Religious Released-Time Programs:
A Guidebook for Oregon
School Administrators
Published by Protect Oregon Children
2014
This document is for general information only. It should not be considered legal advice. For legal
advice about released-time programs or your specific situation, please consult an attorney.
1
Table of Contents
The Purpose of this Guidebook
3
Summary of Legal Guidelines
4
The First Amendment and Public Schools
5
The History of Released Time
7
U.S. Legal Decisions
9
Oregon Laws and Legal Decisions
12
Frequently Asked Questions
13
Addressing Parental Concerns: Specific Actions Administrators Can Take
17
About Protect Oregon Children
20
2
The Purpose of This Guidebook:
Helping Schools Deal With a Complicated Issue
Released-time programs allow public school students to be excused from class during the
school day for religious instruction. These programs have been ruled legal by the U.S. Supreme
Court. To be legal, released-time programs require parental permission, may not be held on
school grounds or use public funds, and must follow a number of other regulations.
Released time can be a complicated issue for schools to deal with. It touches on sensitive topics
such as religion, quality of education, and parental rights. Because the rules are not widely
known, administrators have inadvertently violated the law, putting their schools at risk.
This guidebook is designed to help school officials understand the rights and responsibilities of
all parties involved—schools, teachers, parents, children and released-time programs—and to
maintain high academic performance while minimizing conflict within school communities and
the risk of litigation.
3
Summary of Legal Guidelines
The U.S. and State Supreme Courts and lower court rulings suggest some basic legal
guidelines for released-time programs. Below is a list of guidelines extracted from these court
decisions.
1. Released-time programs must not be created or implemented using state funds. (McCollum v.
Board of Education; Zorach v. Clauson.)
2. Released-time programs cannot be held on school grounds. They may be held in separately
owned buildings or trailers adjacent to the school. (Zorach v. Clauson) Buildings or trailers must
avoid the appearance of school sanction (Doe v. Shenandoah) and trailers cannot be on school
property. [HS v. Huntington County Community School Corp., 616 F.Supp.2d 863 (N.D. Ind.
2009)]
3. A Student may only be released from the school with written permission from the student’s
parent or legal guardian. (Doe v. Shenandoah; Zorach v. Clauson.)
4. Recruiting students must be done by released-time personnel without assistance from the
public school. Public school personnel may not register students in released-time programs or
speak in favor of or against them. [Perry v. School District No. 81 (1959)]
5. Released-time programs’ daily attendance records must be maintained by program
administrators and not by public school officials; however, released-time program administrators
may make attendance records available for the public school to ensure that released students
are attending. (Zorach v. Clauson; Lanner v. Wimmer.)
6. Records of attendance, grades, and other data from the released-time program may not be
included in reports from the school to parents, except reporting a student’s repeated absences
from program. (Lanner v. Wimmer)
7. Public school class schedules may not list released-time instruction as an option. (Lanner v.
Wimmer)
9. Public schools may not encourage participation in released-time instruction or punish
students for not participating. This includes giving extra work to unreleased students or stopping
instruction for unreleased students. (See “Religious Expression in Public Schools: A Statement
of Principles,” U.S. Department of Education, 1998, www.eric.ed.gov.) However, it is permissible
for schools to take some action against students who are enrolled in released-time classes but
do not attend.
10. Released-time program teachers may not be considered part of the public school faculty.
They may not assume responsibilities at public school programs and events unless they are
acting as parents or regular citizens and not as school officials. (Lanner v. Wimmer)
11. Even the appearance that any element of the released-time program is connected with the
school may be grounds for striking down that element of the program. (Lanner v. Wimmer; Doe
v. Shenandoah.)
4
The First Amendment and Public Schools
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
—The First Two Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The First Amendment states that government will not interfere with people’s ability to worship as
they please. Courts have interpreted the First Amendment to also mean that government will not
assist religious groups with their activities or favor one religion over another, or religion over
non-religion.
Public schools belong to all citizens and must serve citizens of all, or no, religious beliefs. Under
the First Amendment, they must remain neutral among religions and between religion and nonreligion.
