Blue Serials (10/2/16)

September 30, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”2402″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

Here Are A Few Things You Absolutely Should Not Miss From The Past Week (Or So) in Edu-Bloggery!

Read them, dammit. It’s for your own good.

Walking in Circles – Rob Miller on A View From The Edge. Miller is the master of the simple analogy that sucks you in, then spins you around before you realize you’ve been profoundulated.

As humans, we have a tendency to travel in circles in quite a few areas, in particular education and education reform.
If you asked education reformers if the emphasis on test-based accountability in schools over the past 20 years has moved us forward, they would likely respond, “Of course, we have made significant progress,” followed by the caveat that “but, we still have work to do.”
The reality is we have spent the last 20 years in education walking in a circle. In fact, I could also make a strong argument that we have moved backwards.

Follow @edgeblogger on the Tweeting and spend less time going in circles. #oklaed

Black Eyes and Dark Ages – Amanda Wilson on Running Through Elementary. Wilson is always passionate about her kids and her profession, but she’s usually fairly… well, balanced compared to the rest of us.

That is, until the Tulsa World and the OCPA broke into her happy place and harshed on all her mellow.

Well, now that the cat is out of the bag, I guess we’ll just have to talk about all the cuts they’ve made and tax breaks they’ve given out, but are just stumped as to how to pay for education and other state necessities. Can someone please explain to them just how this works? That in order to pay for things, money has to be coming in?
What are they doing over there at the Capitol? Are they running around looking for a leprechaun and his pot of gold? I just don’t get it. Clearly, they don’t either. But how dare we point out how inadequate they are at balancing budgets!

In Wilson’s defense, the OCPA does have a gift for playing that sweet, innocent, we-were-just-trying-to-help-when-we-pillaged-your-village-and-took-your-virgins angle. Think Kyle Loveless, but with unlimited funding and better social media.

Follow @runningthruelem on the Tweeting and gelp Wilson get back to her happy place. That way it’s all the more fun when something sets her off again. #oklaed

How Do Our Own Biases Affect our Media Literacy? / My Bias is Better Than Your Bias – Julie Smith and Art La Flamme on HeyJulieSmith.com. Julie Smith is a media literacy guru who’s fairly new to me. Based on perusing her site, she’s more about the practical and the pondering than stirring up artificial panic or cheesy PSAs about stranger-danger cyber-style. La Flamme is a guest-blogger for Smith, although he has a blog of his own which seems to be about… other things?

Smith wrote the first piece featured this week and La Flamme the second. They flow together seemlessly, and their timing couldn’t be better. I’ve essentially been trying to write these posts or something very much like them as #OKElections16 nears, but I lack the expertise and comfort with the subject matter that they both clearly possess.

By and far, one of the biggest stumbling blocks that we all wrestle with – but lose sight of – is the great pitfall that we call the confirmation trap. We are always looking for information that supports or even just confirms what we think is true, and we specifically make no effort to try to find evidence that disproves what we think is true. Hard work is only hard if we do it; otherwise, it’s totally easy.

I’m certain YOU never do any of the things they detail, but you might want to send this to everyone you know who DOES. New evidence shows that’s just what the Koch Brothers and secret pal Hillary DON’T want you to do!

Follow @julnilsmith and @artlaflamme on the Tweeting before Trump shuts down the internet to gain sexual favors from ‘Val’ Putin – FBI documents PROVE IT’S TRUE!

Universal Pre-K, Open Enrollment, Millennial Parents, and City Living / The New Reformers: City-Loving Millennials Who Want Quality Schools Not Tied to Their ZIP Code – Conor P. Williams on NewAmerica.org and The74Million.org.

Williams is one of those guys who seems genuinely likeable, but still manages to piss off an interesting variety of folks on edu-twitter. You can see why I’m so drawn to him.

In these closely related pieces, he looks at school choice systems and well-intentioned millenials vs. the irresistable gravity of using privilege as, well… privilege.

The future of education reform will involve thinking hard about whether the reform-y policies that these new urban residents favor are still working in the service of equity. That is, while these new urban parents are open to these sorts of reforms, they’re also going to be interested in finding ways to massage these systems into protecting their privilege.
This is not abstract. As each lottery season passes, I hear frustrated white parents grumble on the playground that all this open enrollment of schools is unfair, and that there oughta be a law to force our area’s high-performing charter schools to enroll the (increasingly wealthy, privileged) neighborhood children.
In this sense, millennials are no different from any other generation of parents: They might like the idea of justice in theory, but when it comes to their own children, they quickly revert to thinly veiled justifications for protecting their own privileges.

