Newsletter - Fall 2000

The sixth annual survey of "The Top Ten Factors Impacting Public Education" is enclosed in this newsletter. Please take a few moments to complete the short survey. You can mail, FAX, or email your results. Findings from the survey will be in the Winter 2001 newsletter.

Previous survey results indicated that the following factors had the most impact on the public schools:

1. Negative myths about the quality of the public schools.

2. Dependence of the local property tax as the primary source of revenues.

3. Inadequate planning time to implement change in the school’s curriculum.

4. Decline in the family’s respect and support of the teacher and administrator’s decision to discipline their child.

Awards are presented to members each year at the HML Annual meeting in the following areas:

Outstanding Educator (nominations accepted)

Outstanding Friend of Education (nominations accepted)

Ambassador Award for Service to the HML (Awarded to those members who have sponsored ten new members during the past year.)

The Horace Mann League’s annual meeting is scheduled for Saturday, February 17, at noon. It is in conjunction with AASA’s annual convention in Orlando. Registration information will be mailed to you in early January.

The Horace Mann League was founded in 1922 by a group of educational leaders from across the nation. The purposes of the League are to:

1. Perpetuate the ideals of Horace Mann,

2. Preserve and support the separation of church and state,

3. Preserve and support the common public schools, and

4. Preserve the use of government funds for only public schools.

Currently, there are almost 1000 members of the Horace Mann League. Membership is by invitation only. If you would like to nominate an individual to become a member, an application form is included in this newsletter.

by Charles A. Rohn I recently visited an adult Sunday school class where the discussion turned to religion and the public schools. Among the statements I heard were these:

* Schools would not have discipline problems if prayer were allowed.
* A student cannot even say grace in the cafeteria.
* Students are not allowed to have a Bible study club at school.
* Students are not permitted to circle the flagpole for prayer.
* When I was a student, we were taught right and wrong. Today’s students don’t care about right or wrong .
* All of our troubles in public schools started when they kicked God out!

Many of those in the class had children in the public schools. They contended the faith they hold so dear could not be expressed in today’s schools. They believed school staff may not carry their religious beliefs with them into the public schools.

These parents, not unlike others, were wrong about the role of religious faith in the public schools.

Confusion Rules

Expression of religious beliefs in the public schools is a controversial issue. Numerous court cases have caused confusion concerning exactly what place religion has in our schools. School leaders must combine a general understanding of recent rulings with a large dose of common sense to avoid problems.

* Can students pray in school? The bumper sticker states "As Long as There Are Tests, There Will Be Prayer in Schools." Students can pray in public schools, either as individuals or in groups. They can pray before a test, lunch, a ballgame or before the start of classes. However, their prayers cannot be disruptive or infringe on others’ rights.

Long-established standards require that prayers be voluntary and that school employees not lead or publicly participate in the prayers.

* Can a school activity be opened with prayer? Many schools traditionally have opened graduation ceremonies, athletic events and other activities with prayer led by a student or a local minister. Current legal standards no longer allow this type of prayer. Recent court cases have been numerous. (The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against an organized prayer by students at a school-sporting event.)

What is clear is that school officials cannot organize, initiate or encourage public prayer. But for the moment, student-initiated, student-led prayer during a time of meditation or reflection is legal.

* Can teachers share their faith? The example that teachers set for their students speaks much louder than words. Because teachers have a captive audience, they are not allowed to proselytize or encourage students to accept specific religious beliefs. Children have an uncanny ability to clearly see what adults believe from their actions. A teacher who quietly exhibits religious beliefs in his or her daily life will provide a positive example for students.

* Can students hold a religious activity on school property?

Many schools allow students to organize and meet for religious purposes on school property. This common activity is legal if done properly. The basic standards that must be met are that students must organize the activity, it must be voluntary and it cannot conflict with regular school activities. If the school has established a limited open forum by allowing the scouts, chess club or other non-academic organizations to meet on school property, the Bible club also must be allowed to meet. Students across the country are meeting at their school to study the Bible and even to pray at the flagpole.

