SCHOOL DIST V. BALL and AGUILAR v. Felton (Felton 1) (not in casebook)

 These cases struck down programs providing secular instruction by public school teachers on the premises of religious schools. 

 Remedial courses in math and reading for educationally- and economically-disadvantaged children.

The Court held that the Lemon test was violated because of the risk of religious indoctrination and the symbolic link between the state and the religious schools.   

What do you think about these cases?

Why is it unconstitutional for public school teachers to teach educationally disadvantaged children remedial reading and math skills in private school classrooms?

Suppose the public schools use “mobile classrooms” located in the neigh­borhood of private schools to teach the same kinds of supplemental and remedial courses.

This would eliminate most of the Court’s concerns (perhaps you could still argue that these programs somehow “aid” or subsidize religious schools by freeing up resources, but I don’t think that is a winner).

 Should the location of the program be such an important factor? 

 Is this form over substance?

 

Ball (p.1830): “symbolic union between church and state;” and “any public employee who works on the premises of a religious school is presumed to inculcate religion in her work;”  “these programs constitute a state subsidy of religious indoctrination.” 

See also Aguilar:  Catch 22.  Entanglement.

If you don’t supervise teachers, fear of indoctrination. 

 If you do supervise teachers, excessive entanglement.