Mr. Katz demonstrated lack of skill in clearly communicating district plans to all stakeholders (Indiana Content Standards for Educators District Level Standard 4.2) by forging ahead with his program to emphasize one specific religion at each of the five elementary schools not housing special education students. Mr. Katz would be advised to revisit his school law textbook and notes before creating such a plan. A reminder of the definition of the Establishment Clause would have reminded him that a school may not place emphasis on any single religion. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (First Amendment, U.S. Constitution).
…show more content…
Katz, the Coordinator of Student Services Programs, would be so ignorant of the law, leading one to question if other areas of the law could potentially be violated should he continue in this role. It is neither appropriate nor financially feasible that another administrator be assigned to expurgate curriculum and programming that could potentially lead to legal problems for the school corporation. Mr. Katz does not possess the knowledge-base needed to fulfill the leadership responsibilities of his position, falling far short of Indiana Content Standard for District Level Educators 2.2, “planning, organizing, supervising, and supporting a rigorous district instructional program based on research-supported best practices regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment” (emphasis ours). It is incumbent upon educators to know the law as it relates to education.
When writing curriculum or designing programs related to religion, educators must be cognizant of several precedent-setting lower court decisions (Sergiovanni, et al, 2009, p. 309) in addition to Supreme Court decisions. The first case Mr. Katz should have known is Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing. Justice Black (1947) delivered the opinion of the Court, …show more content…
Student learning would be harmed, causing the schools to fail in their mission to educate all students to their highest academic potential. Further, it would not meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind legislation that serves to ensure that schools put “the common good and inclusiveness above the pursuit of individual success (Sergiovanni, et al., 2009, p. 219) and would fail to create a culture of inclusivity, described by Sergiovanni, et al. (2009) as being a “key purpose of education...to inculcate in the young traditional social and democratic values such as equity, justice, the value of hard work, and tolerance” (p.
Katz, the Coordinator of Student Services Programs, would be so ignorant of the law, leading one to question if other areas of the law could potentially be violated should he continue in this role. It is neither appropriate nor financially feasible that another administrator be assigned to expurgate curriculum and programming that could potentially lead to legal problems for the school corporation. Mr. Katz does not possess the knowledge-base needed to fulfill the leadership responsibilities of his position, falling far short of Indiana Content Standard for District Level Educators 2.2, “planning, organizing, supervising, and supporting a rigorous district instructional program based on research-supported best practices regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessment” (emphasis ours). It is incumbent upon educators to know the law as it relates to education.
When writing curriculum or designing programs related to religion, educators must be cognizant of several precedent-setting lower court decisions (Sergiovanni, et al, 2009, p. 309) in addition to Supreme Court decisions. The first case Mr. Katz should have known is Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing. Justice Black (1947) delivered the opinion of the Court, …show more content…
Student learning would be harmed, causing the schools to fail in their mission to educate all students to their highest academic potential. Further, it would not meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind legislation that serves to ensure that schools put “the common good and inclusiveness above the pursuit of individual success (Sergiovanni, et al., 2009, p. 219) and would fail to create a culture of inclusivity, described by Sergiovanni, et al. (2009) as being a “key purpose of education...to inculcate in the young traditional social and democratic values such as equity, justice, the value of hard work, and tolerance” (p.