* Can students read the Bible in public schools? Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door. A student has a right to privately read materials but does not have the right to coerce other students to read or listen. Recent rulings have been conflicting, but student rights to select religious materials have been supported.

* Can clergy be allowed on school property? Many clergy are involved with community activities that take place outside their churches. Many volunteer by reading to elementary students, supervising high school dances, tutoring students, coaching sports and serving on committees. Clergy have been called upon to be counselors to schoolchildren during a crisis situation.

In these roles do not proselytize or verbalize their faith, they share their faith by living it. The clergy, as all other adults, can share their faith with youth both in and out of public schools primarily by living those beliefs.

The basic question posed in this article has been "must public schools be ungodly places?" The answer: an emphatic no.

Religious beliefs play an important part in the education of our children. Our laws and court cases have placed limitations on our expression of our beliefs including our religious beliefs. However, religion and God can still be a part of raising our children and having them attend public schools.

The dramatic court cases, the outlandish situations and the major tragedies grab the focus of our news media and often make us believe the worst about our society and its youth. A community’s religious beliefs can and should be a part of the education of our children. As long as our educational leaders and teachers understand current standards and use common sense, there is no problem with the values of the community being expressed in public schools.

Charles Rohn, a former superintendent in Illinois, is an associate professor and chair of educational leadership at Eastern Illinois University. This article appeared first in AASA's June 2000, issue of The School Administrator

Officers:

President: Dr. Ken Bird, Supt., Westside Community. Schools, Omaha, NE (photo, click here)

President-elect: Dr. Ben Canada, Supt., Portland, OR (photo, click here)

Vice President: Dr. Art Stellar, Supt., Kingston City, NY (photo, click here)

Past President: Dr. Beverly Reep, Prin. - Title I, Bay Village, OH

Board of Directors:

Dr. David Berliner, Dean, College of Education, U. of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ (photo, click here)

Dr. Larry Dlugosh, Dept. Chr. of Ed. Ad., U. of NE-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE (photo, click here)

Dr. Mark Edwards, Supt., Henrico Co. Public Schools. Richmond, VA

Dr. Fred Hartmeister, Prof., Ed.Ad., & Law, Texas Tech. U., Lubbock, TX (photo, click here)

Dr. Paul Houston, Exec. Dir., Amer. Assoc. of Sch. Admin., Arlington, VA (photo, click here)

Dr. Spike Jorgensen, Supt Search Consultant, H. Webb Assoc., Tok, AK (photo, click here)

Dr. Douglas Otto, Supt., Plano Public Schools, Plano, TX

Dr. Steve Rasmussen, Supt., Franklin Pierce School District, Tacoma, WA

Dr. John Simpson, Supt., Norfolk Public Schools, Norfolk, VA

Dr. Stuart Thompson, Supt., Hickory Public Schools, Hickory, NC

Dr. Walter Warfield, Exec. Dir., Illinois Assoc. of School Adm., Springfield, IL

Dr. Colleen Wilcox, Supt., Santa Clara Office of Education, San Jose, CA (photo, click here)

Executive Director

Dr. Jack McKay, Prof. of Ed. Admin., U. of Nebraska at Omaha, College of Education Omaha, NE 68182-0162

jack_mckay@unomaha.edu

jack.mckay@home.com

(402) 554 2210 or 614 9499

Cell phone: (402) 301 3443

Highlights of the HML Summer Board meeting held in Omaha on June 31 and July 1, 2000:

Attending: Fred Hartmeister, Steve Rasmussen, John Simpson, Larry Dlugosh, Colleen Wilcox, Stuart Thompson, Spike Jorgensen, Douglas Otto, Walt Warfield, Ken Bird, and Jack McKay.

Acknowledgment

Letter of appreciation sent to Dr. Don Thomas for his contribution to the Horace Mann League's, Foundation.

