Attorney General Opinion No.

Kansas Attorney General Reports·Decided February 5, 1996·Published

Opinion

Mr. John S. Robb Counsel for Unified School District No. 373 110 E. Broadway, Box 544 Newton, Kansas 67114

Dear Mr. Robb:

As legal counsel for unified school district no. 373 (USD 373), you request our opinion regarding the legality of a release time program available in USD 373. Specifically, you ask the following:

1. whether the Bible school program as operated in the school district is legal;

2. whether the school district violates constitutional limits when school personnel provide information and materials regarding the Bible school program and assist in enlisting pupils in the program;

3. whether the school district violates constitutional limits by allowing representatives of the Bible school program to set up a table on school property at the time of enrollment of pupils for the purpose of distributing information and materials regarding the Bible school program; and

4. whether time spent by pupils in the Bible school program may be counted as part of the school day in meeting the total number of hours of school required in K.S.A. 72-1106.

According to the information provided, elementary school-age children in Newton have for over 70 years been afforded the opportunity to attend a weekday Bible school. The Bible school was developed by interested citizens in the community. The Bible school consists of presentations made by interested citizens at churches or other locations in the community. The time a pupil spends attending the Bible school, approximately 45 minutes one day a week, is considered by USD 373 as an excused absence for the pupil, although this is not recorded on the pupil's records. Personnel of USD 373 take no part in the development of or presentations at the Bible school, nor is financial support of the Bible school provided by USD 373. While personnel of USD 373 maintain a record of pupils who have enlisted in the Bible school and attempt to ascertain whether the pupils excused to attend the Bible school actually do so, pupils attending the Bible school are not under the supervision of personnel of USD 373 during the time the pupils are attending the Bible school. Materials regarding the weekday Bible school are provided by personnel of USD 373 to the parents of the pupils during enrollment at the beginning of each school year for USD 373.

In Attorney General Opinion No. 73-242, Attorney General Schneider reviewed whether permitting pupils to participate in the weekday Bible school during school time violated the first amendment of the United States constitution or section 7 of the bill of rights of the Kansas constitution. Finding the situation was similar to one reviewed inZorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 96 L.Ed. 954, 72 S.Ct. 679 (1952), the Attorney General determined that the constitutional provisions were not violated when pupils were released by the school district to attend the Bible school. VIII AGO 920. Citing statutory language that a school month consisted of "six (6) hours per day on which pupils of a school areunder the direct supervision of its teacher or teachers while they areengaged together in educational activities," the Attorney General determined the time spent by a pupil attending the Bible school could not be counted towards attendance in school. VIII AGO at 920 (emphasis in original).

The United States Supreme Court has added no case law of significance regarding the authority of public schools to release pupils from school to attend religious-based instruction since making its determination inZorach. We concur with the conclusion expressed in Attorney General Opinion No. 73-242 that a school district does not violate constitutional provisions when releasing pupils during the school day to attend a weekday Bible school conducted by interested citizens at a church or other designated location.

It is unclear whether, at the time Attorney General Opinion No. 73-242 was issued, school officials assisted in the distribution of information regarding the weekday Bible school. We therefore address that issue in this opinion.

In your request, you indicate the school district may have in place a policy of permitting representatives of Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and a parent-teacher organization to distribute information and materials regarding their organizations and to enlist pupils in their organizations during enrollment at the school district. The existence of such a policy is an important factor.

In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches, 508 U.S. ___, 124 L.Ed.2d 352,113 S.Ct. 2141 (1993), and Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 70 L.Ed.2d 440,102 S.Ct. 269 (1981), the United States Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of state policies which permitted use of school or university facilities for a variety of purposes, expressly excluding use of the facilities for religious purposes. The school board in Lamb'sChapel relied on its policy in denying the application of a church to use the school's facilities for the purpose of showing a six-part film series dealing with family issues and child-rearing from a religious standpoint, conceded by the church to be for religious purposes. Lamb'sChapel, 124 L.Ed.2d at 359. The university in Widmar did likewise in terminating use of its facilities by a registered student group desiring to use the university's facilities for religious worship and discussion.Widmar, 70 L.Ed.2d at 444-45. The policies reviewed in Lamb's Chapel andWidmar were subjected to review under the free speech clause as well as the establishment clause.

There is no question that a school, like the private owner of property, may legally preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is dedicated. Rosenberger v. Rector Visitors of theUniversity of Virginia, ___ U.S. ___, 132 L.Ed.2d 700, 715, 115 S.Ct. 2510,2516 (1995); Lamb's Chapel, 124 L.Ed.2d at 360; Widmar, 70 L.Ed.2d at 446, fn. 5. [While in Widmar it was determined a public forum existed,Widmar, 70 L.Ed.2d at 446, the court in Lamb's Chapel did not review a lower court's determination that the forum was nonpublic. Lamb's Chapel,124 L.Ed.2d at 361.] The necessities of confining a forum to the limited and legitimate purposes for which it was created may justify the state in reserving it for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics.Rosenberger, 132 L.Ed.2d at 715; Lamb's Chapel, 124 L.Ed.2d at 361.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Attorney General Opinion No., (kanag 1996).

Attorney General Opinion No. (Attorney General Opinion No.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zorach v. Clauson
343 U.S. 306 (Supreme Court, 1952)
Widmar v. Vincent
454 U.S. 263 (Supreme Court, 1981)