Follow @conorpwilliams on the Tweeting and prepare to have any number of reactions to his comments. You’ll be surprised how many of them will be rather positive.

OK: Teach Like A Robot – Peter Greene, Curmudgucation. How DID I miss this in the news this past week? Damn you, #OKElections16 and #DebateNight!

I forget that just because something has been shown to be a horrible idea doesn’t mean it goes away – only that it costs more when we do it anyway. On a lighter note, I fell in edu-love with @1amyberard because she wasn’t Tom Brady, so there’s the “Dwarves can work with Erudites to defeat Voldemort” effect as a kind of silver lining, I guess…

See, in normal coaching, a principal watches a teacher and then it is hours, or even days, before the teacher gets the feedback. But in real time coaching, the coach directs the teacher through an earpiece, presumably because the technology to simply control her body from a distance does not yet exist…
The real time nature of the coaching is actually a bug, not a feature. If I’m coaching another teacher, after I’ve watched the lesson, I’ll need at least a few minutes to reflect. In the real time moment, I’m pretty much limited to the instant thought of What I Would Do, or, if I’ve been trained in a particular method, the One Correct Response to that situation. Either response devalues and dismisses that teacher’s own teaching voice.
It’s just silly to say that there is One Correct Way to teach a particular lesson, irregardless of the teacher or the class involved. It makes no more sense than saying there is One Correct Way to be a spouse, irregardless of who is your partner.

Follow @palan57 on the Tweeting or you risk seriously annoying at least some of the voices already in your head.

That’s it this week, my beloved #11FF…

You are now the most informed, thoughtful, brazen educators in the land. Might as well walk with a little extra strut this weekend and let it shine. Partin’ lips, shakin’ hips and flippin’ your hair…

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”2406″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

A Wall of Separation – Vouchers Approacheth

September 27, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Beginning in the 1980s, the “wall of separation” between church and state stopped getting higher. The Court’s application of the First Amendment to public schooling became somewhat more sympathetic to people of faith.

It wasn’t an outright change of direction so much as an evolution in subtleties. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Mueller v. Allen (1983)

Minnesota allowed parents to deduct expenses related to “tuition, textbooks, and transportation” for their children, regardless of whether the school in question was public or private, sectarian or secular. In a 5-4 split decision, the Court declared this perfectly acceptable.

While the decision itself didn’t overtly challenge precedent, some of the language used to explain it certainly took things a new direction. Justice Rehnquist, the author of several poignant dissents in previous church-state decisions, was finally able to craft a majority opinion on the topic.

The Court first applied the “Lemon Test.” They readily determined that the purpose of the law was clearly secular, and the deductions in question were only a few among many in the Minnesota tax code. Justice Rehnquist:

Little time need be spent on the question of whether the Minnesota tax deduction has a secular purpose. Under our prior decisions, governmental assistance programs have consistently survived this inquiry even when they have run afoul of other aspects of the Lemon framework…
A State’s decision to defray the cost of educational expenses incurred by parents — regardless of the type of schools their children attend — evidences a purpose that is both secular and understandable. An educated populace is essential to the political and economic health of any community, and a State’s efforts to assist parents in meeting the rising cost of educational expenses plainly serves this secular purpose of ensuring that the State’s citizenry is well educated.

Sit up straight, kids – here’s where it gets good…

Similarly, Minnesota, like other States, could conclude that there is a strong public interest in assuring the continued financial health of private schools, both sectarian and nonsectarian. By educating a substantial number of students, such schools relieve public schools of a correspondingly great burden — to the benefit of all taxpayers. In addition, private schools may serve as a benchmark for public schools, in a manner analogous to the “TVA yardstick” for private power companies. As JUSTICE POWELL has remarked:
”Parochial schools, quite apart from their sectarian purpose, have provided an educational alternative for millions of young Americans; they often afford wholesome competition with our public schools; and in some States, they relieve substantially the tax burden incident to the operation of public schools. The State has, moreover, a legitimate interest in facilitating education of the highest quality for all children within its boundaries, whatever school their parents have chosen for them.”

If you’ve been paying attention lately, you’ve heard rhetoric insisting that diverting public dollars to private schools actually helps public education financially, and promotes healthy competition. Here are the rhetorical roots, which proponents are happy to fling about despite the very different circumstances.

As to the second prong of the “Lemon Test,” Rehnquist kinda… dismisses its application in this case.

