Santa Fe Independent School District Case Study

Constitution's First Amendment requirement that the District neither establish religion in the schools nor prohibit students’ free exercise of religion according to pertinent interpretation and application of those constitutional provisions by the courts. Any religious characters need to conform to policy 8800” (Markesan District School, 2013). “Decisions of the United States Supreme Court have made it clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices” (Markesan District School, 2015). Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the “inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected. District staff members shall not use prayer, religious readings, or religious symbols as a devotional exercise or in an act of worship or celebration” (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.) (Markesan District School, 2015). Having examined the Markesan District School First Amendment related to this topic the next step is to conclude my research on this topic.

Religion is one of the most controversial issues in society today. The concern of allowing prayer in schools is an on-going debate and has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Religious school clubs, after school activities, curriculums, and moments of silence during school are just a few of the court cases that judges have administered. People in favor of prayer in schools believe that their children can only learn certain values through religious practice. On the other hand, an individual against religious practice in schools views this issue as an infringement on his or her children’s rights as Americans.

By applying a school prayer body of the law, the court will find the school board’s conduct violated Mr. Pitstick’s First Amendment Rights under the Coercion Test, the Endorsement Test, and the Lemon test.

The case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

The Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe stated that student-led/ student-initiated prayer at high school football games violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. The Baptist religion was promoted in the Santa Fe Independent School District in Texas, which is located between Galveston and Houston. A teacher handed out flyers for a “revival meeting” which involved reading the bible and other Catholic things. They offered prayer up to God at graduations, assemblies, and football games. One mormon student and mother filed suit against the school district. Also, one catholic student and mother filed suit against the school district. Their lawsuit involved that the Establishment Clause was violated many times. They did not

In 1993, the Supreme Court decided on the case of Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District. Based on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), this case was pressed in Arizona by deaf James Zobrest and his parents who wanted a sign language interpreter, publically funded from the respondent, the Catalina Foothills School District (CFSD), to assist James while he was currently attending Salpointe Catholic High School. The arguments of this case were based on the First Amendment rights in the Constitution; the Zobrests claiming that the case was infringing on their rights from the Free Exercise Clause and the CFSD claiming that the case was unconstitutional based on the Establishment Clause (Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School

Prosper, Texas is one of the last additions to Collin County and has a current population of over 12,000 residents (Minor, 2010). Prosper’s establishment came about from the merging of two farming settlements in 1902, however the city’s name was not incorporated until 1914 (“History”, n.d.; Minor, 2010). According to the city’s webpage, Prosper is committed to being family-oriented and providing every resident an opportunity to experience quality living while maintaining small town ideals (“About Prosper”, n.d.). The Prosper Independent School District’s (PISD) vision to “reach everyone, everyday” (“REACH Philosophy / REACH”, 2002) mirrors the town’s belief in including everyone. Despite the exceptional growth within the city over the past few years, the school district is determined to meet the needs of its student population. One way in which PISD plans to ensure all of its students receive an equitable education, is through its adoption and implementation of the Response to Intervention (RtI) program.

In the state of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island both states had established a law that allowed the local government to fund educational programs that were religious based. The law was passed in 1968 through the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Alton Lemon, an instructor, did not agree with the law that had been passed. He believed that is violated the First Amendment. (The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion...)

In the state of Pennsylvania, all children that attended a public school were required at the beginning of each school day to read at least ten verses from the Holy Bible. After the readings, school authorities required all students to recite the Lord’s Prayer. However, with a note from a parent to the school, students could be excluded from this. Having said that, even though there was a way out of participating, it did not matter because the school still violated the Establishment Clause, which is in the First Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Issue: Do statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Is it constitutional for the state to provide financial assistance to religious schools for the cost of teaching secular subjects? The trial of Lemon v. Kurtzman was a groundbreaking case that took place in Pennsylvania. The case began because the state of Pennsylvania passed a law that allowed the local government to use money to fund educational programs that taught religious-based lessons, activities, and studies. This law was passed through the Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education

In 1992, a student of Santa Fe High School in Texas said a prayer before a football game. This student was elected by other students of the school to speak before the game which was regularly allowed by the Texas school district. The school’s policy specifically stated that any speeches given were to be non-religious, but the court ruled that the policy violated the Establishment Clause. The court argued that since the football game is a school sponsored event that the speeches would also be received by the public as school sponsored. The final decision in the Santa Fe Indep. School Dist. v Doe court case was that the school was only allowed to “promote good sportsmanship and student safety, along with establishing the appropriate environment

The court utilized the three-pronged Lemon Test to analyze the situations and see if they were in violation of the aforementioned clause. After reading the two cases I do not feel that there are factual differences that would justify different results. While the districts were using the churches for different reasons, the cases still addressed the same issues and problems. Both cases addressed the fact that ceremonies being held in a religious venue would expose people to religious symbols and pictures that may differ from their own. The exposure to these religious experiences may make them uncomfortable and go against their own beliefs. I do not feel that the factual differences would make any me feel any differently in the setting. In neither of the cases do I feel that the districts are endorsing a particular religion. When thinking of religion the government is to remain neutral, so some may argue that by holding the ceremonies at religious sites that they are not maintaining this

This paper will start off explaining religious freedom and what it is. Then it will brake off and briefly discuss the First Amendment and the Establishment clause and they have to do with religion. After that this paper will discuss what the Lemon Test is and it's significance. This paper will also give examples of how the Lemon Test is used. Two of the cases mentioned in this paper that had to do with the Lemon Test were Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) and Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist (1973) .

"The lemon test was started since 1971, it is so named because it was framed in the court 's 1971 in Lemon v. Kurtzman. This case is so common that legal students tend to forget what it involved: a state program to reimburse all private schools, including religious schools, for expenses of textbooks, materials, and, in part, salaries used to teach nonreligious subjects"#. The author believes that there is difficulties of law and states that removing this lemon test would not release all the problems about religion believes that Americans are confronting this days.