test developed by Justice O’Connor, which dispenses with the “entanglement” prong of the Lemon test and collapses its “purpose” and “effect” prongs into a single inquiry: would a reasonable, informed observer, i.e., one familiar with the history and context of private individuals’ access to the public money or property at issue, perceive the challenged government action as endorsing religion? See Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, - U.S. -, -, 122 S.Ct. 2460, 2468-69, 153 L.Ed.2d 604 (2002) (upholding school voucher program where 96% of participating students attended - religiously affiliated schools because parents’ genuine and independent choices determined where children went to school); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 117-19, 121 S.Ct. 2093, 150 L.Ed.2d 151 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v.
holding proper remedy when a christian student newspaper was denied student activities funds was to make funds available to the religious paper not to deny funds to nonreligious student groups holding that a university creates a public forum when it makes its facilities generally available to registered student groups holding that establishment clause did not require public school to bar evangelical christian student group from using facilities accessed by various other groups holding high school which allowed student secular noncurricular activities to meet on school property was required to provide equal access to a christian student group holding that the establishment clause does not bar local school district from providing a publiclyemployed interpreter for a deaf student in a parochial school