Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum

ASCD

Warren A. Nord, Charles C. Haynes

• Publisher: ASCD
• Year: 1998
• Print ISBN: 9780871203182
• eBook ISBN: 9781416612568
• Topic: Éducation
• Subtopic: Éducation générale

The authors chart a middle course in our war over religion and public education, one that builds on a developing national consensus among educational and religious leaders. While it is not proper for schools to practice religion or proselytize, neither is it permissible to make them religion-free zones. Schools do not take religion seriously, as the authors' review of textbooks and the new national content standards makes clear. In Part One, they outline the civic, constitutional, and educational frameworks that should shape the treatment of religion in the curriculum and classroom.

In Part Two, they explore major issues relating to religion in different domains of the curriculum in elementary education and in middle and high school courses in history, civics, economics, literature, and the sciences. They also discuss Bible courses and world religions courses and explore the relationship of religion to moral education and sex education.

Note: This product listing is for the Adobe Acrobat (PDF) version of the book.

Part I

The Frameworks

Chapter 1

The Civic and Constitutional Frameworks

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

—Religious Liberty clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Taking religion seriously in the curriculum requires taking religious liberty seriously throughout the school culture. Without a shared commitment to principles of religious liberty, conflicts over religion and values can tear apart a community and create a climate of distrust in the schools. In many school districts, the mere mention of religion, much less substantive discussion, may trigger conflict. In other places, individual teachers may do a good job of including religion, but they often do so without clear district policies or administrative and community understanding of the proper role for religion in the public schools. In neither setting can religion or religious liberty be taken seriously.

The solution is for schools and communities to openly and honestly address religious liberty in public education. They might begin by asking: What are the civic ground rules for understanding the proper constitutional and educational role for religion in the public school? The starting point for this discussion should be the guiding principles behind the first 16 words of the First Amendment—the words that open this chapter. Properly understood and applied, these principles constitute a civic framework within which public schools can protect the rights of every parent and student while treating religion with fairness in the curriculum.

There is, of course, some risk in taking a proactive approach to religion-in-schools issues that have divided Americans since the founding of public schools. The greater risk, however, is to ignore the distrust and discontent that have led many parents to conclude, fairly or unfairly, that public schools are hostile to their faith and values. Ironically, as we shall see, religious issues in schools have actually become a good place to start building common ground. The growing consensus across the political and religious spectrum about the role of religion in the schools provides an unprecedented opportunity for educators to bring their communities together in support of a new approach to old conflicts.

Clearing away the confusion about how to apply First Amendment religious liberty principles in the schools isn't easy. Extremes tend to dominate the debate. On one end of the spectrum are those who advocate what might be called the "sacred public school" where one religion (theirs) is preferred in school practices and policies. Characteristic of the early history of public schools, this approach still survives in some parts of the United States. In more recent decades, some on the other end of the spectrum have pushed for a "naked public school" where religion is kept out in the name of a strict separation of church and state. The influence that this view has had on educators accounts for much of the silence about religion in the curriculum and the confusion about the religious liberty rights of students. Both of these models of public schools are unjust and, we would argue, unconstitutional.

We propose a third model that is consistent with First Amendment principles and broadly supported by many education and religious groups: the "civil public school," where people of all faiths and no faith are treated with fairness and respect. The starting point for our proposal is the shared vision of religious liberty that undergirds such a school. We will then consider how schools and classrooms may fully realize that vision.

The Civil Public School

A few years ago, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the First Amendment Center decided that the time had come for a new dialogue between public school educators and some of their severest critics, especially among conservative Christians. Much was at stake on all sides. Everyone at the table was painfully aware that culture-war battles in public schools tear apart the fabric of our society and greatly threaten efforts to reform schools.

The first meeting, in April 1994, opened with a list of disputes ranging from religious holidays and prayer to school reform and sex education. Hearing the litany of conflicts, a participant remarked that if we don't find ways to address our differences concerning religion and values in schools, then public education doesn't have much of a future. Ernest Boyer, representing the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, suddenly hit the table, saying, "I wouldn't put it that way." The group looked surprised, well aware of Boyer's strong advocacy of public education. "No," he said emphatically, "if we don't do better in addressing these conflicts, it's not just public schools, but our nation that doesn't have much of a future."