Update on Strategic Plan

1. Recognition of "15 Year Members" of the HML: Award Certificates for 15 years of membership. Acknowledgment of 10 year members at the Annual Meeting. (McKay)

2. Sales and Gifts of The Art of Teaching: Distributed to new and renewing members. Send letter suggesting book as gift or as token of appreciation. (McKay)

3. US Postage Stamp Project: Draft letter promotion stamp for Board members. Suggestion to members to use Horace Mann image on district stamp machine. (McKay)

4. Publishing newsletter and directory publications: Newsletters, three per year, Directory, once per year, Edit one book by February 2001. (McKay)

5. Develop and marketing of a poster: Poster of Horace Mann for sale to members, school districts, and other organizations supportive of public education. (Wilcox, Warfield, and Bird)

6. Survey of membership: "Destructive Factors Impacting Public Education." (McKay)

7. Publish a book: Book relating to "the assisting of school leaders in the strengthening of public education" for distribution in February 2002. (Rasmussen, Hartmeister, Dlugosh, & McKay)

Additional Items

Membership Dues: Increase the Horace Mann League dues from $35 to $40 and increase every three years by $5.00, effective in August 2000. Increase in expenditures for volume of postage, printing, supplies, and executive directors stipend.

Fund Raising Activity: Establish a sub-committee to draft guidelines, purposes, and parameters for fund raising. (Otto, Dlugosh, Rasmussen)

Horace Mann League Foundation

Purpose of the HML Foundation is to solicit donations for publications, scholarships, awards, research, and other activities promoting the ideals of Horace Mann.

Monitoring Legal Issues

Progress report on Circuit Court and US Supreme Court decisions. Amicus Curiae for Chandler v. James (prayer before school events) and Simmons-Harris v. Zelman (Cleveland voucher plan). (Hartmeister and Jorgensen)

Nominations Committee Report

Reappointment of Spike Jorgensen, Larry Dlugosh, and Mark Edwards to the Board of Directors. Terms 2001 to 2004. Nominated Larry Dlugosh as Vice President, term 2001 to 2002.

Next Board Meeting, Friday, February 16, 2001, 3:00 to 6:00 p.m., Orlando

Annual Meeting, Saturday, February 17, 2001, noon to 1:30 p.m., Orlando

HML Presentation at AASA

"Thirteen Reasons Why Vouchers Won't Work" by David Berliner

Panelists: Ken Bird, Douglas Otto, John Simpson, Colleen Wilcox, and Jane Hammond

Membership Recruiting by States

Jorgensen-AK, HI, ND, UT, WY. Bird-AZ IA, KS, MO, SD. Wilcox-CA. Hammond-CO. Yulo-CT. Simpson-DE, MI, VA. Houston-DC, MD. Coleman-FA. Otto-GA, IN, LA, MN, TX. Rasmussen-ID, MT, NV, OR, WA. Warfield-IL, NM. Stellar: MA, NH, NY. Ferguson-NJ. Thompson-NC, SC, TN, MS Edwards-RI, PA. Reep-OH. Dlugosh: OK, NE, WI, & higher ed. McKay: International.

Four court cases highlight some of the litigation that the Horace Mann League’s Legal Committee have been supporting and following during the last six months. More in depth information can be obtained by going to either of the following websites:

Americans United at www.au.org

People for the American Way at www.pafw.org

Chandler v. James

The 11th Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.

The Alabama Legislature enacted a statute allowing nonsectarian, non-proselytizing student-initiated prayer during school-related events such as graduation, assemblies, and sporting events.

Chandler, a vice principal and father of a student in Dekalb County, Ala., challenged the validity of the statute. He claimed it violated the First Amendment's Establish-ment Clause. He asked the court to prohibit the DeKalb County School Board from enforcing the statute.

The court granted his request. It prohibited the board from permitting vocal prayer or other devotional speech in school.

The board appealed. It argued that requiring it to forbid speech violated the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.

DECISION: Reversed.