Petitioners argue that, notwithstanding the facial neutrality {of these deductions}, in application, the statute primarily benefits religious institutions… They contend that most parents of public school children incur no tuition expenses… and that other expenses deductible… are negligible in value…
{M}oreover, they claim that 96% of the children in private schools… attended religiously affiliated institutions. Because of all this, they reason, the bulk of deductions taken… will be claimed by parents of children in sectarian schools…
We need not consider these contentions in detail. We would be loath to adopt a rule grounding the constitutionality of a facially neutral law on annual reports reciting the extent to which various classes of private citizens claimed benefits under the law…
Moreover, the fact that private persons fail in a particular year to claim the tax relief to which they are entitled — under a facially neutral statute — should be of little importance in determining the constitutionality of the statute permitting such relief.

To paraphrase:

Lemon Test: “The primary effect of the statute must not either support or -“

Rehnquist: “Your mom is the primary effect of the statute.”

Lemon Test: “My… what?!”

Rehnquist: “Numbers are stupid. Shut up.”

The third part of the “Lemon Test” was easy – no “excessive entanglement” here. Someone had to decide which textbooks were deductible under the law, but that was pretty easy. Algebra II? OK. The Holy Spirit and You? Not so much.

While important, Mueller v. Allen (1983) wasn’t a major shift in jurisprudence in and of itself. The next case, though…

Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind (1986)

Larry Witters was a student at a private Christian college in Spokane. He was legally blind, and applied for assistance from a state agency whose primary purpose was assisting the ocularly challenged with their education or job training.

He was denied based on his pursuit of ministry as a profession. Surely, the state reasoned, assistance in this case would violate the Establishment Clause. Witters pursued remedy through the courts, but was denied at each level. Several specifically cited the “Lemon Test” as justification for their decision, believing themselves in clear accord with precedent.

The case finally reached the Supreme Court, and they disagreed. It was even unanimous, which is weird.

Justice Thurgood Marshall (yes, THAT Thurgood Marshall) wrote the majority opinion. Like Mueller, it’s a reasonable enough decision in and of itself. Also like Mueller, however, the explanation includes some language which will resurface in voucher debates years later.

Starting with the “Lemon Test,” Marshall explains that the intent of the legislation was clearly secular in nature, and couldn’t possibly be construed as an intentional promotion of religion. Then it gets interesting:

The answer to the question posed by the second prong of the Lemon test is more difficult…
It is well settled that the Establishment Clause is not violated every time money previously in the possession of a State is conveyed to a religious institution. For example, a State may issue a paycheck to one of its employees, who may then donate all or part of that paycheck to a religious institution, all without constitutional barrier; and the State may do so even knowing that the employee so intends to dispose of his salary.
It is equally well settled, on the other hand, that the State may not grant aid to a religious school, whether cash or in kind, where the effect of the aid is “that of a direct subsidy to the religious school” from the State… Aid may have that effect even though it takes the form of aid to students or parents…
The question presented is whether, on the facts as they appear in the record before us, extension of aid to petitioner and the use of that aid by petitioner to support his religious education is a permissible transfer similar to the hypothetical salary donation described above, or is an impermissible “direct subsidy”…

Yep. Here it comes…

By framing the state aid as more like a “paycheck” than a “government coupon,” the Court frees up how those funds may be used. It creates a stage of individual ownership of the funds involved, at which point the money ceases to be taxpayer dollars and becomes personal resources. All the rules change.

Once again this should be familiar rhetoric to anyone confronting voucher propaganda in their state. The legislation is all pre-written and sent out by the same handful of out-of-state fiscal overlords, so of course there’ll be a certain consistency in their sophistry.

This little exercise in semantics overlooks, of course, that the funds in question are not the individual’s to spend or save as he or she sees fit. They are provided for a specific, delineated purpose. The only choice left to the holder is where to apply them towards that specific purpose. So… the issue is not as clear cut as either side might like.

As far as the record shows, vocational assistance provided under the Washington program is paid directly to the student, who transmits it to the educational institution of his or her choice. Any aid provided under Washington’s program that ultimately flows to religious institutions does so only as a result of the genuinely independent and private choices of aid recipients…

The aid is permissible, despite its use at religious institutions. This begins a trend inconceivable a decade before, as public funding is increasingly viewed as something tied to the individual rather than to the public doing the funding. Which brings us to…

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993)

James Zobrest was a deaf student in Tucson, Arizona. He’d been in public schools for several years, and was provided with a sign-language interpreter. In 9th grade he moved to a private Catholic school, but his parents wanted to keep the interpreter.

