of their choice, religious or secular, is a > "governing principle" of the American school system. (And securing the > freedom of families to provide or obtain a private religious education > *outside > *the American school system is surely a "governing principle" of our > constitutional order (Meyer, Pierce, etc.).) But "religious education" as > such not only is not an integral part of the American school system -- as a > constitutional matter, it can't be part of that system at all. > > On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Rick Garnett <rgarn...@nd.edu> wrote: > >> Dear Marty, >> >> In this case, if I am reading the opinion correctly, the credits in >> question are coming from "Oakbrook Preparatory >> >> School, an accredited private Christian school." >> >> In my view, the decision is "welcome" because -- as Marc says, below -- I >> think it would be the wrong approach to say that, when a student transfers >> from a non-state school to a state school, he or she may only receive >> "credit" for courses with the requisite "secular" content. As Judge >> Niemeyer wrote: >> >> Also important to our conclusion is the governing principle >> >> that private religious education is an integral part of the >> >> American school system. Indeed, States are constitutionally >> >> obligated to allow children and parents to choose whether to >> >> fulfill their compulsory education obligations by attending a >> >> secular public school or a religious private school. >> *See Pierce >> >> v. Soc’y of Sisters >> *, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35 (1925). It would be >> >> strange and unfair to penalize such students when they >> >> attempt to transfer into the public school system by refusing >> >> to honor the grades they earned in their religious courses, >> >> potentially preventing them from graduating on schedule with >> >> their public school peers. Far from establishing a state religion, >> >> the acceptance of transfer credits (including religious >> >> credits) by public schools sensibly >> *accommodates *the "genuine >> >> choice among options public and private, secular and religious." >> * >> >> Zelman v. Simmons-Harris >> *, 536 U.S. 639, 662 (2002) >> >> (upholding an Ohio voucher initiative for this reason). >> >> The court was careful to note that the school district had not encouraged >> students to participate or inappropriately endorsed religion. Like Marc, I >> can imagine some abuses, and hard cases, but this one does not seem (to me) >> to be one. >> >> Best, >> >> Rick >> >> Richard W. Garnett >> Professor of Law & Associate Dean >> Notre Dame Law School >> P.O. Box 780 >> Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780 >> >> 574-631-6981 (office) >> 574-631-4197 (fax) >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marc DeGirolami [ >> marc.degirol...@stjohns.edu] >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 30, 2012 10:13 AM >> >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Subject:* RE: Providing public school credits for release-time >> religious classes >> >> One conceivable difficulty is the entanglement problem. When a >> student transfers in to public school from a religious school, there may be >> several different sorts of courses that the student will have taken which >> may combine, in various degrees, “religious” and “secular” components. I’m >> not sure I agree with Marty that it is always the case that the transferred >> credits are awarded solely for purely secular courses. Segregating out the >> secular and religious components can be difficult. And getting the school >> district involved in determining which are purely secular, and which are >> mixed, and which are purely religious, might risk excessive entanglement. >> >> >> >> Having said that, I agree that awarding credits for, e.g., CCD class or >> equivalent education is problematic. >> >> >> >> Marc >> >> >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Marty Lederman >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 30, 2012 9:58 AM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Subject:* Providing public school credits for release-time religious >> classes >> >> >> >> www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/111448.P.pdf >> >> A South Carolina school district set up a Zorach-like release time >> program for religious instruction at an unaccedited religious school. Then >> it decided to give the participating students *academic credit* for >> their purely religious studies in the release-time program. The Fourth >> Circuit upholds this program, on the theory that it's no different from >> recognizing credits from a private, accredited religious school when a >> student transfers to the public school. But in that latter case (or in the >> related context of giving "credit" for home-schooling), the credits >> presumably are awarded based upon the showing or the presumption that they >> reflect the student's completion of the necessary *secular* curriculum. >> Here, the education in question is specifically religious in nature (that's >> the point, and there's no indication in the opinion of any secular >> content). That is to say, the credit is being offered for the religious >> education simplicitur. >> >> Is this holding defensible? On Mirror of Justice, Rick Garnett calls it >> "welcome," but it's not obvious to me why that might be so. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see >> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as >> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are >> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or >> wrongly) forward the messages to others. >> > >
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
