Rebecca Thompson 3/11/2019 1

Portfolio #6
Rebecca Thompson
CSN EDU 210
Rebecca Thompson 3/11/2019 2

Abstract

Due to her newly acquired religion, Karen White would no longer participate in certain

projects because they were against her beliefs. She was a kindergarten teacher and told the

parents of her students that she would no longer decorate the classroom for holidays, say the

pledge of allegiance, or sing happy birthday as a class to a student whose birthday it was. This

set off a fury in parents. She was putting her religious beliefs above the laws of the school. When

this was brought up by a parent to her principal, Bill Ward, he dismissed her from school. There

is a justifiable basis for Karen’s dismissal, and the courts would rule in favor of the school.

Karen White was released from the school she worked at due to her religious beliefs. She

decided that her own personal beliefs should determine how she runs the classroom. However,

she was putting herself before the best interest of her students. In the Court Case Engel v Vitale,

“The court ruled that ‘it is no part of the business of government to impose official prayers for

any group of American people’” (Underwood;Webb, 212). With this being said, school prayers

are not allowed unless it is a private school in which religion is taught. White worked at a public

school and had no right to stop certain activities in her classroom just because she had different

views religiously. This case relates back to the one with White because she was trying to impose

her own ways on her students by not allowing them to sing happy birthday and keeping them

from celebrating certain holidays. This can stand as a justifiable basis for her dismissal.

In a way, Karen White was displaying her religious beliefs upon her kindergarten class.

She did this by telling her students and their parents that she will not have her class participate in

certain activities or decorate for holidays due to her religious practice. The Court Case Stone v

Graham states “The Court focused on the intent of promoting a religious belief that had the

probable effect of endorsing religion” (Underwood;Webb, 215). Teachers are supposed to teach
Rebecca Thompson 3/11/2019 3

based on the states curriculum for their grade level or subject. The state or nation does not say

that teachers can teach their religion to students. This is exactly what White was doing even if

she didn’t mean to. She brought it up to her students of her religious beliefs and what sort of

things she can’t have go on in her class room due to them. This court case can relate back to

White in the sense that she was preaching her newly acquired religion to not only her students

but their parents as well, giving a strong defense for her dismissal.

Karen White wasn’t trying to tell her students that they should follow in her footsteps and

look into her religion. She also wasn’t trying to hide this from the parents. White told the parents

of her students that she would no longer participate in these activities due to her beliefs. That was

all. In the Court Case Wigg v, Sioux Falls Sch. Dist., a teacher wanted to join an after school

religious club meeting but was told no by her principal and she was not allowed to participate.

“The Court disagreed and found that because the club meeting was after school and Wigg was

participating as a private individual it was within her right to do so” (Underwood;Webb, 215).

This case relates back to Karen White because she wasn’t trying to push anything onto her

students for them to believe, she was just stating that she can’t do something because of her

religion. That is enough to give her a defense to fight back about her dismissal.

Karen White was not trying to replace her normal day to day class activities with

religious ones. She was eliminating the activities that interfered with her own beliefs. The Court

Case Epperson v. Arkansas states that the Supreme Court decided to “Strike down an Arkansas

law forbidding instruction in evolution” (Underwood;Webb, 219). This law made it okay for

schools to not study human evolution since the science of it goes against religious beliefs. This

was found to be unlawful because they were not exposing children to the science of it. Instead,

they were most likely pushing more religious beliefs their way. Even though this case is opposite
Rebecca Thompson 3/11/2019 4

from Whites, it relates back to hers because she didn’t do this. She never wanted her

kindergarteners to pursue her religion. All she wanted was to make it clear that she was taking

normal activities out of their learning, not giving the school district the defensible grounds to fire

her.

Bill Ward, the principal at the school that Karen White worked for, was the one who

decided to let her go. He did this because he thought it was what would be best for her students.

Her students deserved a teacher who cared about their learning and the, enjoying their time spent

in class. White cared more about her religious beliefs and let that show in the classroom where

she was not supposed to. She took away normal activities from the kids, she wouldn’t let them

sing happy birthday to one another or say the pledge of allegiance because they were against

what she believed in. Teachers are allowed to have their own personal opinions and beliefs.

However, they are not allowed to have them affect their way of teaching. This is exactly what

White did. The school district had every right to fire her for doing so and have the defensible

grounds to back them up.

References
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.