When Did They Stop The Pledge Of Allegiance In Schools? – An Education Reform Expert‘s Perspective

The Pledge of Allegiance has been a ritual in American public schools for over a century, with generations of students reciting the patriotic oath. But the daily pledge has also sparked debate. While the Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that students can‘t be forced to recite it, controversy continues today over whether schools should drop the pledge entirely.

As an education reform expert, I‘m often asked – when did schools actually stop reciting the pledge on a regular basis? The short answer is the trend of eliminating the daily pledge gained momentum starting in the early 2000s. However, it remains a complex issue tied up in broader disagreements over civic values. In this comprehensive article, I‘ll use my background to explore the full history and illuminating data around the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.

Tracing the Origins of the Pledge

To understand the pledge debate, it helps to start at the beginning. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a former Baptist minister. Bellamy was a Christian socialist who wanted to instill national unity and patriotism through a common oath of loyalty, especially aimed at schoolchildren.

Here is some insightful background on Bellamy:

  • He was a writer hired by a popular youth magazine called The Youth‘s Companion.

  • In 1892 they launched a campaign to promote the new Columbus Day holiday through schools.

  • Bellamy saw this as an opportunity to spread his pledge idea. His original text read:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

After initially publishing Bellamy‘s pledge, the magazine The Youth‘s Companion worked hard to promote its nationwide recital in schools. But they weren‘t alone in this mission.

The Role of the DAR and Other Groups in Spreading the Pledge

In the decades after 1892, advocacy groups like the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) championed daily recitals of Bellamy‘s Pledge of Allegiance in schools across the country:

  • Founded in 1890, the DAR believed ritual flag salutes and pledges would install patriotism in students.

  • They published materials encouraging schools to have students recite the pledge each morning.

  • By the 1920s, many schools adopted this ritual thanks to pressure from the DAR and aligned groups.

Reciting the pledge was seen as an important demonstration of loyalty and "Americanization." But it still wasn‘t an officially recognized practice – yet.

Legal Status and Changes to the Pledge

Despite the pledge‘s rise in popularity, it was not sanctioned by the government until 1942. Here‘s some key historical context:

  • In 1942, during WWII nationalism, Congress passed a flag code formally endorsing pledge recitals in schools.

  • This made the pledge an unofficial "national oath," although still voluntary for students.

  • In 1954, the words "under God" were added to the pledge at the urging of groups like the Knights of Columbus. Some saw this as violating church-state separation.

The addition of "under God" would prove controversial. But first, a landmark Supreme Court case would make clear that students cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The 1943 Barnette Supreme Court Case

The status of the pledge was forever changed when the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) that schools could not compel students to recite the pledge or salute the flag.

  • The case was brought by Jehovah‘s Witnesses students who objected due to their pacifist beliefs.

  • In a 6-3 ruling, the Court stated this violated freedom of speech and religion under the 1st Amendment.

  • This made the pledge voluntary and prohibited schools from punishing non-participating students.

Despite the Barnette decision, many public schools continued routine recitals of the pledge each morning. But starting in the 2000s, concerns over the words "under God" would ignite legal battles and give schools reason to rethink daily pledges.

Legal Challenges Targeting "Under God"

In 2004, the debate escalated when a federal appeals court ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God" inserted in 1954.

  • The lawsuit, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, was brought by an atheist parent.

  • He argued that the pledge violated church-state separation and coerced his daughter into worshipping monotheism.

The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which avoided a major First Amendment ruling. Nonetheless, these types of lawsuits raised serious doubts about the legality of daily school pledges.

Additional data around legal challenges:

  • From 2004 to 2010, around 20 states passed laws protecting recitals of the pledge from lawsuits.

  • According to the First Amendment Center, 25% of Americans believe "under God" violates church-state separation.

This legal context helps explain why some school districts became proactive about dropping routine pledge recitals in the 2000s and beyond.

The Decision to Eliminate the Pledge – A Recent Trend

Based on my expertise in education policy, here is a detailed look at the trend of schools deciding to stop daily recitals of the pledge after the year 2000:

  • This shift gained initial momentum in more politically progressive districts, aiming to be more inclusive of diverse students.

  • For example, schools in California, New York, and Massachusetts were early adopters.

  • But it spread beyond left-leaning areas as educators reevaluated whether the pledge ritual was necessary or beneficial.

  • A 2015 Washington Post investigation found scattered districts in at least 18 states had opted to drop or reduce pledge recitals.

  • For context, research from 2017 found about 76% of U.S. public schools still include daily recitation of the pledge.

So while the trend is not yet ubiquitous, it signifies growing skepticism among school leaders nationwide. Their rationales typically fall into two categories.

Rationale #1: Creating an Inclusive Environment

Many districts point to a desire for diversity and inclusion as the reason for stopping pledge recitals:

  • They believe daily nationalistic rituals can marginalize some students based on religion, race, or national origin.

  • Eliminating the pledge aims to make all students feel welcomed, not pressured into patriotism.

  • For example, California passed a law in 2014 making reciting the pledge optional due to concerns over environment.

Rationale #2: Avoiding Legal Issues

Other districts are motivated by avoiding potential lawsuits and staying neutral on religious belief:

  • With legal uncertainty around "under God," schools want to steer clear of controversy.

  • Making pledges voluntary reduces conflict over First Amendment rights.

  • It keeps schools secular and accommodating of all faiths or non-faiths.

Regardless of the rationale, school leaders eliminating pledge recitals cite their discretion to set policies. But sharp disagreement remains on this trend.

The Ongoing Controversy and Passionate Debate

Eliminating the pledge has sparked heated debate across communities nationwide. Here are some primary arguments from both sides:

Arguments in Favor:

  • The pledge‘s history is discriminatory against minorities and non-Christians.

  • Daily rituals pressure students into patriotism and conformity.

  • Schools should focus on academics, not politics or nationalism.

  • It‘s unnecessary and time-consuming to recite the pledge daily.

Arguments Against:

  • The pledge upholds valuable traditions and teaches American civics.

  • It encourages unity, pride, and respect for the rights granted by the nation.

  • Students have a free choice whether or not to participate.

  • Alternatives like observing a moment of silence are inadequate replacements.

This issue stirs emotion because it‘s fundamentally about identity and values. As an education reformer, I believe communities must have open and respectful dialogue to find common ground. Through compromise and inclusion, they can determine pledge policies that align with local priorities.

Conclusion – The Pledge Question Reflects Larger Shifts

In public schools today, the status of the Pledge of Allegiance varies district by district. Some uphold a daily recital, others have reduced its frequency, and some have opted to eliminate it. While controversial, this trend reflects broader debates over civic life and the future of education.

Issues like patriotism, religious freedom, diversity, and the purpose of schools are all encapsulated in this one ritual. Its evolution and occasional elimination reveal shifting priorities – both praiseworthy and alarming. As an education reformer, I encourage schools to approach this issue thoughtfully, centering student needs above politics or tradition.

Through local control, inclusive dialogue, and staying true to foundational constitutional freedoms, communities can determine for themselves how the pledge fits into public school life – or doesn‘t. Its history is complex, but the future remains unwritten.

Similar Posts