Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
536 U.S. 639 (2002)
by
         Samantha Gosnell

Facts of the Case

Home to more than 75,000 kids in Ohio, the Cleveland City School District quickly became one of the worst schools in the nation. None of the schools within the district were meeting any of the eighteen standards required by the state. According to case studies, only one tenth of the ninth graders passed state tests at the proficient level, two thirds of the high school students within the district dropped out or failed before their senior year, and one fourth of the remaining seniors failed and could not graduate. With the enactment of the Pilot Project Scholarship Program, the Ohio school district was put under state control to mend the “crisis of magnitude” within the district (Imber and Van Geel 54). Since the students within the district came from lower class minority families, families could not afford to send their students to schools other than the free public schools. Therefore, this new program, beginning with the 1996 to 1997 school year, was enacted in order to help the students of the school district to meet the standards of education set by the state of Ohio. Parents received two options from the newly enacted program. Their first option was to send their child to a private school within the district using a small amount of financial aid provided through the scholarship program. The amount of aid given to each family depended on family income. If the parents wanted to keep their child in the public school system, their second option provided through the new program was to hire a tutor. Once again the program would provide the money needed to hire this tutor depending on the family’s income. Since parents could choose to send their children to religiously affiliated private schools, the issue raised from the enactment of this scholarship program was whether or not the program violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Court Decision

In July 1999, Zelman and others filed action to the United States district court regarding the program’s violation of the Establishment Clause. The issue continued on to the court of appeals in December 2000. This court found that “the program had the ‘primary effect’ of advancing religion in the violation of the Establishment Clause” (Imber and Van Geel 55). The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the decision. The decision of the Supreme Court determined that “the Ohio program [was] entirely neutral with respect to religion” (Imber and Van Geel 58). Therefore, the newly enacted program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Reasons for Decision
           
The basis of the decision was that the newly enacted program did not violate the Establishment Clause because the intended purpose was to allow parents to choose the education of their children. The state simply provided money for the benefit of families in need. Although some of the money was used towards religious purposes, the intent of the government was not to aid in religious belief, but to aid in the education of their citizens. The use of money towards religious private schools occurred only through the interest of personal choice of the families in need.

Works Cited

Imber, Michael and Tyll Van Geel.  Education Law. 3rd Ed. Mahwah, New Jersey:        Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004.