Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
p0ink
New member
Schools risk U.S. funds if prayer isn't tolerated (States must Certify by March 15th)
Philadelphia Enquirer ^ | Sat, Feb. 15, 2003 | By Jim Remsen
Posted on 02/15/2003 10:10 PM PST by 11th_VA
In one fell swoop, the federal government this month told public schools that they must accommodate religious speech - and warned school districts that they would risk losing federal funds if they did not allow "constitutionally protected prayer."
The detailed directive came with a March 15 compliance deadline, causing districts around the country to quickly begin assessing their policy manuals and preparing reports to their states.
The guidelines - which say schools may show "neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression" - do not break legal ground on this sometimes-contentious topic, but the threat of financial penalties is a first.
The directive is also unusual because the federal government traditionally leaves issues of school policy to state and local governments, one school-prayer scholar said yesterday.
At stake for school districts is $11.5 billion in Title I money for needy public schools. New Jersey schools are getting $257 million in Title I funds this year, while Pennsylvania's receive $600 million, including $101 million for Philadelphia.
The directive was issued Feb. 7 by the Department of Education as part of the phase-in of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the sweeping law requiring greater performance by students and teachers.
"What we are trying to do," department chief counsel Brian Jones said yesterday, "is bring some clarity to the perceived fuzziness in the law by letting districts know exactly what the courts are saying and standardizing that view."
The directive drew immediate fire from critics, including Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who said the department "is clearly trying to push the envelope on behalf of prayer in public schools."
Several other analysts interviewed this week, however, agreed with the department's stance that the instructions build on 1999 guidelines from the Clinton administration and reflect Supreme Court rulings.
According to the directive, schools must allow prayer provided it happens outside of classroom instruction - such as at an assembly or sporting event - and is initiated by students, not school officials.
Students taking part in assemblies may not be restricted in expressing religious ideas as long as they were chosen as speakers through "neutral, evenhanded criteria," the guidelines say. Schools may issue disclaimers clarifying that such speech does not represent the institution.
Also, teachers are permitted to meet for prayer or Bible study before school or after lunch, provided they make clear they are not acting in their "official capacities."
By March 15, school districts must certify to their states that they have "no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer."
Districts do not need to develop rules covering each point but simply must certify that "they have no policy that undermines" the protected behaviors, said Jones, the federal counsel.
The directive was approved by the Justice Department office of legal counsel, "which serves as the last word for interpretation of the Constitution," Jones said.
Mark J. Pelavin of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism called the guidelines a "good job" but said he wished the department had taken advice from outside experts.
"We would have helped them guide teachers about issues and concerns to be aware of, not just what's legal and what's not," Pelavin said.
"One child can give a presentation about Jesus, but when three or four do it, it feels different."
J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee, a church-state separation group, told USA Today that the guidelines could "allow a student speaker at a school assembly to launch into a hateful hellfire-and-damnation sermon."
Jones countered that schools could prevent proselytizing under their rights to stop "disruptive behavior."
William P. Marshall, a school-prayer scholar at the University of North Carolina law school, said the directive was "not constitutionally suspect."
At the same time, he said, "the line between distinguishing when a school is endorsing religious expression or not is thin. By conditioning Title I funds on this, they are putting schools in a very precarious position."
Marshall said the directive also approached "federal intrusion and control. School policies are traditionally left to state and local governments."
Patrick Korten of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said the directive vindicated a Burlington County boy, Zachary Hood, whose mother sued the Medford School District in 1996 after the boy, then 6, was not allowed to read to his class from his beginner's Bible.
"It's a new day for Zack and millions like him," said Korten, whose group defended the boy. "In a very real sense, these are 'Zack's rules.' "
The boy's mother, Carol Hood, said yesterday that the directive "will help to avoid litigation, which is draining and depressing for children."
Andy Rosen, assistant general counsel for the Philadelphia School District, said Philadelphia would not have a problem meeting the compliance deadline "because we're not doing anything that would deny student participation" in religious activities.
Tim Allwein, a policy director for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, said the quick deadline "is going to put this at the top of the list for districts, but I don't think it's going to cause a lot of problems for them. The question is clear; you are either denying access to constitutionally protected prayer or you're not."
In New Jersey, Education Department grant specialist Diane Schonyers said most New Jersey districts "have policies in place that do not prevent school prayer. But there's not a lot of time for any district to assess where it is and put any changes in place... . Because of the multiple levels of approval that include school boards, we need to be flexible."
