Religion in the Public Schools.

With a new legal consensus offering safe passage, school leaders have an unprecedented chance to build trust between educators and people of faith

Everyone knows the bad stories--the fights that end in angry communities and expensive lawsuits. Most school leaders can recite them in their sleep.

Who can forget a 1st-grader who is told by his teacher he can't read a Bible story to the class, even though all the other children got to read their favorite story? Or a teacher who leads her class in prayer and invites students to accept salvation?

Listen to talk radio or read direct-mail fund-raising letters and you'll hear the same horror stories about schools over and over: The assembly program featuring condom demonstrations that outrages many religious parents. The school district that won't allow the student Bible club to meet during lunchtime but permits other extracurricular clubs to do so. And the parade of horribles goes on.

Everyone's Nightmare

Conflicts like these may be the best ammunition for fighting the culture wars, but they are the worst nightmare for the public school administrator. Every school leader knows that no matter who wins the lawsuit, everybody loses--especially the public schools. The upshot of these battles is more distrust and division in the community and erosion of support for public education.

With all this hostility and controversy, it's small wonder that many school leaders will do anything to avoid dealing with religious issues in their districts. But even if it were still possible (it's not), avoidance is the worst possible strategy.

Fortunately, there's a better approach--one that provides educational leaders with a constitutional safe harbor for preventing the conflicts before they occur.

A Progressive Tact

Consider Evelyn Holman. She and many school leaders like her have discovered that questions concerning religion in public schools need not divide the community. On the contrary, by being pro-active and fair to all sides, Holman enabled her district to build bridges across deep differences and find common ground.

It all began when tensions about religion in the schools began to surface about seven years ago in the Wicomico County, Md., school district, where Holman was superintendent at the time. Rather than become defensive or ignore the problem, Holman acted quickly and wisely to address the underlying issues.

First she persuaded the school board to appoint a task force with representatives from across the religious and political spectrum. Then she made sure the task force committed itself to a fair process--one that included all stakeholders in the debate. Parents, teachers, administrators, religious leaders and others participated in communitywide discussions about the appropriate constitutional and educational role for religion in the schools.

Finally, after months of hard work and vigorous debate, the group reached consensus on how to treat religion in the curriculum and in the school culture. The resulting policy has broad support throughout the community. Even more important, however, are the new levels of trust and understanding among people on all sides.

Holman didn't stop there. She provided in-service training to teachers and administrators, identified good supplemental materials for teaching religious liberty in the classroom and distributed a brochure that answered frequently asked questions about the policy.

In her current district, Bay Shore, N.Y., where she has been superintendent since 1993, Holman has taken many of the same actions as she attempts to build understanding on these issues.

What's at Stake?

Public schools need many more of these good stories--and many more Evelyn Holmans. Finding common ground is essential to the future of public education.

Four years ago at a meeting between public school leaders and some of their most severe critics from the conservative Christian community, I opened the discussion with the usual litany of conflicts, ranging from religious holidays and prayers to school reform and sex education. Then I remarked that if we don't find new ways to address our differences on these issues, public education doesn't have much of a future.

As soon as 1 had spoken, Ernest Boyer, representing the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, hit the table, saying "I wouldn't put it that way." Everyone looked surprised, well aware of Boyer's strong advocacy of public education. "No," he said emphatically, "if we don't do better in addressing these conflicts, it's not just public schools, but our nation that doesn't have much of a future."

Boyer was right. If we are going to sustain the American experiment--E Pluribus Unum--then we can't afford culture wars in our schools that rend apart the fabric of our communities and undermine the education of our children. We need a fresh, bold approach to the conflicts--an approach that enables us to live with even our deepest differences.

Failed Models

First, however, we must be courageous enough to take the debate back from the extremes. On one end of the spectrum are those who advocate what might be called the "sacred public school" where one religion (theirs) is preferred in school policies and practices. Characteristic of the early history of public schools, this approach still survives in some parts of the United States, particularly in the rural South. The sacred public school is both unjust and unconstitutional.

