As good educational policy, school officials, whenever possible, should try to accommodate the requests of parents and students for excusal for religious reasons from specific classroom discussions or activities. In “A Parent’s Guide to Religion in the Public Schools,” the National PTA and the First Amendment Center give the following advice concerning excusal requests:

If focused on a specific discussion, assignment, or activity, such requests should be routinely granted to strike a balance between the student’s religious freedom and the school’s interest in providing a well-rounded education. If it is proved that particular lessons substantially burden a student’s free exercise of religion and if the school cannot prove a compelling interest in requiring attendance, some courts may require the school to excuse the student.

It is important for teachers and administrators to ask themselves the questions posed in the Sherbert test as they make decisions about how to accommodate excusal requests.

Let’s look at one example of how the Sherbert test might be used in a public school: If parents ask for their child to be excused from reading a particular book for religious reasons, the teacher and administrator should first ask if the request is based on a sincere religious belief. Note that the religious belief need not be rational or even sensible to the school official. It need only be sincere. When parents and students take the time to object to a particular reading or activity, they are usually sincere. Next, school officials must determine whether or not reading the assigned book would constitute a “substantial burden” on the student’s religious liberty rights. This is more difficult to determine, but if the parent and student find the book deeply offensive to their religious beliefs, then making the student read the book might place a substantial burden on her religious freedom. One federal appeals court has ruled that merely exposing students to ideas that contradict their religious beliefs does not constitute a substantial burden on religious exercise (Mozet v. Hawkins County, 6th Cir. 1985).

If a student can prove that the school has placed a substantial burden on her sincere exercise of religion, then the inquiry shifts to the school. First, the school must show that it has a “compelling state interest” — described by the Supreme Court as “an interest of the highest order” (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972). Clearly, public schools have a compelling interest in the education and welfare of children. In this instance, for example, the school clearly has a compelling interest in teaching the student to read. But the last part of the test requires that the school pursue that interest in a manner least restrictive of a complaining student’s religion. Thus the school may have an interest in teaching the student to read, but can that interest be accomplished without making the student read that particular book? In other words, the school should choose a course of action that does not violate the student’s religion if such a course of action is available and feasible for the school.

This may be easy to do if a student and parent object to a particular reading assignment on religious grounds. When this happens, the teacher may simply assign an alternate selection. If, however, requests for exemption become too frequent or too burdensome for the school, a court will probably find the school’s refusal to offer additional alternatives to be justified.