By contrast, religious institutions exist to propagate their religious faith and encourage religious
practices. Public schools must be careful when they work with religious institutions because, in
important ways, religious institutions and schools have differing commitments.
Historically, religion in public schools has been a contentious issue. Lawsuits have been filed
over matters including school-sponsored prayers, the Pledge of Allegiance, displaying or
distributing religious material, religious references on signs at sporting events, religious apparel,
religion in curriculum (particularly creationist versus evolutionary theory), and released-time
religious instruction. The risk of litigation has grown as schools have become more diverse and
society has become more litigious.
1. The Establishment Clause
No “establishment” means that both state and federal governments are prohibited from
establishing a particular religion or religion in general. Further, government is prohibited from
advancing or supporting religion. Government must maintain what the Supreme Court has
called “benevolent neutrality,” which permits religious exercise to exist but denies it government
sponsorship. The Establishment Clause serves to prevent both religious control over
government and governmental control over religion.
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. In 1947, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in Everson v. Board of Education that the Establishment Clause also
applied to the states. In the majority decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote:
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws
which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another...in the words of
Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was
intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State'...That wall must be
kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
5
2. The Free Exercise Clause
“Free exercise” is the freedom of every citizen to hold, practice, and change beliefs according to
the dictates of his or her individual conscience. The Supreme Court has interpreted “free
exercise” to mean that an individual may believe anything he or she wants, but there may be
times when the state can limit practices that result from these beliefs.
In Reynolds v. United States (1878), Chief Justice Waite wrote that, “Freedom of religion means
freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or
subversive to good order.” For example, practices that harm other people, such as human
sacrifice or withholding medical treatment from children may be banned.
6
The History of Released Time
In America, religion was originally taught in schools. However, with the increasing pluralism of
American society and the mandate of the Constitution, schools felt it necessary to avoid
sectarian instruction and to separate secular learning (provided by schools) from religious
instruction (provided by parents or churches). This separation led to the development of secular
public schools.
The trend toward secularization in public schools caused concern for religious groups who
wanted to see religious instruction continue in the school setting. Some religious groups have
objected to the curriculum being taught in public schools, which they have called a doctrine of
“secular humanism.”
One solution for religious groups has been to establish private religious schools where they
have had complete control over teachers and curriculum. However, establishing and maintaining
a separate school system is expensive, and many parents have not been able to afford the cost
of private religious education.
Another solution has been the development of released-time programs.
Released time was first discussed in the U.S. in 1905 at a teacher’s conference in New York
City. The proposal was that public elementary schools be closed one day a week so that parents
who so desired could have their children receive additional religious instruction.
The first released-time program was established in 1912 at Granite High School in Salt Lake
City by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). Students were released for
one period each day to attend “seminary” in a building constructed by the ward across the street
from the school.
Another early released-time program was a religious instruction program for elementary school
students established in 1914 by Dr. William Wirt, Superintendent of Schools in Gary, Indiana. He
was concerned that children were not receiving enough religious and moral instruction in public
school. His program consisted of local clergymen holding classes within the school for students
wanting to attend.
By 1922, released-time programs were active in 23 states, with approximately 40,000 students
in 200 school districts enrolled. Released time reached its peak enrollment in 1947 with 2 million
students enrolled in some 2,200 communities. During this period, legislation allowing releasedtime programs was adopted by 12 states.
According to proponents, “Released time is the only means by which religious instruction
intended to convert students or instruct them in a particular set of religious beliefs is allowed
during the school day. All other religious instruction during the school day must be objective,
intended only to inform students of different religious ideas and not to persuade them of the
truth of any particular ideas.” [Ericson, Colby, Payne, and Crawford, “Religious Released Time
Education: The Overlooked Open Door in Public Schools,” (Springfield, Virginia: The Christian
Legal Society, 1996.)]
7
Others point out that there are plenty of other hours during the week for students to receive
religious instruction. There is no reason to remove them from school, other than for a religion to
assume some of the authority of the school and use the school for access to children.