The district refused, arguing that a state-paid interpreter signing religious doctrine at a Catholic school was certainly a violation of the Establishment Clause. (Surely they also figured once the kid bailed and went to a private school, he wasn’t their responsibility anymore – but they were wise enough not to make than an official part of their argument.)

Various lower courts applied the “Lemon Test” and agreed with the district, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision – this time in a 5-4 split. Rehnquist again wrote the majority opinion.

{I}f the Establishment Clause did bar religious groups from receiving general government benefits, then a church could not be protected by the police and fire departments, or have its public sidewalk kept in repair…
{W}e have consistently held that government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an Establishment Clause challenge just because sectarian institutions may also receive an attenuated financial benefit. Nowhere have we stated this principle more clearly than in Mueller v. Allen (1983), and Witters v. Washington Dept. of Services for Blind (1986)…

I hope you’re keeping up and noticed we just covered those.

Rehnquist summarizes each of the prior cases, then…

The service at issue in this case is part of a general government program that distributes benefits neutrally to any child qualifying as “handicapped” under the IDEA, without regard to the “sectarian nonsectarian, or public nonpublic nature” of the school the child attends.
By according parents freedom to select a school of their choice, the statute ensures that a government paid interpreter will be present in a sectarian school only as a result of the private decision of individual parents. In other words, because the IDEA creates no financial incentive for parents to choose a sectarian school, an interpreter’s presence there cannot be attributed to state decision-making…

Yada yada… you get the idea, I’m sure.

Rehnquist concludes with a clarification I find potentially significant. In the interest of word count, I’ll summarize.

This case was particularly straightforward, he explains, because the school itself didn’t benefit, even incidentally, from the provided assistance. If Zobrest was there without an interpreter, the school makes the same tuition. If he didn’t enroll because he couldn’t have the interpreter, his seat goes to someone else and the school makes the same tuition.

He contrasts this with a previous decision preventing the state from providing teaching materials and equipment for private schools. In that case, the state was financing equipment which the school would otherwise have to pay for itself – thus assisting religion, as it were. In Zobrest, the aid is quite specifically for the student, regardless of where he may be learning.

Just seems like that might be significant at some point. Maybe not.

So far, none of these cases involve actual vouchers given to actual students to facilitate leaving the public school system in order to attend religious institutions. That’s about to change.

Blue Serials (9/25/16)

September 24, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

All the words are gonna bleed from me, and I will think no more…

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”2373″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

OK, that’s probably a tad melodramatic for my taste most days – but I do really like this particular cover. You know I’m a sucker for hopeless defiance – flinging our little flashlights towards the black holes screaming obscenities somehow rooted in love.

*sigh*

The thing is, if enough people bring flashlights…

With that in mind, here are a few things you simply MUST NOT MISS from the world of edu-bloggery this past week (or so). Bask in them, learn from them, argue with them if you must – but bring your flashlight to the party.

We’ll have a grand ol’ time for a few glorious moments before being crushed by the weight of the darkness.

Self-Grading / Formative Assessments – Anthony Purcell, Random Teacher Thoughts. Purcell resumes his random postery this school year with some relatively straightforward but crazy-important thoughts on grading and assessments. Is it just me, or is it getting all reflective up in here?

It’s so easy in edu-bloggery or in any pedagogi-ful competition (and let’s be honest – that’s what many “trainings” quickly become) to become consumed with the fanciest ideas or the most pretentious goals. Often what’s most needed and far better for kids is to remind ourselves of simple things we might already know, but which slip away in the craziness of the actual school year and the trappings of academia.

I’m glad he’s back. Follow @MrP_Tchr on the Twitterings and be glad with me. #oklaed

Today Was A Good Day – Speaking of people we’re glad to see back in the blogosphere, Kas Nelson of A Principal’s Pace is apparently alive and well.

As the title of her blog suggests, Nelson is one of them there “administrators” who we keep hearing make way too much money and there’s like 800,000 of them in every district and we’d all be better off if we did away with everyone other than classroom teachers because nothing needs to be done in school other than close the door and inspire the masses.

None of which she complains about or addresses here. That’s just me carrying on.

Today, I was present. Today, there were challenges. Today, I learned something about a student… Today, I shared my love of reading with kids. Today, I felt stress, at times… Today, I remained positive, and let my joy come through on my face and in my actions. Today was a good day.