The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses required that the school board permit student religious speech at the same time and in the same place and manner as secular speech.

Permitting student-initiated speech did not violate the Establishment Clause. The First Amendment protected private speech that endorsed religion, which the student-initiated religious speech was. The First Amendment required that the board tolerate religious speech to the same extent as it permitted secular speech.

The suppression of student-initiated religious speech did not achieve neutrality toward religion - it showed hostility. It would establish disbelief or atheism as the state's religion. The Constitution did not require such a complete separation of church and state that religious expression would not be tolerated in public institutions.

CASE NOTE:

The court stated that the students' right to speak on religion had limits. The court held that "student religious speech must be without oversight, without supervision, subject only to the same reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions as all other student speech in school." Though the court permitted student-initiated prayer, it noted that permitting proselytizing would be unconstitutional.

School Law Bulletin, September 1999

Simmons-Harris v. Zelman

In 1995, Ohio enacted a pilot voucher program that applies only to Cleveland and that includes religious schools as well as other private schools. Along with the Ohio Education Association, ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, we filed suit on behalf of several parents and community members challenging the program in Simmons-Harris v. Goff.

The case was consolidated with a similar lawsuit filed by the Ohio Federation of Teachers.

The case was assigned to Judge Lisa Sadler, who had recently assumed the bench after previously working for Ohio Gov. Voinovich, a strong supporter of the law. On July 31, 1996, Judge Sadler issued a ruling upholding the voucher plan and allowing it to go into effect in September. The state court of appeals, on May 1, 1997, reversed Judge Sadler's ruling. On May 27, 1999, the Ohio state Supreme Court affirmed the ruling invalidating the program, but solely on the state law ground that the legislature had improperly added the voucher provision on to a large multi-subject budget bill, violating the state Constitution's "single subject" rule. Contrary to the court of appeals, a majority of the judges suggested the program would be constitutional on church-state grounds.

In June 1999, the state re-enacted the voucher program, and the plaintiffs again filed suit, challenging the voucher program under the Establishment Clause. The lawsuit, Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, was filed in federal court. In August 1999, Judge Solomon Oliver granted a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from implementing the voucher program while the lawsuit was pending. The Judge ruled that the voucher program had the unconstitutional effect of advancing religion. Because the school year was about to start, the Judge stayed his ruling with respect to students who were already in the voucher program, so that they could remain in their schools, but prohibited new students from joining the program.

The state and its allies appealed, and asked the Sixth Circuit to stay the preliminary injunction as to all students.

When the Sixth Circuit failed to rule, the state went to the Supreme Court, which, by a 5-4 vote, stayed the preliminary injunction in its entirety. This was not a ruling on the merits, but could indicate that the Court is interested in this case and may decide to hear it after a final ruling by the Sixth Circuit.

On December 8, 1999, Judge Oliver entered final judgment on behalf of the plaintiffs, permanently enjoining the voucher program on the grounds that it unconstitutionally advances religion. The Judge stayed his ruling in its entirety pending review by the Sixth Circuit. Ohio has filed an appeal, and the Sixth Circuit will likely hear oral argument this spring or summer.

Santa Fe ISD v. Jane Doe

Supreme Court Narrowly Upholds First Amendment in Texas Football School Prayer Case.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Texas public school district's practice of opening high school football games with a prayer is unconstitutional. In the case, Santa Fe Independent School District v.Jane Doe, People For the American Way Foundation participated as amicus to uphold the religious liberty of parents and students who protested the school-sponsored prayer.

"The Santa Fe school district tried to promote religion by disguising it as neutral free speech, but the Court has unmasked the district's policy for what it is – unconstitutional, school-sponsored, captive-audience prayer," said PFAWF President Ralph G. Neas "This school district has a history of crossing the line, time and again, by favoring, if not coercing, religious expression. But the Court saw through this subterfuge and upheld the Constitution and its guarantee of religious liberty for all Americans, regardless of their beliefs."