Today, although released-time programs are open to all religions, in practice most of them are
either Mormon “seminary” or fundamentalist Christian devotional Bible instruction. Jewish
released-time programs are also active in New York City.
In Oregon, evangelical Christian released-time programs include PREP4Kids, currently active in
approximately 30 Portland-area schools. (Good News Clubs, also currently active in Oregon,
may not be considered released-time programs if they meet outside of regular school hours.)
8
U.S. Legal Decisions
Only two U.S. Supreme Court cases have dealt with the constitutionality of religious releasedtime programs. As a result of these decisions, released-time programs are now considered
legal, with certain restrictions.
McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)
In 1945, Vashti McCollum brought legal action against the Champaign, Illinois, public school
district. McCollum stated that her eight-year-old son had been coerced and ostracized by school
officials because his family had chosen not to participate in the district's in-school religious
instruction program.
The Champaign district's religious instruction was held during regular school hours in school
classrooms and was taught by members of a local religious association, with the approval of
school officials. Children not participating in the religious classes were sent to the library to
study.
McCollum’s suit argued that religious instruction held during regular school hours on public
school property constituted an establishment of religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and
violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled eight to one in favor of McCollum, reversing decisions of
lower courts. The High Court ruled the Champaign program unconstitutional since it used the
state's compulsory education system and tax-supported school buildings to aid in the teaching
of religious doctrine.
Justice Hugo Black, writing for the court, claimed that the use of tax-supported property for
religious instruction and the close cooperation between church and state officials constituted a
violation of the Constitution. He wrote:
“The First Amendment rests upon the premise that both religion and government can
best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective
sphere.... Here not only are the state’s tax-supported public school buildings used for the
dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an
invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of
the state’s compulsory public school machinery. This is not separation of Church and
State.”
Zorach v. Clauson (1952)
In 1952, a case involving a released-time program in New York City was appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court. The case involved a state law that permitted a public school to release students
during school hours with the written permission of their parents for religious instruction or
devotional exercises.
9
Unlike in the earlier McCollum case, the program in the Zorach case was conducted off school
grounds and no public money was used to finance it. Students not released stayed in the
classrooms. The churches participating reported to the school the names of students who were
released for religious instruction, but failed to attend.
In a six-to-three ruling, the high court upheld the New York law. In writing the majority opinion,
Justice William O. Douglas said the program:
"…involves neither religious instruction in public schools nor the expenditure of public
funds…. No one is forced to go to the religious classroom and no religious exercise or
instruction is brought to the classrooms of the public schools. A student need not take
religious instruction. He is left to his own desires as to the manner or time of his religious
devotions, if any.... If in fact coercion were used, if it were established that any one or
more teachers were using their office to persuade or force students to take the religious
instruction, a wholly different case would be presented.”
Characteristics of Released-Time Programs found valid in Zorach
compared to McCollum
The differences between released-time programs struck down in McCollum and upheld in
Zorach show the characteristics of released-time programs that the U.S. Supreme Court found
constitutionally acceptable:
1. No religious training in school buildings or on school property.
2. Instruction site designated by the religious organization in cooperation with parents.
3. No supervision or approval of religious teachers or curriculum by school officials.
4. No soliciting or recruiting pupils for religious instruction by school officials.
5. No registration cards furnished by the school or distributed by the school.
6. No expenditures of public funds.
7. Non-attending pupils stay in their regular classrooms continuing significant educational
work.
8. No credit given for attendance at the religious classes.
9. No compulsion by school authorities with respect to attendance or truancy.
10. No promotion or publicizing of the released-time program by school officials.
Lower Court Rulings (Clarifying Questions About Released-Time Programs)
Perry v. School District No. 81 (1959)
Washington State’s Supreme Court upheld a released-time program, but struck down the school
district’s practice of allowing teachers to explain the program to students and hand out
registration cards.
Lanner v. Wimmer (1981)
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ninth-to-twelfth-grade released-time seminary
program in Logan, Utah, which had a high level of coordination with the high school officials.
