Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Religious Instruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Religious release‑time credit measure fails in committee after heated hearing and amendments (HB343)
Summary
House Bill 343, which would require districts to allow religious release time and permit local districts to award academic credit for qualifying release-time programs, failed in a 7–7 committee vote after extensive testimony both for and against and debate about Native American and constitutional concerns.
Get email alerts on the Religious Instruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Bill 343 would change state code to require school districts to allow religious release‑time programs (off school grounds, with parental consent) and to permit districts to adopt policies awarding academic credit for such programs provided secular evaluation criteria are met.
Representative Randon Gregg opened the bill and described the constitutional and historical background for release‑time programs. Proponents included community members, Lifewise Academy, the Montana Quality Education Coalition, Alliance Defending Freedom and the Montana Family Foundation; they argued release time is voluntary, parental choice is paramount, and credit can be awarded using secular criteria. Opponents and questioning from committee members raised concerns about local control, the appropriate role of the Board of Public Education in waivers and equivalencies, and how provision of credit might interact with accreditation and graduation requirements. Several senators specifically raised the need to ensure Native American history and culturally appropriate instruction would be included and to clarify whether the statutory language would force districts to adopt curriculum changes.
A conceptual amendment offered in committee to replace some 'shall' language with 'may' failed and, on a subsequent roll call, the committee voted 7–7. Under committee practice the tied vote resulted in the bill failing to be concurred in and effectively tabled. Committee discussion noted that districts currently have tools under board rules to grant equivalency and that some additional clarity could be provided by statutory or rule changes in a later process.
Because the issue touches both religious freedom and public‑school governance—and prompted questions about Indian Education for All and the state constitution—committee members urged careful drafting before any reintroduction.
