Rick, I am not familiar with the methods by which public schools calculate
credits earned at private schools. I assume that, in most if not all
cases, they use accreditation as a proxy, and simply assume that "30
credits" from an accredited school is equivalent to 30 credits in the
secular school, in the subjects that the state insists upon students
mastering, since the private school has a legal obligation to be conveying
the requisite education on those secular subjects (even if some of those
classes integrate religious matters or perspectives).
But if and when there is a case in which the public school system evaluates
the private school credits on a course-by-course basis, then no, it
couldn't award credit for, e.g., a catechism course.
None of those subtleties and questions of presumptions are present here,
however, because, as I noted earlier, the very *purpose* of the release
time here is not to allow students to continue with their state-required
studies (e.g., of literature or biology) in a private setting of their
choice (religious or secular), but instead specifically *to allow the
students to receive "religious instruction."*
The school district (arguably) has a legitimate interest in so
accommodating the ability of students to receive such a religious education
where the mandatory attendance rules of the school system would otherwise
prevent that exercise of religion. (I'd add, however, that this is a
notable context in which Chip Lupu and Michael McConnell agree that such a
program is unconstitutional where, as in Zorach, the students "left behind"
are subject to "dead time." See 60 GW L. Rev. at 705 n.81 ("In my opinion,
a released time program of the sort Professor Lupu experienced as a child,
in which the nonparticipating students were inflicted with 'an entirely
wasted hour of school,' would be unconstitutional.").
But the school has no legitimate reason at all for awarding *academic credit
* for such concededly "religious instruction." To do so is
unconstitutional, in fact. (And this is all the more so because presumably
religious instruction is favored -- South Carolina would not provide
release time, let alone credits, for yoga instruction, or hip-hop dance
instruction, . . . or, for that matter, religious instruction of the sort
most of us received *after *school hours.)
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Rick Garnett <rgarn...@nd.edu> wrote:
> Dear Marty,
>
> Credits are awarded, I assume, routinely when students transfer from, say,
> St Joseph High School to Thomas Jefferson High School for, say, courses in
> "Theology". In my view, this does not raise Establishment / Larkin issues.
> Our disagreement, I suppose, proceeds from a different view of what the
> state is doing when it awards "credits" to students. I think, again, that
> Judge Niemeyer is right.
>
> Best, R
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 30, 2012, at 11:13 AM, "Marty Lederman" <lederman.ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
