2.

REPORT SUMMARY

Nebraska has an obligation to assure that children receive a good education. This means adequate training in basic skills and a knowledge of how our system of government works. The goal is to develop persons who can function constructively as adults and contribute to the welfare of others.

Nebraska carries out its educational responsibilities through laws and regulations which establish that all schools in Nebraska, both public and private, meet certain requirements. Chief among these requirements are those for (a) teacher certification, (b) courses of study, (c) material and equipment, and (d) grades and promotion. In addition, there are requirements regarding (a) compulsory education, (b) health and safety, and (c) fire regulations. Many education leaders consider these requirements essential for the State to fulfill its obligation to assure that Nebraska children are well educated.

There are some Christian schools which object to these State requirements on religious grounds. They assert that their educational efforts are an extension of their church ministry. From this they conclude that since the State cannot control religion it cannot regulate their schools. Thus, the State's desire to enforce its regulations is directly opposed by the church schools' denial of the State's right to do so as to them. What is needed is an appropriate balance between the legitimate interest of the State in the education of Nebraska youth and religious freedom. Objectivity and balance are essen

tial to a constructive resolution of this issue.

Can this conflict be resolved? Yes, and without a lot

of difficulty. If so, how? We suggest this:

1. For church-related private schools Nebraska policy should be modified to create this exemption from present state requirements:

If all parents of children attending a churchrelated private school so elect, testing of their children shall be acceptable as an alternative to curriculum, teacher certificaThese tests should tion and related requirements for the school.

be of a standardized nature recognized by the State Department of Education and educators as proper indicators of student progress. They should be administered annually by the County Superintendents. If the average test scores in each content area and at each grade level of all students enrolled in a school are at least equal to such average test scores of students in Nebraska

public schools (or, if scores are not available for Nebraska public school students, then the nation as a whole), the school attended by these students need not meet the State curriculum, teacher certification and related requirements.

2. Parents who elect this alternative shall make a written representation to the State that (a) their religious beliefs dictate this choice, (b) they consent to a testing procedure for their children, and (c) they will supply regularly to the State evidence that their children are (1) meeting State mandatory school attendance requirements and (2) receiving a structured program of education which satisfactorily covers all basic areas of study included in State curriculum standards and is conducted with physical facilities and instructional equipment and materials comparable to State standards. If the parents (a) fail to comply with these procedures, (or their representations to the State are inaccurate), or (b) their children test below the prescribed averages, then their children will be considered to be in violation of State mandatory school attendance requirements.

3. Health, safety and fire regulations for church

related private schools shall remain as they are.

4. The result of this exemption is this: Churchrelated private schools, for reasons of the religious conscience of the parents of the children attending them, may operate without seeking a license or obtaining approval from the State. The parents of the students involved shall (a) submit their children to a testing procedure, and (b) report directly to the State compliance with mandatory attendance, basic curriculum and related requirements.

This would seem to be a just and reasonable recognition of (a) religious and parental rights, and (b) the freedom of Christian schools to exist. At the same time, it leaves intact the basis for health and safety standards, fire regulations and compulsory education. The election to seek this exemption can only be made for reasons relating to religious freedom. We make these recommendations because we have

concluded:

(a) Nebraska teacher certification procedures as presently defined violate the First Amendment free exercise of religion rights of Christian schools. This legal conclusion, together with our view of proper public policy, indicates to us the need to modify present practices in order to reach an appropriate accommodation between the interest of the State and religious freedom rights.

(b) The accommodation we suggest meets the

religious issue without unreasonably interfering with the ability of the State to assure a competent education for Nebraska children and to establish standards for that education.

Our report describes how and why we have reached our conclusions. Reasonable people disagree as to what specific steps should be taken to resolve this issue. We recognize that our suggestions are simply one approach.

More important right now than any specific proposals is a recognition by all concerned that there are both educational and religious issues involved here which must be addressed in some form.