In more recent decades, some on the other end of the spectrum have pushed for a "naked public school" where religion is kept out in the name of a strict "separation of church and state." The influence of this view in education circles is apparent from the virtual silence about religion in most of the curriculum and the confusion among many school leaders about the religious-liberty rights of students.

Proponents of this model falsely believe that the First Amendment requires public schools to be religion-free zones. This approach is also unjust and, in some instances, may be unconstitutional as well.

What is desperately needed in all public schools is a third model-I call it the "civil public school"-that will apply First Amendment principles fully and fairly in public education. What does this model look like, and can we get our communities to support it?

A Shared Vision

The good news for school leaders is that there is now remarkable agreement, left to right, on the proper constitutional and educational place of religion in public education. In the spring of 1995, 24 religious and educational groups issued a shared vision of religious liberty in public schools. Entitled "Religious Liberty, Public Education and the Future of American Democracy: A Statement of Principles," the agreement reaffirms the widespread commitment of Americans to the religious liberty clauses of the First Amendment.

The core of the agreement is captured in Principle IV, which states: "Public schools may not inculcate or inhibit religion. They must be places where religion and religious conviction are treated with fairness and respect. Public schools uphold the First Amendment when they protect the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths or none. Schools demonstrate fairness when they ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion, where appropriate, as an important part of a complete education."

This articulation of a civil public school is as remarkable for who says it as for what it says. The American Association of School Administrators, the National Education Association, and the National School Boards Association have joined with the Christian Legal Society, the American Center for Law and Justice and the Christian Coalition. People For the American Way and the Anti-Defamation League are on the list, and so are the Council on Islamic Education and the Christian Educators Association International.

If the Christian Coalition and People For the American Way can agree on a shared vision for religious liberty in public schools, then so can most people in your community.

New Legal Consensus

But what about the law? A vision statement, however noble, is not enough to protect the local school leader who must now worry about getting sued from either the left or the right. Without agreement about the law, it will be difficult to make the civil public school a reality.

Fortunately, however, there is now a new consensus on most areas of the law--a consensus that clearly states the religious-liberty rights of students. No longer do administrators have to make the false choice between imposing religion and leaving it out.

Consider the actions of the superintendent in Beaverton, Mich. When a student wanted to distribute Bibles in the middle school last spring, he thought that the law required him to just say "no." But after a little homework by the district's lawyer, he reversed himself. It turns out that most legal experts now agree that students may distribute religious literature in school, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

The consensus on what the law says on most religion-and-school issues is very good news for administrators. Three years ago, 35 religious groups, liberal and conservative, issued a "Joint Statement of Current Law" outlining what is and is not permissible under the First Amendment. Using this agreement as a foundation, President Bill Clinton sent a directive to all superintendents, and the First Amendment Center and the National PTA issued a guide for parents.

What's at the core of this consensus? In addition to the agreement about distribution of religious literature, we now agree that students have the right to pray in a public school, alone or in groups, as long as the activity doesn't disrupt the school or infringe on the rights of others. Students have the right to share their faith with others and to read their Scriptures. When it's relevant to the discussion and meets the academic requirements, students have the right to express personal religious views in class or as part of a written assignment or art activity. And, of course, under the Equal Access Act students have the right in secondary schools to form religious clubs if the school allows other extracurricular clubs.

Rewards of Pro-Activity

The shared vision of religious liberty combined with the new consensus in the law sends a strong message to school leaders: There's now no excuse for failing to be pro-active on religion and religious liberty in the schools.

Sure, there's always some risk in raising issues when (on the surface at least) no controversy exists. But the much greater risk is to ignore these issues while more and more parents feel frustrated and left out. Waiting until a conflict erupts is a foolish counterproductive recipe for lawsuits and divided communities.

Not only does the new consensus lower the risk--it also increases the rewards. Think of all the goodwill administrators can generate by building common ground on the role of religion in the schools. Davis County, Utah, for example, recently passed a comprehensive policy on a wide range of religious-liberty issues and has offered in-service training to implement it. Now parents are supportive, administrators are clear about the ground rules and teachers are better prepared to deal with religion in the classroom.