Coordination included listing the released-time program as a course option on school
registration forms, a shared public address system to coordinate class schedules, and awarding
credit for classes.
10
While upholding the program, the court nevertheless found that “the least entangling
administrative alternatives must be elected when a released-time program is instituted” and that
“certain aspects of this program violate the establishment clause” because they involved too
much entanglement between the public school and the seminary.
Concerns about “too much entanglement” included the public school’s keeping daily attendance
of students attending seminary and allowing credit for Old and New Testament courses,
because allowing credit required examination and monitoring of the religious course curriculum.
Ford v. Manuel (1985)
The Federal District Court of Ohio forbade released-time programs from meeting in classrooms
rented from the school district—at a price of one dollar a year—and from meeting during hours
that overlapped the public school day and thus allowed the program to benefit from state
compulsory education laws.
Doe v. Shenandoah County School Board (1990)
The Federal District Court for the Western District of Virginia ordered a released-time program
to stop recruiting students in public school classrooms, stop enrolling students whose parents
had not given their consent, and stop holding classes in remodeled school buses parked next to
the school, which gave the appearance of school sponsorship.
11
Oregon Laws and Legal Decisions
Oregon Statutes
In 1931, Oregon passed a law allowing released-time religious instruction (Oregon School Laws
for 1931, Chapter 5, Section 1, 14:86). This provision allowed 120 minutes of released time per
week and was generally applied to elementary school students.
In 1977, Senate Bill 651, proposed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and
introduced by Senator Wallace Carson, was passed by the Oregon Legislature and signed into
law by Governor Robert Straub. This law, Or. Rev. Stat. 339.420 of the Oregon Revised
Statutes, specifically allows up to five hours of released time per week for high school students,
while maintaining the limit of two hours per week for elementary and middle school students.
Proper application by students’ parents was required.
Oregon Attorney General Decisions
23 Op. Atty. Gen. (1946-48) 473
Released time for religious instruction upon parental consent is lawful. However, the teaching of
religious instruction on public school premises or the use of public funds for such religious
instruction violates the First Amendment.
Oregon Case Law
Dilger v. School District 352 P2d 564 (1960)
The Supreme Court of Oregon upheld the validity and constitutionality of the Oregon Released
Time Statute. The court ruled that although the statute states a child "may be excused," it is
proper to construe the word "may" as meaning "shall" in order to carry out the intention of the
Legislature (Dilger at 568).
The court’s interpretation meant that the statute is mandatory—a child must be excused upon a
proper application—taking this decision away from school administrators.
However, the ruling clarified an important power for Oregon schools, saying that the statute is
discretionary in permitting the school administrator to choose the day and time when the child
will be released.
12
Frequently Asked Questions
Are schools legally required to allow released-time programs?
In Oregon, yes (although not necessarily in other states). The Oregon legislature enacted a
statute in 1960 saying school districts may allow off-campus weekday religious programs. The
Oregon Supreme Court interpreted the statute as meaning school districts shall (or must) allow
released-time programs. Upon parental request, schools must allow elementary and middle
school students up to two hours and high school students up to five hours of released time per
week. [Dilger v. School District 24 CJ, 222 Or. 108; 352 P.2d 564 (Or. 1960)]
Who determines the day and time of released-time programs?
According to the Oregon Supreme Court, schools are allowed to set the day and time of
released-time programs. (Dilger v. School District, 352 P.2d at 568.) Schools have an obligation
to continue instruction for students that remain behind. Schools should choose a time and day
that minimize the loss of instructional time for both students who are in and not in the program.
Lunch hour is often the least disruptive time. Some released-time programs may be amenable
to scheduling their programs after school hours.
Is parental consent required?
Yes, parents must fill out consent forms and deliver them to the school before students are
allowed to leave school grounds for released time. Consent forms must be provided by
released-time programs, but schools may require that certain information be included on the
forms. Program administrators should choose the method for obtaining parental consent that will
require the least amount of school involvement. [Lanner v. Wimmer, 662 F.2d 1349, 1358 (10th
Cir. 1981)]
May released-time classes take place on school grounds?
No. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that released-time classes may not be held on public
school grounds. (Compare Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 209 (1948)
with Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 308 (1952). In the former, religious teachers entered
public school classrooms and thus the released-time program was declared unconstitutional; in
the latter, the released-time program was held constitutional because, among other reasons,
classes were not held on public school grounds.) Religious classes must occur off campus and
must be wholly organized and run by the released-time program. The released-time program
must arrange for facilities without any participation by the school. Schools may not rent their
facilities for religious instruction during the school day.
Are schools allowed, or required, to provide financial support for released-time
programs?
No. Schools are neither required nor allowed to spend any taxpayer funds on released-time
programs. “No tax, in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious
activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach
or practice religion.” [Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 210 (1948)] The
U.S. Supreme Court prohibits “government-financed or government-sponsored indoctrination 13
into the beliefs of a particular religious faith.” (Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U.S. at
385.) For example, schools may not print permission slips for released-time programs. Some
incidental but necessary administrative costs, such as those incurred filing attendance reports,
have been considered too insignificant to violate the general rule. [Holt v. Thompson, 66 Wis. 2d
659, 225 N.W.2d 678, 683 (Wis. 1975)]
Can schools promote or discourage released-time programs?
No. As secular, governmental institutions funded by all taxpayers, public schools are required by
the First Amendment to remain neutral on religious issues. They may do nothing to support, and
nothing to advocate against, religious released-time programs. They may not take any part in
creating, promoting or facilitating released-time programs. Students who do not attend releasedtime programs cannot be penalized or stigmatized by schools in any way. Neither the school nor
the state may take any action that would “coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious
holiday, or to take religious instruction.” [Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952). 26 Id. at
314.]
What may teachers and administrators say and do about released-time programs?
In their words and actions, teachers and administrators may not encourage or discourage the
participation of students or parents in released-time programs. Public school teachers and
administrators may not comment on the released-time program or on the students who choose
to attend or not to attend. [Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 311 (1952).]
Who is responsible for making up lost instruction?
Students who attend released-time programs and their parents are responsible for making up
lost instruction. This should be done with an eye toward minimizing the impact on teachers.
Teachers should not have to repeat instruction for released-time students or field phone calls
and emails from multiple parents asking for lesson plans. Students who do not attend releasedtime programs should not receive less instruction or less attention from their teacher because
the teacher is helping released-time students make up for missed classes.
How is student recruitment restricted?
Public school teachers and religious-group representatives may not distribute consent cards or
explain released-time programs in public school classes. Released-time personnel should not
enter classrooms to recruit students and public school teachers should not take an active part in
the recruitment effort, either by physical participation in the enrollment process or by verbally
encouraging students. [Doe v. Shenandoah County School Board, 737 F. Supp. 913, 918 (W.D.
Va. 1990)]
Perry v. School District No. 81, 344 P.2d 1036, 1037-38 (Wash. 1959) ruled that neither public
school instructors nor religious-group representatives may distribute permission cards in
schools or make announcements or explanations in schools for the purpose of obtaining
parents' consent because such actions violate the state constitution.
In Op. Att'y Gen. State of Or. No.8204, April 26, 1989, the Oregon Attorney General ruled that
the distribution of released-time brochures and permission slips in public schools violates the
Oregon Constitution.
14
How is the distribution of consent forms restricted?
Schools may not facilitate the distribution of consent forms in any way. Consent forms may not
be distributed on school property, by school personnel, in school mailings, or in school
information packets. They may not be posted on school bulletin boards. Registration for
released-time programs should occur off school campuses and involve only the released-time
program administrators and forms supplied by the released-time programs.
May students distribute released-time literature on school grounds?
Yes, generally students have a right to distribute religious literature on public school campuses
subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions imposed by the school. This means
that the school may specify at what times the distribution may occur (e.g., lunch hour or before
or after classes begin), where it may occur (e.g., outside the school office) and how it may occur
(e.g., from fixed locations as opposed to roving distribution). These restrictions should be
reasonable and must apply evenly to all non-school student literature. (Tinker v. Des Moines
School District)
May adults or school staff distribute released-time literature on school grounds?
