Braintree Baptist Temple v. Holbrook Public Schools

616 F. Supp. 81, 27 Educ. L. Rep. 795, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23522
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedSeptember 18, 1984
DocketCiv. A. 83-0580-Z
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 616 F. Supp. 81 (Braintree Baptist Temple v. Holbrook Public Schools) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Braintree Baptist Temple v. Holbrook Public Schools, 616 F. Supp. 81, 27 Educ. L. Rep. 795, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23522 (D. Mass. 1984).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

ZOBEL, District Judge.

This case illustrates the admonition articulated in Matthew 22-.21. 1 Plaintiffs are two sectarian schools, their teachers, students, the students’ parents, the churches operating the schools, and a pastor who heads one of the schools. 2 They challenge the constitutionality of the Massachusetts compulsory education laws as applied to them and seek to enjoin enforcement of the laws against them by defendants, the Massachusetts Board of Education (and its chairman and vice-chairman), the Massachusetts Department of Education, and the Commissioner of Education (referred to collectively as the state defendants); the Holbrook Public Schools, their superintendent, John Moran, and the Holbrook School Committee and its individual members (the Holbrook defendants); the East Longmeadow Public Schools, their superintendent, Wayne Porter, and the East Longmeadow School Committee and its individual members (the East Longmeadow defendants); and the Boston Public Schools, their superintendent, Robert Spillane, the Boston School Committee and its individual members, and Richard Allen, Advisor of Attendance for the Committee (the Boston defendants). Plaintiffs further seek damages and attorneys’ fees.

Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 76, § 1 provides in relevant part that “Every child ... shall ... attend a public day school ... or some other day school approved by the school committee [of the child’s town of residence]____ For the purposes of this section, school committees shall approve a private school when satisfied that the instruction in all the studies required by law equals in thoroughness and efficiency, and in the progress made therein, that in the public schools in the same town; but shall not withhold such approval on account of religious teaching____ The school committee of each town shall provide for and enforce the school attendance of all children actually residing therein in accordance herewith.” Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 76, § 2 mandates that “[e]very person in control of a child described in the preceding section shall cause him to attend school as therein required and if he fails so to do for seven day sessions or fourteen half day sessions within any period of six months, he shall, on complaint by a supervisor of attendance, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty dollars.”

In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that these statutes 3 and defendants’ action in accordance therewith violate plaintiffs’ rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under Amendment Article 18, sections 1 and 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution. They also allege that the Commissioner of Education has exceeded the scope of the powers accorded him by Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 69, § l, 4 and assert an independent claim on *84 the purported basis of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 5 The case is before me on defendants’ motions to dismiss all counts of the complaint. 6

The. following facts, set forth in the amended complaint, are not in dispute. Plaintiff Braintree Baptist Temple is an incorporated church located in Holbrook. (¶ 4). It operates plaintiff Temple Christian Academy. Id. Plaintiff New Life Baptist Church is an incorporated church, located in East Longmeadow. (¶ 5). It operates plaintiff New Life Baptist Church Academy. Id. The members of the two churches believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and must serve as a source of guidance for all aspects of life, and as the source of all teaching and knowledge. (¶ 8). They regard the schools as a completely integral part of the churches, for they believe Christian education to be a necessary part and purpose of the churches’ existence, (¶ 10) and this religious mission is the only reason for the schools’ existence. The schools’ primary goal is to assure future adherents their Christian faith (11 11(d)) by training children up in the Way they should go.

The schools are operated in facilities owned by the churches, (II 10) which are in compliance with applicable health, fire, safety and building codes. (116). They are not separately incorporated and have no separate governing body or finances from those of the churches. (1110). They receive no direct local, state or federal tax support (H 5).

The plaintiff teachers are all “Bible-believing and practicing Christians” (1111(1)) and are dedicated to rearing their students in their faith. (11 ll(k)). Plaintiff David Chase, pastor of New Life Baptist Church, is also head of its school. (¶ 14). He believes it is part of his duty as pastor to establish this religious school to further the educational mission of the church. (1116).

Plaintiff parents are “born again Christians” who believe they have the duty to give their children an education that inculcates their religious values, “a complete biblical Christian perspective.” (111119, 25). They believe that all knowledge is inescapably religious, so that it is impossible to separate a secular from a religious aspect of education (II10); and part-time instruction or attendance at a nonsectarian school is insufficient (IT 21) to attain their educational goals. The parents will continue to send their children to the plaintiff schools. (1125).

Plaintiff students attend the schools pursuant to the direction of their parents and the mandate of their own religious convictions (1125) and will continue to do so.

On July 21, 1981, defendant Moran, the Holbrook school superintendent, wrote to Reverend Bruce Turner, pastor of Brain-tree Baptist Temple and head of the Temple Christian Academy, informing him that the Academy must provide certain information to the Holbrook School Committee in *85 order to comply with the approval provision of Mass.Gen.Laws ch. 76, § 1. (¶ 67, Exhibit 2). His letter stated that in order for the Academy to open, Reverend Turner must show “provision for proper safety and attendance coverage for all pupils” and for proper transportation “to be reviewed and approved.” He requested Reverend Turner to show that the school’s teachers were certified and that the length of the school day and year met state requirements. He further asked Reverend Turner to submit the school’s curriculum for all grade levels, “to be approved by appropriate Holbrook principals, department heads, and/or supervisors for recommendation to the School Committee,” and stated that “various personnel involved, i.e., principals, department heads” would visit to verify the materials submitted; if deemed necessary, the School Committee would visit.

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

Related

Gomes v. University of Maine System
304 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D. Maine, 2004)
Storlazzi v. Bakey
894 F. Supp. 494 (D. Massachusetts, 1995)
Vacca v. Barletta
753 F. Supp. 400 (D. Massachusetts, 1990)
Blackwelder v. Safnauer
689 F. Supp. 106 (N.D. New York, 1988)
New Life Baptist Church Academy v. Town of East Longmeadow
666 F. Supp. 293 (D. Massachusetts, 1987)
Care & Protection of Charles
504 N.E.2d 592 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
616 F. Supp. 81, 27 Educ. L. Rep. 795, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braintree-baptist-temple-v-holbrook-public-schools-mad-1984.