subject: Can Federal Funds Be Used To Support Public Schools [print this page] The concept of using Federal money in the United States to support religious or parochial schools has been a very complex issue. There have been two cases that significantly impact the way federal funds can be used toward religious schools. The first case was Aguilar v. Felton in 1985. The next case was Agostini v. Felton. Both cases were concerning the same issue. However, the court had different ruling in each case.
In 1965, New York City use federal funds to reimburse public employees or teachers that taught in parochial or religious schools. These funds came from the Title 1 program of the Elementry and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Funds from this act were intended to be used for remedial reading and math programs for children from poor families. The children could be from a public, private or religious school. The teachers were merely trying to help children that were from low-income environments with special needs. The teachers were chosen and supervised by the City of New York.
In spite of the teacher's effort to help these children, a group of taxpayers filed a lawsuit against the City of New York. The taxpayers claim the program being used to teach students in parochial schools was unconstitutional. They alleged that using federal funds from the Title 1 funds to help students was unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause.
The Establishment Clause prohibits government from sponsoring, promoting or establishing religious institutions or activities. The public school system was a government entity that used federal funds. The government is not allowed to be entangled with religious institutions.
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 Court Decision in 1985 ruled in the taxpayers favor. They ruled the New York City's program was unconstitutional. The city did not have the right to pay public employees who provided any remedial assistance to low-income students in religious or parochial schools.
The court stated although the state's assistance to the parochial schools was not design to advance the religion, the interaction between state and church was to close. The court feared that allowing public employees (Teachers) into religious classrooms might lead to the teachers engaging in religious instructions. These instructions could be direct or indirect. Direct and indirect instructions are a breach of separation of church and state.
As a result of this case, the City of New York had to devise a new plan to provide funds and educational services to the parochial schools. This new plan cost the school district a lot of revenue and resources. Also, it was difficult for the parents of the children in the parochial schools. This hardship led to the Agostini v. Felton case of 1997. The court made a different ruling in this case concerning federal funds being used in religious schools.
In 1997, the New York parochial school board challenged a District Court's upholding of a twelve year old Supreme Court Decision of Aguilar v. Felton. As stated earlier, this case prohibited the use of federal or government fund in religious schools. The court ruled in 1997 Agostini v. Felton case 5-4 that public schools teachers could tutor private school students in their private schools, even if the schools were primarily religious in nature. The teachers could be compensated with federal funds for this service.
The court came to the conclusion that school boards were capable of creating administrative rules that would ensure that teachers act in a religious neutral manner. Teachers are able to teach without hindering, or promoting religious views. The court also stated there was no reason to assume that parents of students attending public schools would get the impression that the city government approved of religious education just because the government employees were working in the religious schools.
The ruling in the Agostini v. Felton took a more liberal approach toward the issue. There is no need to have an absolute wall between the public and religious schools. The public can conduct public programs in religious institutions without excessively getting entangled with religion. There will always be some type of involvement between church and state. The government or school must work hard to make sure there is not an excessive entanglement.