We kept Boyer's warning before us as we struggled to craft an agreement that would help local schools and communities move from battleground to common ground. One year later, in the spring of 1995, 21 educational and religious groups issued a document entitled Religious Liberty, Public Education, and the Future of American Democracy: A Statement of Principles. For the first time in American history, organizations representing a broad spectrum of religious and political views—from right to left—articulated a shared vision of religious liberty in the public schools. The core of the agreement is captured in Principle IV, which states:

Public schools may not inculcate nor inhibit religion. They must be places where religion and religious conviction are treated with fairness and respect. Public schools uphold the First Amendment when they protect the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths or none. Schools demonstrate fairness when they ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion, where appropriate, as an important part of a complete education.¹

This articulation of First Amendment principles is as remarkable for who says it as for what it says. The National Education Association, the National School Boards Association, and the American Association of School Administrators joined with the Christian Legal Society, the American Center for Law and Justice, and Citizens for Excellence in Education. The Anti-Defamation League and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations are on the list, and so is the Council on Islamic Education and the Christian Educators Association International. Perhaps most remarkably, the Christian Coalition and People for the American Way are sponsors.

The Statement of Principles signals that there is a great deal of consensus regarding the relationship of religion to government and to public schools under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..."). We suggest that at the heart of this consensus is the idea that the public schools should be neutral in matters of religion.

For 50 years now, ever since its landmark ruling in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court has taken neutrality as its touchstone in adjudicating Establishment Clause cases.² As government institutions, public schools must be religiously neutral in two senses: they must be neutral among religions (they can't privilege one religion over another); and they must be neutral between religion and nonreligion (they can't privilege religion generally over nonreligion).

What is not often appreciated is the fact that neutrality is a two-edged sword. Just as public schools can't promote religion, neither can they inhibit or denigrate religion. The courts have also been clear about this—but, of course, here is where the conceptual waters become muddy. What counts as inhibiting or denigrating religion?

We will argue that it is anything but neutral to ignore religion. Neutrality cannot mean hostility or even silence. It is, of course, true that public schools cannot be in the business of religious indoctrination; faith formation is properly the province of the family and religious institutions. But at the same time, schools have an obligation to make sure that religion is taken seriously. Neutrality, as we shall argue, requires fairness to religion.

Quite apart from the Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause, we believe that justice requires that the curriculum of public schools be neutral in a pluralistic democracy. When the public disagrees deeply, public schools should not promote, much less institutionalize, one view and remain silent about others. Unlike private schools, public schools must take the public seriously. For example, because we disagree deeply about which political party has the better policies, it would violate our sense of justice for public schools to take sides, teaching only the policies and values of one party, leaving the other out of the discussion. We also disagree deeply, often on religious grounds, about how to make sense of our lives and the world; hence, public schools should not promote, much less institutionalize, any particular way of making sense of the world be it religious or secular. If public schools are to be built on common civic ground, they must be neutral when we disagree; they must take everyone seriously.

Before discussing more fully the implications of neutrality and the Establishment Clause for public schools, we should note that strong agreement also coalesces around the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause ("Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] ...") in a public school setting. Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law, also published in 1995, expresses the consensus of 35 religious and civil liberties groups on the religious liberty rights of public school students. That same year, President Bill Clinton drew on the Joint Statement when he issued a directive through the U.S. Department of Education to all public school superintendents, outlining the constitutional and educational role of religion in the public schools. The National PTA and the First Amendment Center built on both documents to produce A Parent's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools, more than 250,000 copies of which have been distributed by schools and communities thus far.³ Let's take a closer look at how these agreements provide a civic framework for a truly civil public school.

Religious Liberty Rights of Students

Many Americans continue to hold the mistaken view that the Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s concerning prayer and Bible reading prohibited students from expressing their faith in a public school. Thanks in large measure to the president's directive, the message is finally getting through that the Court never struck down "prayer in schools"; it barred state-sponsored religious practices. In fact, students have extensive religious liberty rights while in school. School boards and school administrators should now have a clear picture of what it means to "protect the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths or none."

Under the First Amendment as interpreted by the courts, students do have the right to pray in a public school alone or in groups, as long as the activity does not disrupt the school or infringe on the rights of others. These activities must be truly voluntary and student initiated. For example, students may gather around the flagpole for prayer before school begins, as long as the event is not sponsored by the school and other students are not pressured to attend. Students also have the right to share their faith with others and to read their Scriptures. They do not have to leave their religion at the schoolhouse door. Only if behavior coerces or harasses others, or is disruptive of the educational process, should it be prohibited.

When it is relevant to the discussion and meets the academic requirements, students have the right to express personal religious views in class or as part of a written assignment or art activity. They may not, of course, force their classmates to participate in a religious exercise.