Philadelphia Enquirer ^ | Sat, Feb. 15, 2003 | By Jim Remsen
Posted on 02/15/2003 10:10 PM PST by 11th_VA
In one fell swoop, the federal government this month told public schools that they must accommodate religious speech - and warned school districts that they would risk losing federal funds if they did not allow "constitutionally protected prayer."
The detailed directive came with a March 15 compliance deadline, causing districts around the country to quickly begin assessing their policy manuals and preparing reports to their states.
The guidelines - which say schools may show "neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression" - do not break legal ground on this sometimes-contentious topic, but the threat of financial penalties is a first.
The directive is also unusual because the federal government traditionally leaves issues of school policy to state and local governments, one school-prayer scholar said yesterday.
At stake for school districts is $11.5 billion in Title I money for needy public schools. New Jersey schools are getting $257 million in Title I funds this year, while Pennsylvania's receive $600 million, including $101 million for Philadelphia.
The directive was issued Feb. 7 by the Department of Education as part of the phase-in of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the sweeping law requiring greater performance by students and teachers.
"What we are trying to do," department chief counsel Brian Jones said yesterday, "is bring some clarity to the perceived fuzziness in the law by letting districts know exactly what the courts are saying and standardizing that view."
The directive drew immediate fire from critics, including Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who said the department "is clearly trying to push the envelope on behalf of prayer in public schools."
Several other analysts interviewed this week, however, agreed with the department's stance that the instructions build on 1999 guidelines from the Clinton administration and reflect Supreme Court rulings.
According to the directive, schools must allow prayer provided it happens outside of classroom instruction - such as at an assembly or sporting event - and is initiated by students, not school officials.
Students taking part in assemblies may not be restricted in expressing religious ideas as long as they were chosen as speakers through "neutral, evenhanded criteria," the guidelines say. Schools may issue disclaimers clarifying that such speech does not represent the institution.
Also, teachers are permitted to meet for prayer or Bible study before school or after lunch, provided they make clear they are not acting in their "official capacities."
By March 15, school districts must certify to their states that they have "no policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer."
Districts do not need to develop rules covering each point but simply must certify that "they have no policy that undermines" the protected behaviors, said Jones, the federal counsel.
The directive was approved by the Justice Department office of legal counsel, "which serves as the last word for interpretation of the Constitution," Jones said.
Mark J. Pelavin of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism called the guidelines a "good job" but said he wished the department had taken advice from outside experts.
"We would have helped them guide teachers about issues and concerns to be aware of, not just what's legal and what's not," Pelavin said.
"One child can give a presentation about Jesus, but when three or four do it, it feels different."
J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee, a church-state separation group, told USA Today that the guidelines could "allow a student speaker at a school assembly to launch into a hateful hellfire-and-damnation sermon."
Jones countered that schools could prevent proselytizing under their rights to stop "disruptive behavior."
William P. Marshall, a school-prayer scholar at the University of North Carolina law school, said the directive was "not constitutionally suspect."
At the same time, he said, "the line between distinguishing when a school is endorsing religious expression or not is thin. By conditioning Title I funds on this, they are putting schools in a very precarious position."
Marshall said the directive also approached "federal intrusion and control. School policies are traditionally left to state and local governments."
Patrick Korten of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said the directive vindicated a Burlington County boy, Zachary Hood, whose mother sued the Medford School District in 1996 after the boy, then 6, was not allowed to read to his class from his beginner's Bible.
"It's a new day for Zack and millions like him," said Korten, whose group defended the boy. "In a very real sense, these are 'Zack's rules.' "
The boy's mother, Carol Hood, said yesterday that the directive "will help to avoid litigation, which is draining and depressing for children."
Andy Rosen, assistant general counsel for the Philadelphia School District, said Philadelphia would not have a problem meeting the compliance deadline "because we're not doing anything that would deny student participation" in religious activities.
Tim Allwein, a policy director for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, said the quick deadline "is going to put this at the top of the list for districts, but I don't think it's going to cause a lot of problems for them. The question is clear; you are either denying access to constitutionally protected prayer or you're not."
In New Jersey, Education Department grant specialist Diane Schonyers said most New Jersey districts "have policies in place that do not prevent school prayer. But there's not a lot of time for any district to assess where it is and put any changes in place... . Because of the multiple levels of approval that include school boards, we need to be flexible."
