A new state law calling for school systems to provide its students at least one hour of “released time” per week for off-campus religious instruction does not authorize school leaders to establish, operate or sponsor on-campus chapels.That word came from the office of Sen. Brent Jackson, R-Sampson, whose researchers provided answers to questions centered around a Monday Clinton City Board of Education meeting where one of its board members floated the idea of chapels on the five city campuses.
“The provision does not authorize a public school or school system to establish, operate or sponsor a chapel or religious instruction program,” noted Jackson’s research assistant Wadeyn Norris earlier this week.
“In fact,” he continued, “it generally prohibits released time instruction from occurring on school property.”
Those remarks fly in the face of a social media post Clinton City Board of Education member Clark Hales shared in attempts to contradict a Wednesday story in The Sampson Independent detailing an idea he offered at the Monday board meeting calling for those chapels.
“What the newspaper didn’t tell you is my idea of an “on campus” chapel would follow those rules. It would obviously be completely voluntary for the child. Same as a club or sport. We can’t mandate they attend…”
But according to Norris, Hales’ interpretation of the law, unveiled at the Monday meeting by superintendent Dr. Wesley Johnson, is incorrect.
“The only exception is when a private entity is permitted to use school facilities under a neutral facility-use policy. In that situation, the religious organization would have to be treated on the same terms as similarly situated private organizations. The instruction would remain privately offered and could not become a school-sponsored activity,” Norris noted in responding to questions about the law, which was placed in the overall 2026 Appropriations Act (Section 7.54) and approved by the General assembly a few weeks ago.
Any action a school system or school board would take to offer chapel on a campus in any other circumstance, in fact, would be a violation of the First Amendment, according to Norris.
“From a First Amendment standpoint, the distinction is between accommodating a student’s voluntary religious exercise and the public school itself promoting or conducting religious instruction. A school-sponsored chapel or religious program would be a different matter and is not authorized by this provision.”
And despite Hales’ social media post to the contrary, in the Monday meeting he said he wouldn’t be afraid for the system to break the law for his chapel idea.
“We, as a board, agreed to break the law to start school early and end early, so I wouldn’t be afraid to do it for this,” he said, talking about both the chapel idea and the system’s decision to start and end school earlier than the state Department of Public Instruction’s calendar calls for.
He even, later in the meeting, stressed that the school system pays its attorney and her firm and “they can fight the fight for us if someone says we’re doing something wrong.”
Hales pitched the chapel idea to board members Monday as a means of combating at least one reason he believes parents are sending their children to private schools and as a substitute for the one to four hours of release time the state is mandating school systems provide students for religious purposes.
“…each of us, we (board members)…bring different things to the board table; we obviously have a minister on the board now, we just had one …the churches of Clinton serve our district in numerous differing ways, have a direct partnership, that kinda, sorta, indirectly do this. Not verbatim but in some form or fashion. Why not use it to our advantage?” Hales queried.
It was around that point that John Lowe, executive director of Technology & Auxiliary Services for the city system and a member of its administrative cabinet, urged Hales to “be careful,” reminding him and the board that such a move would go against state and federal law, and pointing to the fact that the school system would be paying for the facility and its utilities if a chapel were on campus.
“If it’s in our building, we are expending local funds for the utilities and site maintenance,” Lowe said as explanation for why chapels couldn’t be held on school property.
Hales noted that holding chapel would not cause additional costs for the district.
He further reiterated that point in his social media post, made, he noted, to “provide the actual context and truth about the discussion.”
“The district wouldn’t have a penny in this chapel,” he posted. “The paper quoted me as saying the district pays the bills anyway. What I actually said was we pay the light and water bill every day whether there are kids in the building or not.”
Section 115C-407.45, 4 and 5, specifically note: 4.”The public school unit shall prohibit all schools from expending state or local funds, excluding any de minimis costs of administering the policy adopted pursuant to the subsection, to facilitate a student attending released time religious instruction; and 5. “The public school unit shall prohibit any private entity from offering released time religious instruction on school property unless otherwise permitted by a neutral facility use policy.”
According to Norris, the provisions in the state law, require that a parent or guardian provide written consent, arrange transportation, document the student’s attendance and ensure the student makes up any missed schoolwork should they take the one to four hours of excused time during any given week.
In most cases, those ask, always point to the “off-campus” wording in the state law, noting its intent is to allow students time away from school to engage in religious instruction.
A video recording of Monday’s Clinton City Board of Education meeting can be heard on the system’s YouTube channel.