Sheridan Road Baptist Church v. Department of Educ., Docket No. 69050

• Citation: 132 Mich.App. 1,348 N.W.2d 263
• Decision Date: 16 March 1984
• Docket Number: Docket No. 69050
• Parties: , 17 Ed. Law Rep. 626 SHERIDAN ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH, First Baptist Church Bridgeport, Reverend Gerald Somero, Reverend Rene B. Ouellette, William Swain and Sharon Swain, his wife, Ronald Munson and Janice Munson, his wife, and Mrs. Susanne Kwaitkowski, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and Superintendent of Public Instruction, Defendants- Appellants, and Michigan Education Association and Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights, Amici Curiae.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Page 263

348 N.W.2d 263

132 Mich.App. 1, 17 Ed. Law Rep. 626

SHERIDAN ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH, First Baptist Church Bridgeport, Reverend Gerald Somero, Reverend Rene B Ouellette, William Swain and Sharon Swain, his wife, Ronald Munson and Janice Munson, his wife, and Mrs. Susanne Kwaitkowski, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and Superintendent of Public Instruction, Defendants- Appellants and Michigan Education Association and Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights, Amici Curiae.

Docket No. 69050.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Oct. 7, 1983.

Decided Feb. 7, 1984.

Released for Publication March 16, 1984.

Ball & Skelly by William B. Ball and Philip J. Murren, Harrisburg, Pa., and Michael E. Thomas, Flint, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., and Gerald F. Young and Richard P. Gartner, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants-appellants.

Miller, Cohen, Martens & Sugarman, P.C. by Mark H. Cousens and Paul L. Kleinbaum, Detroit, for Michigan Federation of Teachers.

Steven F. McDowell, Milwaukee, Wis., and Jeffrey R. Portko, Grand Rapids, for Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Foster, Swift, Collins & Coey, P.C. by James A. White and William K. Fahey, Lansing, for Michigan Educ. Assn.

Before KELLY, P.J., and HOOD and SHEPHERD, JJ.

SHEPHERD, Judge.

Defendants appeal from the trial court's finding that state laws requiring certification of teachers in nonpublic schools, and mandating certain courses and curriculum standards in such schools, violate plaintiffs' right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, U.S. Const., Am. I, and its order enjoining enforcement of the same as to plaintiffs. In his written opinion, the trial judge also held that the teacher certification requirement and state supervision of parochial schools cause "excessive government entanglement with religion" in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, supra. We disagree and reverse.

The Legislature has placed supervision of nonpublic schools within the authority of "The superintendent of public instruction is hereby given supervision of all the private, denominational and parochial schools of this state in such matters and manner as is hereinafter provided. * * * It is the intent of this act that the sanitary conditions of such schools, the course of study therein, and the qualifications of the teachers thereof shall be of the same standard as provided by the general school laws of the state." M.C.L. Sec. 388.551; M.S.A. Sec. 15.1921.

the defendant superintendent of public instruction:

A person employed as a teacher in such a school is required to hold "a certificate such as would qualify him or her to teach in like grades of the public schools of the state". M.C.L. Sec. 388.553; M.S.A. Sec. 15.1923. Certification requirements are determined by the State Board of Education, M.C.L. Sec. 380.1531; M.S.A. Sec. 15.41531, and are set forth in 1979 AC, R 390.1101 et seq. An applicant for a teaching certificate must have completed "not less than 40 semester hours in a program of general or liberal education". R 390.1122(1), and must hold a bachelor's degree from a college or university approved by the State Board of Education. R 390.1125(1). Provision is made for certification of applicants who attended accredited institutions in other states. R 390.1130, 390.1154.

The compulsory education provision of the state School Code of 1976, M.C.L. Sec. 380.1561(3)(a); M.S.A. Sec. 15.41561(3)(a), reads in part as follows:

"A child shall not be required to attend the public schools in the following cases:

" * * * A child who is attending regularly and is being taught in a state approved nonpublic school, which teaches subjects comparable to those taught in the public schools to children of corresponding age and grade, as determined by the course of study for the public schools of the district within which the nonpublic school is located."

