Agostini v. Felton

25 November 1998 @ 0:00 | Posted in » Education, Politics

School Law for Administration and Supervision: 0827.559
Brief submitted 25 November 1998

Citation:
Agostini v. Felton
United States Supreme Court
117 S.Ct. 1997, 138

Topic:
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and how it affects the role of Title I.

Relief Sought:
To overrule the United States Supreme Courtï¿½s decision in Aquilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985).

Issue:
Can public school employees provide remedial education to students in parochial schools?

Facts:
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, provides all educationally and economically disadvantaged children publicly funded remedial education services, regardless of whether they attend public or private schools. Until the Court’s decision in Aguilar (1985), many school systems provided these services to children attending religious schools. Public school teachers taught remedial education to the students at the private schools. The Court held that these practices violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they excessively entangled the public and religious school systems (Lemon Test). Hence, the practices violated the requirement that church and state remain separate.

Since Aguilar, the remedial education services are provided elsewhere. Some students are bussed to public schools or to leased sites. Others receive remediation in vans parked outside the schools. The decision in Aguilar has been criticized greatly because of how services being provided. In 1995, parents and the New York City Board of Education filed motions in the district court asking that the court recognize that Aguilar was no longer good law.

Findings of the US District Court:
The district court agreed to reconsider the case. It ruled that the landscape of Establishment Clause decisions has changed, but did not allow that Aquilar was totally ineffective.

Findings of the US Court of Appeals:
The Second Circuit affirmed the district courtï¿½s finding.
Findings of the US Supreme Court:
A federally funded program providing supplemental, remedial instruction to disadvantaged children on a neutral basis is not invalid under the Establishment Clause when such instruction is given on the premises of sectarian schools by government employees under a program containing safeguards such as those present in New York City’s Title I program. Thus, Aguilar is no longer good law.

Reasoning:
The Court first found that Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure allowed the parties to bring this action to challenge the decision in Aguilar. After examining the rulings in Witters and Zobrest, in which a majority of the Justices expressed that the Aquilar decision should be overruled, the Court ruled that the decision in Aguilar was no longer good law. The Court rejected three presumptions it had previously relied on in deciding Establishment Clause cases:

permitting public employees to work with religious schools results in state-sponsored religion
permitting public employees to work with religious schools constitutes a symbolic union between church and state
government aid that enhances the educational function of religious schools violates the separation between church and state.

Significance:
The Court has altered its approach to Establishment Clause cases. The Court’s approach now seems to focus on the actual effect of government programs-not the potential effect. If programs actually result in state-sponsored religion, they still will violate the First Amendment. Programs that create only the possibility, apparently will not.