As I said, it’s not about the biggest words or the loftiest classroom philosophy. Remember to turn on your flashlight.

Flash @kasnelson on the Twittering and bask in her light as well. That’s how edu-Twitter works, people. #oklaed

Compulsory Education is Evil – Crispin Sartwell on Splice Today. Oh, calm down. No, he’s not kidding. Yes, I really liked this piece. No, I don’t exactly agree with him.

But one of the best indicators of how comfortable we are with our own proclaimed values and beliefs is how quickly we spazz out when someone disagrees with them. If this brief argument makes you twitch and drool, perhaps it suggests that on some level you find it… persuasive? Difficult to consider? Almost kinda sexy, but with hairy legs?

As to the egalitarian justifications, elementary and some secondary education has been compulsory in all states of the union for 100 years. Has the effect actually been egalitarian? I think rather the reverse, and the “dysfunctions” of schools in poor areas have been criticized and reformed in every generation, persisting or expanding throughout… How many waves of reform will it take before we declare the strategy to be a failure?

You may not like his conclusions, but you gotta love anything that hurts that much to read. You don’t want to read the rest? Whatsa matter? Chiiiickennnn? *makeschickennoises*

Stalk @CrispinSartwell on the Twittering and see what else he says that horrifies you into brief flashes of clarity.

Fear of a Black Educator, Part 1 / Fear of a Black Educator, Part 2 – Jose Vilson, on TheJoseVilson.com. I’m not even sure how to introduce these.

I don’t always understand Vilson. I’m not sure I can – our worlds are simply too different and our experiences so far removed. I’m also pretty sure he’s smarter than me, which I like – but which means he sometimes loses me without even meaning to. But this pair hit me, rather hard.

You’re asked to control kids who look like you, but don’t get too good at it because you’ll look like you have more power than the person in charge does. You’re asked to tell kids they shouldn’t feel anger and hurt over racist incidents that happened to them in plain sight. Instead, you’re asked to put them in an auditorium and tell them they misremembered it all, and every agent of the state works in their best interest. You’re asked to stick to the script, sometimes figuratively because the test scores are low and your staff needs work, or literally because your district lead thought it best to buy a curriculum-in-a-box from a company that obviously didn’t consult many current teachers…
You looked into dozens of children’s eyes today and told them that they’re allowed to dream because one of your heroes said so. This hero met a similar fate to the victims in the videos you’ve been watching.

Damn.

Vilson doesn’t claim to represent every Teacher of Color or offer solutions to every challenge faced by every student. Part of what I most appreciate about him is his determination to stay honest, and tell only his stories and those of others he’s qualified to tell. Even as he became something of an #educolor celebrity, his voice remains genuine and a bit raw. In case there’s any doubt, I mean that in the best possible way.

Follow @TheJLV on the Twittering. I can’t promise it will always be fun, but I can guarantee that you’ll be stretched – maybe even inspired.

Hermione Granger: More Than a Sidekick – Sarah Gailey on TOR.com. TOR isn’t exactly an edu-blog and Gailey isn’t technically an educator. But…

OMG how in love am I with this post?

Does anyone in the Harry Potter universe stand in more direct opposition to Voldemort than Hermione Granger does? …
She’s a muggle-born witch who arrives at Hogwarts prepared to dominate magic. She’s enormously ambitious, but consistently seeks to elevate others when she could easily let them fail. She walks beside Harry even when doing so means putting up with relentless scorn from the people who waver between hating him and worshiping him…
She stands up against a centuries-long institution of interspecies slavery, even when doing so means that everyone she cares about will laugh at her… She chooses her causes over her ambitions every time, and she swallows the consequences because they’re worth it to her.

This piece made me glow and smile and tremble a bit and literally tear up and I want to have its babies.

If you think it doesn’t have anything to do with education, then you’re missing something pretty important in the mix. But even without that, if you’ve ever loved me, or yourself, or anyone, or pizza, read this and send it to anyone remotedly interested in – well, anything.

As of today, I’m following @gaileyfrey on the Twittering and hoping she doesn’t find my sudden adoration alarmingly creepy.

You may have noticed that I haven’t posted much about #OKElections16 this week, or shared anything along those lines in this weekly recap. I’m not done with the election, however much I wish I were. There’s more coming soon. In the meantime, we’ll close this week with a video that I strongly suspect was made with Oklahoma politics in mind. I can’t prove this, of course, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_original”,”fid”:”2375″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

I feel so extraordinary. Something’s got a hold on me. I get this feeling I’m in motion – A sudden sense of liberty…

Feel extraordinary, my darlings. You are in all kinds of motion. Fling those flashlights and curse that darkness – who cares what comes next? The rest is madness.