We hope that Nebraskans can agree on the common goal of recognizing (a) the State's obligation to have and enforce educational standards and (b) the legitimacy of religious freedom claims that some present State regulations are too restrictive when applied to Christian schools. This means that both State control and Christian school advocates must acknowledge some validity in the other's position. With this understanding we can then consider methods for accommodating these conflicting interests without compromising either (a) the obligations or standards of the State, or (b) the deeply felt religious convictions of Christian school supporters.

3.

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

There are profound issues about education, religion, constitutional rights, fairness and our responsibilities to each other involved, It is crucial that we clearly understand the actual nature of these issues.

We all seek the best possible education for our children; we also cherish our religious freedom. And we want to treat one another fairly and with respect. Governmental policies should accommodate all of these fundamental concerns.

manner:

The present Nebraska controversy has arisen in this

(1) Nebraska law establishes State responsibility for and control of education. The reason for this law is the State's interest in the intellectual and cultural development of its children so that they may become responsible citizens. The legal basis of this law is threefold: (a) The Nebraska State Consti

tution; (b) Statutes enacted by the Nebraska Legislature; and (c) Court decisions.

This State law creates the Nebraska State Department of Education as the agent of the State to administer this responsibility. To carry out its duties the Department devises and enforces detailed regulations. These regulations, together with the law itself, require both public and private schools to be licensed by the State.

To receive a license a school must make application to the Department, which will issue the license only if it approves the school. It will approve the school only if the school meets certain standards for (a) teacher certification and qualification, (b) courses of study, (c) material and equipment, (d) grades and promotion, and (e) mandatory student attendance. The Department asserts that schools which do not obtain this approval may not operate legally.

The State considers its direct control over teacher qualifications and other educational factors essential for it to fulfill its responsibility for the education of Nebraska children. It believes that meaningful education cannot take place in a classroom without some minimum state-determined control over what happens in that classroom (teacher qualifications, courses of study and related items).

(2)

Several religious groups operate private schools in Nebraska. These schools enjoy fundamental rights derived from (a) the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees to each person the right to "the free exercise of religion"; and (b) Article I, Section 4, of the Nebraska State Constitution, which contains a similar freedom of religion guarantee.

Most of these church-related schools consent to the State licensing rule and comply with the standards established by the State as a requirement for approval of the license. Some do not, however, and thus are denied legal status by the State. Among those who do not are some schools which may in fact fulfill the standards for approval, but refuse to apply for a license on the basis that the licensing procedure is itself an improper interference with their religious freedom. Others do not meet the standards for approval; they also refuse to accept the licensing procedure for the same religious freedom reason.

These groups recognize that the State has an interest in the education of their children. However, they assert that this State interest is limited to the results of the educational process, not to the process through which those results are

obtained. They believe that their church school is an integral part of, and thus an extension of, their church ministry. From this they conclude that any State regulation of their school is in substance a regulation of their church and thus an improper State interference with their religion. In summary, they assert that the State's legitimate interest in the education of their children is only in the result of that education, not the process by which that result is obtained.

Stated another way, these church groups view State regulation of their schools as a control of process (which they consider to be a control over their churches). On the other hand, they view the State's interest in the results of the process (how well the students learn) as a matter between the State and the parents of the children (and thus not a control over the church in its educational ministry). They consider their schools to be responsible to the parents, not to the State. They place great accountability upon the parents for the education of their children. They consider the essential responsibility for the education of the children to be upon the

parents.

In short, they say that the State may require that their children actually learn certain basic skills, but that the State may not dictate to their church schools how these skills are learned. Therefore, they believe that the State infringes upon their religious liberty through certification of teachers and other requirements placed directly upon their schools.

(3) An impasse has developed. Some church schools insist on operating without meeting State requirements. The State responds by seeking enforcement of its requirements through closing noncomplying schools.

Can these competing interests of the State and these schools be accommodated in a manner which is properly responsive to the responsibilities, convictions and constitutional rights of both? We definitely think so.

Our recommendations are based on these three

premises, to which we fully subscribe: (1) the conflicts here are very real; (2) these conflicts should be addressed directly and clearly; and (3) sound State educational policies and proper Christian school religious liberties can coexist.