Most legal experts agree that students have the right to distribute religious literature in public schools subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by school officials regarding time, place, and manner. This means that the school may specify when and where the distribution may occur. But the restrictions should be reasonable, and the school must apply them evenly to all nonschool student literature.

In secondary schools, the 1984 Equal Access Act ensures that students may form religious clubs if the school allows other extracurricular clubs. The act is intended to protect student-initiated and student-led meetings. Outsiders may not "direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend" student clubs, and faculty sponsors may be present at religious meetings in a nonparticipatory capacity only. Schools must give student religious clubs the same access to school facilities and media as they give other extracurricular clubs.

Despite the broad agreement on all of these rights, some areas of disagreement remain—especially concerning student prayers at graduation or other school events. At present, there is no clear legal answer to this conflict because lower courts are divided about the constitutionality of student-initiated, student-led prayers at graduation exercises. Until the Supreme Court resolves the matter, school districts in various parts of the country will follow different rules.

The good news, however, is how much consensus exists on students' religious liberty rights in a public school. As President Clinton said in his speech announcing the guidelines, public schools need not be "religion-free zones."

Parental Rights and Responsibilities

A civil public school is also one that recognizes, in the words of the Statement of Principles, that parents have "the primary responsibility for the upbringing of their children, including education." At the very least, this should mean that parents are involved in shaping policies about religion and religious liberty in the schools.

Of special interest to parents, especially religious parents, are school policies concerning accommodation of student religious needs and requirements. Most school officials will try to accommodate parental requests to excuse a child from classroom discussions or activities for religious reasons if the request focuses on a specific discussion, assignment, or activity. At times, however, schools are unsure about when and how much to accommodate, particularly with the expanding religious diversity in their districts.

For several years, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed by Congress in 1993, made it more difficult for schools to ignore religious requests for excusal. Under the act, if parents could show that particular lessons or school policies substantially burdened a student's free exercise of religion, then the school would have to prove a "compelling state interest" in requiring attendance or enforcing the policy. When the Supreme Court struck down RFRA as unconstitutional in 1997, some of the pressure on school officials to accommodate religious requests may have been lessened.

Take, for example, a 1994 case involving a Sikh family in California. The family wanted to send their son to a public high school wearing a small ceremonial dagger in spite of the school's "no weapons" policy. During the court battle that followed, all sides agreed that school officials had compelling reasons for keeping all weapons out of the school. (Public schools have a number of "compelling interests," including health and safety of all students.) But using RFRA, the court agreed with the parents that the school's interest in safety could be preserved if the dagger—which all adult male Sikhs are required to wear—were riveted into its sheath (making it impossible to use as a weapon) and worn underneath the student's clothes.⁴ Without RFRA, the Sikh family might well have lost that case.

It may be that without RFRA parents will find it more difficult to get exemptions for their children from general school policies. But we would argue that school officials should still take religious requests for accommodation seriously for at least two reasons. First, upholding the religious liberty of parents and students is the right thing to do. Many teachers and administrators understand this when they routinely grant requests for a student to be excused from participation based on religious convictions. A common example is the parental request for a child to opt out of a particular lesson or classroom activity. To be sure, the school has an important interest in teaching Sally to read. But giving Sally an alternate assignment for one book or a few stories is a good way to accomplish the school's educational goal while still protecting Sally's religious liberty.

Second, in most cases, parents may also appeal to another constitutional right, such as the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children or, on behalf of their children, the right of free speech. Though some recent lower court decisions seem to ignore or minimize parental rights, the Supreme Court has long recognized such rights.⁵

Free exercise of religion joined with either free speech or parental rights makes a powerful combination. The Supreme Court itself has indicated that the "compelling state interest" test may be used when free exercise claims are linked to at least one other constitutional right.⁶ On legal grounds, therefore, public school officials are still well advised to make every effort to accommodate the needs and requirements of religious parents and students.

This does not mean that school officials can or should accommodate all opt-out requests, especially when such requests are extensive. For example, schools could not accommodate parents who want their child to be excused from the world history class every time religion is mentioned, because religion frequently comes up (or ought to) in the study of world civilizations. Courts have recognized that public schools do not have to accommodate every request to opt out of portions of the curriculum.⁷ Of course, it isn't always clear just where educators should draw the line. But when parents limit their request to particular lessons or activities, schools should try to provide an alternative for the student.

A number of schools have added another dimension to their excusal polici...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Part I: The Frameworks
• Part II: The Curriculum
• Conclusions
• References
• About the Authors
• Copyright Page