Board debate grows heated over proposed change to release-time policy for religious instruction
Loading...
Summary
The board spent extended time debating a proposed revision to policy 6300.03 that would change the language from "instruction" to "observance" for student release time; one board member objected that the change broadened the policy and raised attendance implications, and the chair moved to end the discussion after repeated exchanges.
The Pewaukee School District Board of Education engaged in a prolonged and sometimes contentious discussion over proposed changes to policy 6300.03, governing release time for students to receive religious instruction outside school.
Administration presented language intended to align the district policy with state law and read the proposed wording into the record: "Students may be excused from class for religious observance when requested in advance by a parent or guardian per Wisconsin statute 118.155. Such release will be limited to the time reasonably necessary up to 180 minutes per week and recorded as an excused absence," a presenter read aloud.
Board member Mary objected repeatedly to substituting the word "observance" for the statute's language "instruction," saying the change broadened the policy and could be used to excuse students during class time: "The statute says release for religious instruction. The statute does not say observance," she said. Mary urged administration and the committee to explain why the wording had been altered.
Administrators said the wording was proposed after routine policy review to reflect statute and legal guidance and that examples discussed earlier (students leaving class briefly to pray on campus) were not the reason for the policy change. "This policy pertains to instruction outside of the school," an administrator told the board; he said the administration reviews statutes, case law and legal advice when proposing language and invited board members to recommend changes.
The exchange grew fractious as Mary repeated her objections and asked why the change was made; other board members characterized the debate as a repeated circular conversation that had already occurred in policy committee meetings. The chair moved to end debate and call the vote to close the discussion; the motion passed. After the vote to close, members resumed the meeting on other agenda items.
No final board action to adopt the revised policy was recorded at the meeting; the change remained subject to future board action and possible word adjustments based on board direction.
The debate highlighted tension between administrative recommendations framed as statute alignment and some board members27 concerns about local practice and the effect on attendance accounting.