A Wall of Separation – Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

September 23, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

So far we’ve done a brief overview of the concept of a ‘Wall of Separation’ between church and state, and covered a few early Supreme Court Cases involving religion and public schools.

We looked at Everson v. Board of Education (1947) in which the Court determined it was perfectly acceptable for the state to reimburse parents for transportation costs of getting their children to school, whether public or private, sectarian or secular.

Then came Engel v. Vitale (1962), in which the Court made clear that the state could NOT require – or even promote – prayer in public schools as part of the school day. It was followed closely by Abington v. Schempp (1963) in which the same decision applied to the reading of Bible verses or the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.

In both of these cases, the Court sought to prevent either the power of government or the foibles of politicians from unduly interfering in man’s reach for the Almighty. This was how they interpreted the Framers’ concerns as expressed in the First Amendment, applicable to the states via the Fourteenth.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a “checklist” by which interested parties could determine whether or not something violated the “Establishment Clause” or the “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment. While neither exclusive nor absolute, the “Lemon Test” is still regularly referenced today.

In Stone v. Graham (1980), the Court said boo to the required posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. The trend was clear – go easy on pushing your faith via mandatory common education.

But then Reagan took office, and a conservative revolution of sorts swept the nation. I don’t want to overstate the case – it’s not a Disney movie – but for those of you who weren’t there or don’t remember, the Reagan Era wasn’t just a presidential administration. It was a social movement, a political shift, a new dynamic comparable to Kennedy’s “Camelot” in impact – although very different in flavor.

Evangelicals were emboldened and the media and courts demonized as liberals – disgusting and dishonorable, both deceived and deceptive. They were dangers to the nation and everyone in it. Reagan wasn’t evil, at least by modern standards, but he did epitomize a sort of American Exceptionalism in Book-of-Revelation Sauce. The passion and self-righteousness of Ronnie and his adherents pre-empted reason, law, or precedent.

It was in this climate that Alabama decided that Jesus and His legacy simply could not survive much longer without their assistance.

They’d already passed a 1978 law providing for a “moment of silence” each school day “for meditation.” They weren’t the only ones to test this route. Many states or districts instituted some variation of the “moment of silence” after Vitale (1962) and Schempp (1963) made it clear that institutional prayer or other overt Biblization was a no-no.

The “moment of silence” was as much a symbolic move as anything – it served and serves no real purpose or function beyond stepping right up to the line of church-state separation and daring the courts to do something about it. The legislators sponsoring the bill had said as much from the floor; it wasn’t a secret – they were running on their efforts to get prayer back into public schools. Extra credit if you can tell me why that alone should have been enough to invalidate the idea. {Hint: it rhymes with “Women Vest.”}

Alabama took things a step further in 1981, legislating that the moment of silence was to be used “for mediation and voluntary prayer.” Their momentum building, they upped their game yet again in 1982 and instructed teachers to lead “willing students” in a state-written prayer.

Ishmael Jaffree had three kids in Mobile County Public Schools – two in second grade and one in kindergarten. He protested the state-designed prayer, and had plenty of established case law on his side. But that’s not what struck me about his complaint.

Jaffree’s concerns stemmed not from abstract constitutional issues, but from his kindergartener being targeted by other kids for not participating in the prayers. His five-year-old was essentially bullied for not falling into line with state-mandated religious activities.

He wasn’t alone. In a similar case going on in West Virginia at the same time, a Jewish student was challenged by peers for quietly reading during the “moment of silence.” He needed to pray, they told him, or he’d “go to hell with the rest of the Jews.”

Yes, the prayer was technically voluntary – but as anyone in education knows, “voluntary” can mean many different things. In this case, it was legal cover for bad law, an effort to create enough of a loophole to allow Alabama to belittle children for holding to their family’s religious beliefs in ways that didn’t harm or bother anyone, but without the state running afoul of those damned godless liberal judges.

And yes, there comes a time in life – even public school life – where students must be expected to grow up and accept that not everything works the way they want it to and not everyone is nice. We can’t and shouldn’t stop kids from ever saying an unkind word to one another.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the abuse has to be state-sanctioned. That doesn’t mean the state should throw the first pebble then disclaim responsibility when the very children it’s seeking to influence continue the work by throwing stones of their own.