"The narrowness of this decision is troubling," Neas added, "and it indicates how dramatically one or two more right-wing Justices would shift the balance and redefine American’s fundamental religious liberty."

The school district's history of promoting expressions of certain kinds of Protestant Christian faith and of intolerance toward minority faiths was a part of the evidence presented in this case. The prayer policy struck down today was instituted by the school as a

substitute for the previous practice of authorizing students designated as "chaplains" to present Christian prayers over the public address system at home football games. In addition, one of the student plaintiffs was subjected to ridicule by a teacher who characterized her religion (Mormonism) as "non-Christian" and "cult-like," prompting other students to characterize the plaintiff's faith as "evil" and "kind of like the KKK."

In addition, court documents show that the district court where the case was initially filed had to threaten the school district with, "The harshest possible contempt sanctions" and/or "Criminal Liability" in order to halt attempts by administrators, teachers, and other employees of the school district "overtly or covertly to ferret out the identifies of the Plaintiffs … by means of bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual interrogation, or downright 'snooping.' "

"The fact that Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court's most right-wing justices, would side, along with Chief Justice Rehnquist, with a school district that has so abused individual rights is a sobering reminder of how precarious the balance is that, for now, protects our freedoms," said Neas. "It would only take two more Justices like Scalia and Thomas to turn back the clock for all Americans."

Source: People for the American Way. www.pfaw.org/courts

Mitchell v. Helms

Significance for Charitable Choice and Private School Vouchers

On June 28, 2000, the United States Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause to the federal Constitution does not bar certain forms of education aid from flowing to religious schools. This decision - and more particularly, some of the language contained in its various opinions - has led people to assert its significance for other funding programs. In particular, the Court plurality's adoption of "neutrality" as the operative standard for analyzing funding programs involving religious recipients and its criticism of the prohibition on funding "pervasively sectarian" institutions raises new questions about the constitutionality of Charitable Choice and private school vouchers.

In brief, the holding in Mitchell v. Helms does not signal the constitutionality of Charitable Choice or vouchers. Specific language in the plurality indicates that direct money grants to religious institutions are still unconstitutional, even when those grants are administered under neutral programs that are generally available to religious and non-religious entities alike, such as under Charitable Choice. All nine justices agreed on this point. Moreover, a majority of the Court (concurrence and dissent) would not allow any form of aid if it supplants non-public funds or will be diverted for religious uses. Although the plurality would likely consider a voucherized program constitutional, it is doubtful that this sentiment commands a Court majority.

Finally, the plurality's criticism of the pervasively sectarian standard was not joined by the concurrence or the dissent. The constitutional prohibition against direct funding of pervasively sectarian institutions, especially where the funds will be used for religious purposes, remains intact.

The Case

Mitchell v. Helms involved a challenge to the federal Chapter 2 program that provides educational equipment and materials, such as library books and computer software and hardware, to public and private elementary and secondary schools.

The challenge asked whether providing such materials to parochial schools violates the Establishment Clause, in that the materials could be used for religious purposes. The trial court upheld the program as applied, but that decision was reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals based on earlier Supreme Court holdings.

The Supreme Court then granted review and reversed the court of appeals in a 6-3 decision. There was no majority opinion, however, with two of the justices concurring in the result only.

Although one should read all three opinions (plurality, concurrence and dissent) to appreciate the significance of the case, Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion, which announces the narrowest rule, must be seen as controlling.

The Decision

In the plurality opinion, written by Justice Thomas for himself, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and justices Scalia and Kennedy, Thomas proposed "neutrality" as the constitutional standard for reviewing funding issues. So long as aid is "allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion, and is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis," then it is constitutional even if it flows to a religious institution.

The Horace Mann League Newsletter is published three times per year. The purpose of the HML Newsletter is to communicate with members about the HML League and about issues related to the goal of strengthening public education.

Comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Jack McKay, Editor

jack_mckay@unomaha.edu or

jack.mckay@home.com