Since the drafting of the Establishment Clause, a pronouncement contained within the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has debated how to interpret the meaning of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court took its first action in an Establishment Clause case concerning funding for parochial school students that set a course that has been marked by confusion in the Court, inconsistent decision-making, and ultimately the creation of a policy of accommodation that provides opportunities for parochial school students to receive public financial assistance, including tuition reimbursement for their attendance at parochial schools. This study tracks the history of Establishment Clause jurisprudence with a research emphasis from Everson v. Board of Education (1947) to Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) and illustrates how the philosophy of the United States Supreme Court has changed over time. Further context of the shift is provided with a discussion of the Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) decision that served as an effective court-interpreted barrier to the use of public resources and funds for parochial schools for several years. Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have eroded gradually the barrier, coined the Wall of Separation between Church and State by Thomas Jefferson, culminating currently with Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002). The purpose of the study is to analyze the aforementioned shift in the context of public funding flowing for private church schools. It became clear through this study that the decision in Everson v. Board of Education was the decision which led to a history of conflict and confusion in the Court which set off a chain of events that ultimately led to public funding for parochial schools where allowable by State Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that public funding for a sectarian school is allowable so long as the funding is neutral and at the personal discretion of the parents receiving it as opposed to directly supporting a sectarian school. / Ed. D.

The issue of religion and its place in society has been a topic of controversy and debate since long before the creation of our constitutional republic. The relationship between religion and government has witnessed some of its most intense conflicts when the governmental entity in question involves public education. As our country moved into the 20th century, legal challenges in the field of public education began to emerge calling into question the constitutionality of various policies and practices at both the state and local levels. This dissertation examined the legal methodology that was initially developed and then subsequently modified as the judicial branch has interpreted how the Establishment Clause delineates the relationship between religion and public education. Because the United States Supreme Court has not overturned its decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the tri-partite test it established still remains the law of the land. Subsequent decisions by the Court leading up to their ruling in Mitchell v. Helms, however, have continued to modify the judiciary's approach toward the use of the Lemon test in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. This research analyzed the decisions of the various federal courts subsequent to the ruling issued in Mitchell to discern both the present position of the federal judiciary as it relates to the continued validity of Lemon and theorizes how the future course of any Establishment Clause legal challenges may ultimately be resolved by the federal courts. The analysis suggested that, while the Supreme Court has avoided Lemon's three-part test as the standard for evaluating Establishment Clause claims, the lower courts continue to place a strong emphasis on the importance of the test established in Lemon as the basis for how they render their decisions with issues that involve public education. This data indicated that Lemon continues to be an important tool for determining the validity of state programs and policies involving federal questions related to the Establishment Clause.