Aid+to+Parochial+Schools


 * __SECTION IX: AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS __**


 * __LINKS TO SPECIFIC TOPICS__: **
 * ** 1. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS** ||


 * 1. ** **__RELIGION: AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS: __**


 * United State Supreme Court: **
 * Court held that “it was an unconstitutional establishment of religion for public school teachers to provide remedial classes in religious schools” that were federally funded by Title I (Essex, 2012, p. 25). Therefore “school districts purchased mobile classrooms and leased land” in order to provide these services to the parochial students (Essex, 2012, p. 25).
 * //Aguilar v. Felton//, 473 U.S. 402 (1995)
 * Court “revised its previous decision in Aguilar by ruling that the Constitution does not prohibit Title I from servicing eligible religious school students on their premises” (Essex, 2012, p. 25). Therefore “the church – state barriers to Title I services no longer exist as these services can be provided to parochial students without offending church – state constitutional prohibitions” (Essex, 2012, p. 25).
 * //Agostini v. Felton //, 473 U.S. 402, 105 S.Ct. 3232, 87 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1995)
 * Deemed that “school districts loan of federally-funded educational materials such as computers and other instructional equipment to parochial schools does not violate the Establishment Clause” (New York School Boards Association [NYSSBA], 2010, p. 770, School Law § 36:38; Essex, 2012, p. 26).
 * //Mitchell v. Helms//, 530 U.S. 793 (2000)
 * Held that “a law providing a state subsidy for nonpublic-school teachers’ salaries is unconstitutional, even when the funds are paid only to teachers of secular subjects” (Essex, 2012, p. 26). In this consolidated case from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, appellant citizens and taxpayers had challenged state statutes that provided aid to church-related elementary and secondary schools as a violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Essex, 2012, p. 26).
 * //Lemon v. Kurtzman // & //Early v. Dicenso//, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ruling “referenced the famous //Lemon// Test in deciding on the constitutionality of certain practices involving public and parochial schools” (Essex, 2012, p. 26). “Based on the //Lemon// standards, it was determined that a law must meet the following criteria to be legally valid regarding religion: it must have a secular purpose, it must neither advance nor inhibit religion, it must not create excessive entanglement” (Essex, 2012, p. 26).
 * //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Lemon v. Kurtzman //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)