![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/sunday-school.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Children in American public schools traditionally learned the three R\u2019s: reading, writing and arithmetic. Today, students in more than half of the U.S. states can study a fourth R: religion.<\/p>\n
Oklahoma is the most recent state to allow school boards to implement \u201crelease time\u201d: off-site classes with religious or moral instruction that K-12 students can attend for part of school days with parental consent. Gov. Kevin Stitt signed\u00a0House Bill 1425<\/a>\u00a0into law, which authorized the program, on\u00a0June 5, 2024<\/a>.<\/p>\n Oklahoma\u2019s law requires school boards to adopt policies permitting students to attend release-time classes for up to three class periods per week. Sessions must be taught at independent entities not on school property. Instructors need not be certificated educators but must keep attendance records, and students are responsible for making up classwork they miss.<\/p>\n In a move likely to generate controversy,\u00a0the Satanic Temple<\/a>\u00a0\u2013\u00a0a nontheistic religious group<\/a>\u00a0that advocates for separation of church and state, along with such ideas as rationality, compassion and bodily autonomy \u2013 announced\u00a0its intention to offer classes<\/a>\u00a0on its Facebook account.<\/p>\n Release time may spark debate, but it\u00a0is not new<\/a>. Programs were proposed in New York City in 1905, although the first program did not open until 1914, in Gary, Indiana. The number of states with programs grew in the 1930s and \u201840s \u2013 and the issue soon made its way to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n The first of two Supreme Court cases on release time was decided in 1948. Controversy arose when a local board in Illinois allowed Jewish, Protestant and Roman Catholic leaders to enter public schools to offer religion classes to children whose parents agreed to let them miss regular class time to participate.<\/p>\n In\u00a0McCollum v. Board of Education<\/a>, the Supreme Court struck the program down for two reasons.<\/p>\n First, the justices held that the program impermissibly allowed tax-supported buildings to be used to teach religion, violating\u00a0the First Amendment<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 which says that \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\u201d Second, the court invalidated the program because it granted faith-based groups invaluable, impermissible aid by helping them to spread their faiths.<\/p>\n Four years later, in\u00a0Zorach v. Clauson<\/a>, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of a different type of release time program from New York City. This program allowed officials to release students from their public schools to attend off-site religion classes.<\/p>\n This time, the justices affirmed that public school officials could accommodate the religious wishes of parents by releasing their children for off-site instruction.<\/p>\n The court upheld release time because public schools were not used for religious instruction. The justices suggested that release time was consistent with recognizing parental discretion and control over their children\u2019s education. The underlying law\u00a0remains in place<\/a>.<\/p>\n As in\u00a0Ohio<\/a>,\u00a0South Carolina<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Tennessee<\/a>, Oklahoma\u2019s law allows students to earn academic credit for these classes, though they cannot attend in lieu of a core curriculum class. The law explicitly directs school boards to establish standards under which release time can qualify for these elective credits. The law also contains a provision stating boards are not responsible for students during off-campus classes.<\/p>\n In all, 16 states have laws and one has a regulation giving schools boards the option of adopting policies permitting release time \u2013 from California and Montana to Massachusetts and West Virginia.<\/p>\n Moreover, 11 other states and Oklahoma now require boards to adopt release-time policies.<\/p>\nTwo cases, two outcomes<\/strong><\/h4>\n
National landscape<\/strong><\/h4>\n