Running Head: RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION CASE ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE

Religious Expression Case Analysis and Rationale

Michelle A. Kuby

Grand Canyon University: EAD-505

October 14, 2020

1
RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION CASE ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE
In the case of The Bible and Ms. Wright, a committee at Laurel Palm Middle School

proposes new course ideas to the school board as a way to enhance the curriculum each year.

This year, members on the school site committee came up with the idea of a religious studies

course. Ms. Beckel, one of the parents on the committee had heard of other districts including

this and thought it was a good idea. Prior to presenting it to the school site committee, the idea

was discussed with Ms. Wright, who although does not have any children of her own, has been

consistently involved in supporting the school. Ms. Wright was upset with the idea of having the

Bible as one of the textbooks for this course and showed up alongside local media to protest the

new course.

There are several problems Ms. Avery, the principal, is face with. The first issue is the

community backlash. Unfortunately, not everyone in the community is going to agree with

introducing this particular course into the curriculum. Another issue that Ms. Avery is faced with

is making sure the staff remain objective while teaching this course as to not go against the

Establishment Clause. Additionally, Ms. Avery and the committee members need to uphold

their reputation as a National Distinguished School, and this backlash to the proposed course

tarnishes their reputation.

In 1963, School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp was presented

to the Supreme Court. In this case, the public school district was requiring students to read from

the Bible at the start of every day. The ruling was an 8-1 decision against the school district,

stating that public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings. This case relates to the issue of The

Bible and Ms. Wright because the public school is introducing the Bible as a text for students to

read. The difference between the 1963 case and the current case is that the Bible is being

introduced to the students as a textbook along with other religious material. In the case of The
2
RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION CASE ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE
Bible and Ms. Wright, the religious studies course is designed to educate the students on the

different religions, the different belief systems, and the different texts of worship. In this case,

there is not a single religion that is being imposed on the students. According to the

Establishment Clause, the government cannot favor one religion over another. “Public schools

may include study of religious texts such as the Bible or Quran as part of classes that explore

topics like comparative religion, literature, history, music and culture.” [ CITATION Liz18 \l

1033 ] In the case of The Bible and Ms. Wright, the curriculum includes all religions and does

not promote one as being superior to others, which is why it does not violate the Establishment

Clause.

Although I am not familiar with the district policies for Laurel Palm Middle School, I do

know that including this course into the curriculum promotes social justice and diversity by

allowing the students to form their own opinions of each religion and is inclusive to everyone.

As long as the instructor is teaching each religion unbiasedly, I do not see how this would go

against a district policy.

As the Principal of the school, there are a few options that Ms. Avery has. One solution is

to not include the religious studies course into the new curriculum at all. Although the school

would appease the upset community members, by selecting this option you are essentially

admitting that there is a constitutional infringement with the religious studies course. This option

also fails to satisfy the mission of providing the students with a well-rounded education and

preparing them for higher education. Another option is for the school to ignore the concerns of

the community members and proceed with the course introduction this school year. This is not a

viable option, however, because it does not validate the opinions of the community. The third

option, and the option that I would implement, is to postpone the introduction of the religious
3
RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION CASE ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE
studies course for one year and use that time to create a plan of action. This plan of action will

need to include a subcommittee made up the stakeholders and community members alike. The

stakeholders in this case are students, parents, the school district, teachers and administration.

The subcommittee for the religious studies course would have one school year to create

this course and any other materials needed to prove that this course does not violate the

separation of church and state issue being presented. The subcommittee will have open meetings

once every two weeks, or more frequently if needed, to create the curriculum. These open

meetings will allow concerns from anyone to be brought up and dealt with.

Overall, I believe that introducing the religious studies course into the curriculum is a

great idea. It matches the high expectations of the school in which it is a new and interesting

curriculum. Unfortunately, the situation was handled poorly, and Ms. Avery should have been

warned of the concerns prior to the board meeting. This would have provided her ample time to

create a plan of action on how to respond to the local media and Ms. Wright. By postponing the

new course one year and allowing a group of individuals to come together, Ms. Avery and the

school district are satisfying all groups.

4
RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION CASE ANALYSIS AND RATIONALE
Reference:

Hayes, L. (2018, September 10). Know your rights: Church-State separation in public schools.

Retrieved from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/know-your-rights-church-state-separation-

in-public-schools

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp. (1963). Oyez. Retrieved from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/142