In an interesting wrinkle, the federal district judge who heard this case as it worked its way through the system chose to ignore precedent and declared the laws perfectly constitutional, stating in his decision that “Alabama has the power to establish a State religion if it chooses to do so.” I’m all for waving your little flag at the tank as it rolls through the square, but this wasn’t the powerless standing up to the powerful – this was power trying to take more power.

And it wouldn’t have happened a decade before.

The South was ready to rise again through God, Guns, and the Gipper. Where’s that Confederate Flag and my 12-pack of Keystone?

I promise I’m not blaming every error of the modern world on Ronald Reagan – I was actually quite a fan. But he was wrong when early in his Presidency he proposed a constitutional amendment permitting organized prayer in public schools. He was wrong in his 1984 State of the Union when he asked why “freedom to acknowledge God” couldn’t “be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?”

It’s always problematic when we use “freedom” to mean “giving me the power to force you to comply with my beliefs.” Students have always been free to acknowledge God in whatever schoolroom they happen to be. They’ve never been prohibited from praying at appropriate times or discussing their faith with other students, as long as we can have school along the way.

Imagine if President Clinton had insisted that school intercoms, choirs, and bands be used to broadcast, sing, and play Led Zeppelin exclusively, and at least once a day. Is that “bringing back freedom”?

It’s no dis on Zeppelin to suggest that some people much prefer Supertramp, or the Police, or even Etta James. Besides, you have to suspect that it wouldn’t be long before not just ANY Zeppelin would work. If your local Congressman is partial to the B-side of In Through The Out Door, then THAT becomes the only acceptable Zeppelin from here on out. You don’t even get “In The Evening” that way!

Of course you can disagree, but… why do you hate freedom? Are you a threat to our way of life? What are you, Disco?

On a personal note, I must confess that student liberties aside, I’m rather horrified by the use of the Christian faith as this sort of political tire iron. If the God they claim to serve is truly so helpless as to be somehow barred from hallways and classrooms of public schools around the nation, their efforts to facilitate his comeback are both tragic and unwise.

Surely the same Jesus who conquered Death and Hell isn’t lying around half-formed in a forest somewhere, waiting for Wormtail to bring him a few more ingredients for the Holy Cauldron or for Ms. Kravitz to read the right magic prayer out loud enough times.

It’s hard to imagine Paul the Apostle sitting along the road somewhere in Cyrprus, whining that he can’t preach the Gospel until some local legislature makes a rule requiring the Beatitudes be posted in the marketplace or mandating the 23rd Psalm be recited before any and all public lectures.

If your faith only works when government mandates that minors pay it hollow homage, you need a better faith.

But I should probably get back to the case…

While the Bible part and the praying part are consistently prohibited as violations of the Establishment Clause, the “Moment of Silence” has for the most part survived constitutional scrutiny, even while being acknowledged as an “accommodation” of faith – but not an “establishment” or “inhibitor” of faith.

That’s why in Oklahoma, every school day, students are given 5 – 7 seconds to “reflect, meditate, or pray” in any manner not disrupting or distracting those around them. I don’t know about you, but I feel MUCH closer to God as a result. If we were given, say… 12 seconds to work with, who knows what could happen?

RELATED POST: Should You Legislate the Bible?

RELATED POST: Missing the Old Testament

RELATED POST: Welcome to Atheist School!

A Wall of Separation – Stone v. Graham (1980)

September 20, 2016June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

On November 17, 1980, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Stone v. Graham – a case involving the required posting of the Ten Commandments on the wall of every classroom in Kentucky.

This was about a month after the release of “Another One Bites the Dust” (Queen), although “Lady” (Kenny Rogers) was at that moment sitting comfortably at the top of the charts. It was less than a month before John Lennon would be murdered and “Just Like Starting Over” would be released and soar to #1.

Reagan had just been elected, although he wouldn’t take office until January, 1981. The nation was approaching Day 400 of the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The “Miracle on Ice” had occurred earlier that year, back when only “amateurs” were allowed to compete in the Olympics. The Rubik’s Cube had just become a thing, Richard Pryor had recently lit himself on fire, and the nation seemed genuinely concerned with figuring out “Who Shot J.R.?”

None of which has anything to do with the case. Just trying to provide a little context, since for some of us 1980 seems like last month, while for others it might as well have been the year they began construction on the Great Wall of China.

