Alabama’s SB 248 is scheduled for March 31.
And this bill is not fooling anyone.
Current law says local school boards may implement released time religious instruction policies.
SB 248 adds language saying boards shall allow it.
But the revised text still leaves behind “may implement” language too.
So which is it?
Optional? Or mandatory?
That ambiguity is doing a lot of work. It lets supporters pretend this is still about “local control” while pushing Alabama toward stronger accommodation of released-time religious instruction during the public school day.
Write your representatives. Tell them they are not fooling anyone.
If they want to make RTRI mandatory in practice, they should say so plainly.
SB 248 is not fooling anyone.
Links:
Alabama Legislative Directory — contact information for Alabama lawmakers:
https://almonline.org/Assets/Files/Advocacy-Current-Session-Files/2026-Legislative-Directory-and-Issue-Guide_V2-Web.pdf
SB 248 bill text — official Alabama Legislature PDF:
https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/files/pdf/SearchableInstruments/2026RS/SB248-eng.pdf
What people are saying:
- Secular Education Association: Tagging for visibility
Facebook User
Facebook User
Facebook User
Facebook User
Facebook User
Facebook User
Facebook User - Secular Education Association: In other words; RTRI becomes mandatory by saying that districts SHALL ALLOW a parent to decide, but they MAY adopt a policy about it.. Which makes it mandatory but framed as a parental right, giving the illusion of choice by saying the schools “may” adopt a policy.
- Facebook User: Secular Education Association yup that’s what happened here in Ohio
- Facebook User: Even “may allow” is unconstitutional.
- Facebook User: Ohio has done this.🤬
Leave a Reply