No. Adults from outside the school have no right to distribute materials to students in a public
school. Schools generally may not give religious groups (e.g., the Gideons) access to distribute
their materials on campus. Even passive distribution of literature by outside groups is legally
problematic.
Who provides insurance?
Released-time programs must provide insurance without any participation by schools. Schools
may require liability insurance and other reasonable regulations relating to student health,
education and safety, provided such regulations apply neutrally to all participating religious
communities.
Who provides transportation?
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, public schools are prohibited from providing students with
transportation to religious released-time activities. (Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. at 308-9, 314.)
The Court has explained that cooperating with religious released-time programs does not justify
significant financial expenditures to assist those programs. Generally, religious organizations
and parents must assume full responsibility for a student’s transportation to religious activities,
and the school is not allowed to assist in any way.
Who takes attendance?
Public schools may require attendance reports from released-time administrators, since schools
have a legitimate interest in knowing the whereabouts of students during school hours. [Zorach
v. Clausen, 343 U.S. at 311 n.6; Lanner v. Wimmer, 662 F.2d 1349, 1358-59 (10th Cir. 1981);
Holt v. Thompson, 66 Wis. 2d at 682.] Released-time programs should take attendance and
provide schools a regular report. Schools should not be involved in taking attendance, and
should choose the method of overseeing attendance that requires their least involvement.
15
May schools take action against students who sign up for released-time programs, but
fail to attend?
Yes, it is permissible for public schools to take some action against students who are enrolled in
released-time education, but do not attend. Public schools may report repeated absences to a
child’s parents, although they probably may not report more occasional absences. (Lanner v.
Wimmer, 662 F.2d at 1355.) Also, public schools may deny permission to attend released-time
classes to students who, in the past, have requested the privilege and deceived authorities.
(Holt v. Thompson, 66 Wis.2d at 682.)
May released-time programs be included in class schedules?
No. Public school class schedules, catalogs, and registration forms may not contain any
information about or schedules for released-time classes.
May schools give academic credit for released-time programs?
No. The court ruled that giving academic credit would require schools to oversee and approve
the content of religious classes, and that would create too much entanglement. (Lanner v.
Wimmer) However, schools may provide elective or eligibility credit.
16
Addressing Parental Concerns:
Specific Actions School Administrators Can Take
Parents, especially those whose children do not attend released-time programs, may have
concerns about released-time programs. The way school administrators address parental
concerns can have an impact on the school’s success in fulfilling its role in the community and
its responsibilities to students.
Parental concerns fall into three main categories:
1. Threats to Academic Excellence
Parents whose children do not attend released-time programs may be concerned that their
children will suffer academically:
• Parents are often concerned that their children will lose hours of instruction because
teachers stop presenting new material while some students are attending released-time
classes.
• Parents (and teachers) are often concerned that teachers’ time will be taken up helping
released-time students make up for missed lessons instead of working on new lesson
plans, teaching new material, and grading homework.
Suggestions for Maintaining Academic Excellence
• Use the school’s power to select the day and time for released-time programs to choose
times that will minimize the loss of academic instruction hours. Scheduling released-time
programs when few classes are being held, such as lunch hour, can help. Scheduling
released-time programs on Friday will give students who miss class and their parents
time over the weekend to catch up on missed lessons. Schools may request that
released-time programs schedule their classes outside of school hours, although
released-time programs are not required to comply.
• Continue teaching new material during released-time programs. Make it clear to parents
who choose to take their children out of class that they are responsible for helping their
children make up for missed lessons.
• Post missed lessons online. This will save teachers from having to give the missed
lesson to each parent individually. Make it clear to parents that it is their responsibility to
obtain the missed lesson from the internet and go over it with their child,
2. Religious Recruiting
Parents whose children do not attend released-time programs may be concerned that their
children will be recruited by a religious group whose doctrines they disagree with because:
• The stated mission of evangelical Christian religious groups operating released-time
programs is to convert as many students as possible.