So, this case…

The State of Kentucky required that a copy of the Ten Commandments be posted on the wall of every public school classroom. The Commandments were purchased via private contributions, so no state money was used, and teachers were not required to discuss, promote, or even draw attention to the Commandments so posted.

At the bottom of each copy was this explanation: “The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States.”

If you’ve been reading this series on the “Wall of Separation,” you know how this one is going to go – right?

The Court referenced the “Lemon Test” which emerged from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) less than a decade before. This “test” has three parts, but the Court never got to the second base on this one, let alone third.

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose…

That did it. Shut it down.

They didn’t buy at all the assertion that the Ten Commandments were being used in a primarily secular way or to secular purpose. Had the curriculum included additional examples of historical laws, or a study of the Old Testament as literature, history, or even as a world religion, it would have been fine. As it stood, however, the Commandments were without educational context. Instead, they demanded fealty to a certain God in a certain way following specific interpretations of what that God said and wanted.

Also known as “an establishment of religion.”

It didn’t matter who’d paid for them – the state was requiring and posting them. That’s not how “separation of church at state” works.

Stone vs. Graham (1980) is interesting for several reasons. Well, to me, at least…

It was decided per curium, meaning the majority opinion was issued as written by the Court as a whole rather than a specific Justice. A per curium decision is traditionally used in far more banal situations – explaining why the Court will or won’t hear a case, or when the result is considered obvious or non-controversial.

Given that this was a 5-4 split decision, that clearly wasn’t the case. So the anonymous majority opinion is weird. It’s also not entirely anonymous, since Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissent and three other Justices agreed with it. Let’s see, nine Justices, minus those four…

The Supremes also decided this one without hearing arguments from either side. I didn’t know this was a thing, but presumably they figured the lower courts had covered everything they needed to know in order to decide.

Finally, Stone was one of the first cases to rule against such a “passive display” of religion as nevertheless violating the Establishment Clause. It was from this reasoning the Court went on to take issue with some government-sponsored Christmas displays and other state-sanctioned religious ceremonies.

Let’s see if there’s anything fun in this per curium opinion, shall we?

Hmm… they referenced Abington v. Schempp (1963). We’ve covered that one, yes?

They then went straight to the “Lemon Test” – another familiar item to the #11FF.

They eventually referenced Engel v. Vitale (1962) as well. I swear, it’s like they read my blog even back then!

The Court notes that while some of the Commandments are “arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing…” others are very specific to “the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day.”

As in Abington, the Court wants to make sure their decision is not perceived as forbidding all discussion of religious topics:

This is not a case in which the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like…
Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.

There’s a great moment in Justice Rehnquist’s dissent worth sharing here:

The Establishment Clause does not require that the public sector be insulated from all things which may have a religious significance or origin. This Court has recognized that “religion has been closely identified with our history and government”… and that “{t}he history of man is inseparable from the history of religion”…
Kentucky has decided to make students aware of this fact by demonstrating the secular impact of the Ten Commandments. The words of Justice Jackson, concurring in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), merit quotation at length:

And yes, I’m about to move from quoting an opinion to quoting an opinion quoted within an opinion. Is it getting Inception up in here?

I think it remains to be demonstrated whether it is possible, even if desirable, to comply with such demands as plaintiff’s completely to isolate and cast out of secular education all that some people may reasonably regard as religious instruction.
Perhaps subjects such as mathematics, physics or chemistry are, or can be, completely secularized. But it would not seem practical to teach either practice or appreciation of the arts if we are to forbid exposure of youth to any religious influences. Music without sacred music, architecture minus the cathedral, or painting without the scriptural themes would be eccentric and incomplete, even from a secular point of view…
I should suppose it is a proper, if not an indispensable, part of preparation for a worldly life to know the roles that religion and religions have played in the tragic story of mankind. The fact is that, for good or for ill, nearly everything in our culture worth transmitting, everything which gives meaning to life, is saturated with religious influences, derived from paganism, Judaism, Christianity – both Catholic and Protestant – and other faiths accepted by a large part of the world’s peoples.
One can hardly respect the system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for a part in which he is being prepared.

That last part is significant – “the currents or religious thought that move the world society for a part in which he is being prepared.”

In other words, no student is truly prepared to go out into the world without a basic familiarity with the VARIOUS faiths and cultural norms of the world – not merely their own.

At some point we’ll have to look at how this decision impacted the ability of a state to post the Ten Commandments in other places – say, at that State Capitol or some such thing. Just, you know… hypothetically.

But not this time.

RELATED POST: The Blaine Game