← Back to national Map

WASHINGTON

Washington

Washington, like many other states, does not have specific laws regarding Released Time. As a result, a Released Time program in Washington would need to obtain permission from the local school board for students to participate in the program.

It would also need to ensure compliance with the court approved guideposts for Released Time programs. These include:

1) The school cannot fund the Released Time program, other than de minimis administrative costs (such as the costs of a school board approving a local Released Time policy).

2) Released Time programs cannot take place on school premises; and

3) Student participation in Released Time programs must be voluntary. There cannot be any coercion on the part of any school official.

However, these three points are not exclusive. One should conduct thorough research on the latest state and federal laws and court decisions to determine if there are any updated guidelines for a Released Time program to follow.

Keep in mind that school officials are not required to approve a program. An organization that wishes to start a new program should determine who in the school district can authorize a program and make an appointment to see that person. If the principal refers the organization to the school board, it would be wise to meet individually with school board members before presenting the concept at a meeting of the whole board.

General Information

Wash. Rev. Code § 28a.225.010(e)

There is no express statute either prohibiting or permitting public school students to be released for religious instruction. A child, however, may be excused upon the request of his parents “for purposes agreed upon by the school authorities and the parents”. These purposes may include religious purposes according to Perry v. School District, No. 81 (see below).

Statutes

Wash. Admin. Code 392-134-020

This regulatory code gives specific provisions regarding educational programs to part-time public-school students. These provisions include that transportation between public school and private school should not be provided for at the expense of the public school district.

Regulations

1925-1926 Wash. Op. Atty. Gen., No. 109

The District Superintendent has the authority to excuse children from attendance for reason, which he deems sufficient.

1921-1922 Wash. Op. Atty. Gen., No. 196

Children attending public schools have the right to be excused during regular school hours for instruction in church schools (for which no credit is given).

1964 Wash. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 111

“A child has a right to attend public schools in the district in which he resides for the full time that the school is in session; and while he has no absolute right to attend on a part-time basis, there is no constitutional or statutory barrier which would limit or prohibit a board of directors of a school district, if it so desires, from admitting to the public schools for regular instruction on a part-time basis students who otherwise attend a private or parochial school. Whether or not such a program would be feasible or practicable is a matter which must be decided by each board of directors.”

Attorney General

Perry v. School District No. 81, 344 P2d 1036 (1959)

The Supreme Court of Washington recognized Zorach v. Clauson, 343 US. 306, as the standard for determining the constitutionality of Released Time programs. Off-campus, released-time religious instruction with written parental consent and not exceeding one hour per week does not violate the Constitution.

The court concluded that the school superintendent has statutory discretion to excuse students from school for any sufficient reason. Releasing students upon the parent’s request for religious instruction constitutes an exercise of this statutory authority. Id. at 1043.

Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., 597 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010)

In Newdow, the 9th Circuit referenced Zorach v. Clauson, describing it as a case “in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education.” Id. At 1026.

Other court decisions by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have referenced Zorach in a similar manner. See e.g., Prince v. Jacoby, 303 F.3d 1074, 1099 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that Zorach upheld “release time program where religious classes were not held on school property and there was no indication that the public schools enforced attendance at religious schools by punishing absentees from the released time programs for truancy.” (internal quotations omitted)); Cammack v. Waihee, No. 87-15073, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 18115 at *38 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 1991) (stating that in Zorach, “the Court rejected an establishment clause challenge to a program whereby public schools released students for a limited time for off-campus religious instruction”); Collins v. Chandler Unified School Dist. 644 F.2d 759, 761 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating that in Zorach, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “releasing students to attend religious activities off school grounds [is] constitutionally valid”).

*The rulings of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are binding precedent in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Case Law