• Their policies include using children who attend released-time programs to recruit their
friends and classmates.
17
Parents may also be concerned that their children may be lured into released-time programs by
other students bringing back toys and treats from released-time classes, or pressured by being
told on the playground that they will go to hell if they don’t attend released-time classes.
Suggestions for Preventing or Limiting Recruiting
• Make it clear to released-time program staff that proselytizing is not permitted on public
school grounds.
• Educate school staff and volunteers about policies that prevent them, when on the job,
from speaking or acting in a manner that can be perceived as promoting or endorsing
religious instruction or practice.
• Prohibit released-time programs from using school or PTA-sponsored communication
vehicles to promote their activities.
• Don’t allow students to return from released-time programs with toys and treats. Toys
and treats from released-time programs must be kept in backpacks while on school
grounds.
• Don’t allow students to hand out released-time program literature or permission slips to
other children on school property, including school busses.
• Enforce student anti-harassment policies that protect students from aggressive
proselytizing or religious bullying by other students.
• If problems arise, administrators should meet with affected parents and released-time
program representatives, being firm and clear about the responsibilities of all parties.
3. Conflict in the School Community
Parents whose children don’t attend released-time programs can be upset by the injection of
sectarian doctrine and aggressive proselytizing into their public school. This can cause division
and conflict in schools and among parents, as sides are taken. Ultimately, parents can withdraw
support from the schools, donating less time and money.
Suggestions for Dealing with Conflict
The following three principles can guide a school administrator’s approach to minimizing and
resolving conflict:
1. Rights: Religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, is a precious, fundamental right. Every
effort should be made in public schools to protect the freedom of conscience of all students and
parents, both believers and non-believers.
2. Responsibilities: Religious liberty is not only a universal right, but a universal responsibility to
respect that right for others. Rights are best protected when each person and group protects for
others the rights they wish protected for themselves. This is especially important with the
increase of pluralism in our society. Religious leaders should remember that a public school is
not a place for proselytizing or other overt religious activity.
3. Respect: Conflict and debate are part of democracy. However, not only what we debate, but
how we debate, is critical. Administrators mediating debates should insist on respectful, noninflammatory dialog.
18
Specific actions administrators can take to avoid conflict include the following:
• Be prepared. Understand the laws and regulations before you need to apply them.
Consult with school attorneys if necessary.
• Use the powers that you do have. Schools are allowed to select the day and time of the
released-time program. Choose a day and time that will minimize the impact on the
majority of students and teachers.
• Be scrupulous about maintaining neutrality. Schools can do nothing to either promote or
discourage released-time programs. Taking one side or the other will only serve to
increase conflict.
• Know and enforce the rules. Make sure that released-time programs are obeying all of
the legal guidelines. Allowing them to cross the lines will increase conflict and the
possibility of litigation.
• Be very careful about the appearance of school endorsement of released-time
programs. Young children are impressionable and may have a hard time distinguishing
between the school and the released-time program. Allowing released-time program
teachers to perform other school functions, for example, can blur the lines between the
school and the released-time program. If necessary, make the difference between the
school and the released-time program clear to students.
• Be on the alert for proselytizing.
• Meet with parents and representatives of the released-time program, if necessary. Be
firm and clear about the rights and responsibilities of all parties. Work towards buy-in on
your goals of maintaining high academic standards, maintaining a harmonious, conflictfree school, and respecting the rights and beliefs of everyone in our pluralistic society.
19
About Protect Oregon Children
Protect Oregon Children is a grassroots coalition of concerned parents, grandparents and
citizens. Our goal is to raise awareness about religious groups using public schools to recruit
young children.
www.protectoregonchildren.com
facebook.com/protectoregonchildren
protectoregonchildren@gmail.com
Protect Oregon Children supports freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Protect Oregon Children is open to all people regardless of race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual
orientation, marital status, or disability.
20