Davis County learned that national consensus statements, as helpful as they are, are no substitute for local policies. General statements about the law don't spell out how to apply the law in a particular community. Some issues and questions must be addressed by each school district. Most importantly, it's not the policy but the process of building a policy that creates trust and understanding in the community.

Again, when it concerns religion, being pro-active and committed to a fair and open process is the key to good and successful leadership. When a fight about Christmas in the schools began to divide the community of South Orangetown, N.Y., then-Superintendent Mort Sherman didn't attempt a quick fix that would remove religion from the schools. Instead, he put together a broadly representative group of citizens and educators to consider how to deal with religion throughout the year, not just in December.

After months of community forums, in-service workshops and lively discussions, the school board of South Orangetown agreed to a policy that moved the community forward. Differences remained, but the community had learned how to debate its differences with civility and respect.

Jerry Hill, superintendent in Broken Arrow, Okla., was pro-active even when no crisis loomed on the horizon. For years he has been building a strong partnership with the religious communities in his district. The program, called "In Touch," directly connects administrators with the religious communities to provide ongoing updates and discussions of school district activities, programs and concerns.

But Hill isn't resting on his laurels. He now is providing in-service training for teachers and administrators on the religious-liberty rights of students and the role of religion in the curriculum.

The message from New York to Oklahoma to Utah is much the same: Be proactive and be fair. Without clear policies and good in-service training, school districts will continue to lurch from crisis to crisis. Only sound and fair policies and practices, developed and supported by parents and others in the community, will put an end to the confusion and conflict about religion that has plagued public schools for far too long.

Negotiating Differences

In view of our long history of fighting over religion in schools, it's somewhat ironic that issues directly involving religion--teaching about religion, religious clubs, religious holidays, student expression, etc.--are now among the easiest to negotiate. Today, it's conflicts involving a clash of world views--sex education, school reform, textbook selection, etc.-that are much more difficult to resolve.

That's why smart school leaders begin by finding common ground on religion and religious liberty. The resulting trust and goodwill goes a long way toward preparing a school district to deal successfully with issues where common ground is tougher to achieve.

Jim Enoch, superintendent in Modesto, Calif., recently discovered how unexpected and explosive these conflicts can be when he responded to reports of gay-bashing in the schools by asking the school board to include "sexual orientation" in the policy on safe schools. Some local pastors and conservative religious parents feared that the way that the word "tolerance" was used in the policy would signal endorsement of homosexuality by the school. The debate that erupted bitterly divided the community.

After months of speaking past one another, the district invited the First Amendment Center to help find common ground. Our role was simple: We asked all sides to take a step back and reconsider the civic principles and virtues that we share as American citizens. What are the rights and responsibilities of the First Amendment? Can we all commit ourselves to civil debate when important issues divide us?

The committee appointed to resolve this issue, composed of 115 educators, students and community members, discovered it could agree on civic principles and ground rules. And they went on to agree on what it would take to make their schools safe for all students.

Everyone agreed that no student should be harassed or discriminated against in a public school, whatever his or her race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. And, just as importantly, everyone acknowledged that such an agreement doesn't require acceptance of the religion, philosophy or way of life of others.

At the end of the process, local pastors, educators, students and parents all voiced strong support for a plan of action that focused on protecting the right of all students to a safe school environment. The school board unanimously approved the policy.

Modesto's new policy won't end the debate about sexuality in the schools, but it's a strong foundation for taking the next steps. That school district now has a civic framework of rights, responsibilities and respect that will help them tackle the next round of difficult issues. People with deep differences have learned to listen to one another and to work together in an atmosphere of trust.

The Common Good

The story of Modesto, like the stories of Broken Arrow, Wicomico County, Davis County and South Orangetown, reminds us that America still works. Of course, in our democracy there will always be winners and losers in public-policy disputes involving public schools. But if all sides are treated with fairness and respect in the process, then those who lose on particular issues are likely to continue supporting the schools, especially if they win other debates.