Local school boards are charged with determining the courses of study to be pursued in each school district. M.C.L. Sec. 380.1282; M.S.A. Sec. 15.41282. The only nonpublic school courses specifically mandated by the state are Federal and State Constitution and Government and high school Civics. M.C.L. Sec. 380.1166; M.S.A. Sec. 15.41166. The state's regulation of nonpublic school curricula consists of a simple review of the availability of various academic courses. The Department of Education has determined that plaintiffs' schools offer courses comparable to those of public schools. The curriculum review does not include an evaluation of teaching techniques or course content.

Nonpublic schools are required to submit records of enrollment, courses of study and teacher qualifications upon demand by the state. A school's failure to comply is "considered sufficient cause to suspend the operation of said school" following notice and a hearing before the state superintendent. M.C.L. Sec. 388.555; M.S.A. Sec. 15.1925, M.C.L. Sec. 388.554; M.S.A. Sec. 15.1924.

On December 8, 1980, plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging, inter alia, the following:

(1) The plaintiffs include a teacher, pastor, parents, and churches who adhere to a fundamentalist Christian faith;

(2) Plaintiffs have established two Christian schools for their children;

(3) The schools "are Christian enterprises which are conducted as an integral part of [plaintiffs'] religious mission";

(4) The schools "involve substantial religious activity and purpose" and do not divide instruction into religious and secular components and;

(5) The schools "employ teachers who are subject to the direction and discipline of religious authority which necessarily pervades the school".

It is further alleged that the defendant superintendent had instituted proceedings to determine if the schools' operation should be suspended for failure to meet statutory requirements and that plaintiffs had refused to comply for reasons of religious conviction, as compliance "would substantially Defendants filed an answer and counter-claim on February 17, 1981, seeking mandatory injunctive relief against plaintiffs' refusal to submit school records to the state. M.C.L. Sec. 388.555. A six-day nonjury trial was held.

limit and interfere with the religious mission of the churches". Plaintiffs claimed that imposition of the curriculum and certification requirements would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment by depriving them of the liberty to carry out their religious mission of Christian education, without a compelling state interest in the imposition of such requirements. They also [132 Mich.App. 8] claimed that "the requirements necessitate excessive entanglement between government and religion". Plaintiffs prayed for issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order forbidding enforcement of the requirements, as well as permanent injunctive relief. The trial court granted the temporary restraining order the same day but vacated it on December 22, 1980, upon an agreement by defendants to refrain from further administrative action against plaintiffs pending the court's final decision.

Both of the schools operated by plaintiffs offer a kindergarten through twelfth grade program. Each school offers courses in a wide variety of secular, academic subjects, including Civics, American Government, Mathematics, English and Science. The schools employ some teachers who have complied with the certification requirement and some who have not. The State Department of Education annually requests reports from nonpublic schools on enrollment and teacher qualifications but plaintiffs refused to submit such records to the state during the 1979-1980 academic year.

Plaintiffs believe that sovereignty is a religious concept under which only God, not the state, is supreme over man. They believe any attempt by the state to control or license their educational "ministry" is an infringement on their religious liberty. They also object to state control over their school curricula because, according to plaintiffs, it could force them to teach objectionable matter or interfere with religious teaching. They believe that reporting student enrollment to the state is synonymous with state control. While their religion does not prevent them from hiring certified teachers, it forbids them from consenting to the state's requirement that teachers in their schools be certified. Plaintiffs contend that the "humanistic" education courses which are requisite to obtaining certification conflict with their own biblical beliefs. In short, the plaintiffs are opposed to any effort by the state to dictate the qualifications of the teachers employed by, or courses taught in, their schools.

Plaintiffs called as witnesses two experts in the field of education, each of whom criticized teacher certification requirements as ineffective guarantors of adequate performance. One of these experts went so far as to state that certification actually produces mediocrity. Defendants' expert witness testified that, without certification, there would be no safeguard against incompetence but admitted lacking knowledge of any study showing a correlation between certification and teacher performance.

The trial judge found the religious beliefs of plaintiffs to be sincere and that the state regulations at issue interfered with the practice of those beliefs. He concluded that "[d]efendants have failed to show that teacher certification is a reasonable or effective means to carry out a legitimate state purpose". In addition, he held the curriculum standards invalid because they do not ensure uniformity in educational quality in the state but "merely [require] that nonpublic schools be as good as, or as bad as, the public schools in the district". The trial judge noted the interest of local school districts "in maintaining enrollment in the public schools since each...