The good news is that there are plenty of ways to say "yes" to a role for religion, even as school leaders must say "no" to state-sponsored religious practices. The key is to have a shared vision of religious liberty that provides the civic ground rules for the discussion.

School leaders must do more than merely acknowledge that a constitutional and educational role for religion exists in the public schools. Even passing policies that protect religious-liberty rights and encourage teaching about religion, though important, is not enough. A truly civil public school is built and sustained only when policies and practices are put in place with the broad involvement and support of the community and when teachers and administrators are fully prepared to implement the vision.

The new consensus on many of the religious-liberty issues that have long divided us provides school leaders with a historic opportunity for finding common ground. The First Amendment provides a civic framework within which we are able to address our differences, reach mutual understanding and forge policies and practices that protect the liberty of conscience of every parent and student.

If school leaders take this opportunity, a common vision of the common good may still be possible in public education--and in our nation--as we face the new challenges of the 21st century.

Charles Haynes is senior scholar with the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209. He is co-author with Warren Nord of Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum.

Resources on Building Common Ground

* The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center (do Vanderbilt University, 1207 18th Ave. S., Nashville, Tenn. 37212), 615-321-9588, www.freedomforum.org

The center provides advice, mediation and training on issues concerning religious liberty in public schools. The center also sponsors institutes for educators and publishes Finding Common Ground and other consensus documents. Contact John Ferguson at 615-321-9588 or Charles Haynes at 703-284-2859.

* BridgeBuilders (5820-T.W. Caldwell, Visalia, Calif. 93277), 209-635-8565, www.lifestream.org

This organization helps districts and communities find common ground. The president of BridgeBuilders, Wayne Jacobsen, provides training, mediation and/or strategic planning to districts seeking to work constructively with various parent groups.

* 3Rs Projects: Rights, Responsibilities and Respect (c/o Marcia Beauchamp, Freedom Forum Pacific Coast Center, 1 Market St., 21st Floor, San Francisco, Calif. 94105), 415-281-0900

Developed by the First Amendment Center, this project prepares educators to teach about religions in ways that are constitutionally permissible and educationally sound and helps leaders develop policies and practices that protect religious liberty rights of all students. In California and Texas, the project is co-sponsored by superintendents associations and in Utah by the state education department.

Resources on Developing Policies

Abroad range of religious and educational organizations has reached consensus on what federal law says about the role of religion in the public schools.

Author Charles Haynes recommends these documents as useful to school leaders in developing policies.

* Finding Common Ground: A First Amendment Guide to Religion and Public Education

Written by Charles Haynes and Oliver Thomas, this book contains consensus guidelines and articles on religious expression of students, religion in the curriculum, religious holidays, equat access and other issues. It contains strategies for resolving conflicts in local school districts. Available for purchase from the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University: 615-321-9588 or www.freedomforum.org

* "Presidential Directive on Religious Expression in Public Schools: A Statement of Principles"

This U.S. Department of Education document contains the "Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools" issued by President Clinton in May 1998. It is available by calling toll-free 877-433-7827, 800-USA-LEARN or 202-401-2000. It also is accessible at www.ed.gov under "Topics A-Z."

* "Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law"

These guidelines provided the foundation for the presidential directive and have been endorsed by 35 religious organizations. The guidelines are available from the American Jewish Congress, 15 East 84th St., Suite 501, New York, N.Y. 10028.

* "A Parent's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools"

Published by the National PTA and the First Amendment Center, this guide reflects the agreement in the presidential directive and offers brief guidelines for finding common ground. The guide is available at no charge from the First Amendment Center.

* "Religious Liberty, Public Education and the Future of American Democracy: A Statement of Principles"

This document describes six principles that maybe used as civic ground rules for addressing conflicts in public education. It has been endorsed by 24 educational and religious organizations including AASA, the National School Boards Association, the Christian Legal Society, the Anti-Defamation League, the Christian Coalition and People For the American Way. It is available free from the First Amendment Center.