Having read the article of Feinberg and Layton, I acknowledge that there are several happenings and facts that I have found crucial in the understanding of the information. One uncovered fact is that teaching the Bible in school cannot be taken as an easy task because of the various challenges postulated in this article. The first instance to be aware of is that classes cannot be made up of individuals of the same social or religious setups. They tend to differ in so many ways; thus, a teacher needs to understand these facts to enable a better comprehension of the content being delivered. A student can form an opinion based on what the teacher presents in class. At times because the teacher might want to stick to the legal framework, which gives the guidelines for what may and what may not be taught regarding religion in the public school, it might not be helpful for real classroom presentations.
It is also depicted that a teacher must not force a student to subscribe to a particular religion or make the specific student feel that they are outcasts in that class (Feinberg and Layton 1284). The student has the freedom that ought to be respected and not to be judged or taken advantage of. Therefore, it is sometimes complicated for teachers to deliver lessons in Bible History because of the fear that the teacher might say something that might end up offending the student or a student’s parent, which will discourage them from attending the class (Feinberg and Layton 1285). This anxiety cuts across the entire teaching fraternity. Indeed it is difficult to maintain an ideal classroom whereby a teacher will strive not to offend the learner as a teacher will struggle with keeping the discussion on a tight leash but finally fails. Furthermore, most of the Bible stories are subject to debate, and one might want a scientific proof or explanation which the teacher could not avail.
Another significant insight is that I find the principles of educational legitimacy fundamental in understanding how teachers ought to successfully carry out themselves in a class environment (Feinberg and Layton 1291). The first one is respect, which entails that teachers should be accommodative of their students’ ideas and beliefs. They should be willing to give the students reasonable consideration even if they do not agree with them. They should not take advantage of their higher authority to undermine or manipulate the students (Feinberg and Layton, p.1292). Also, teachers should take care of their students’ emotional and intellectual well-being, which may entail several adjustments; thus, this will facilitate smooth learning.
Furthermore, I found inclusiveness equally vital as it entails respecting communities of belief and nonbelief beyond those represented in the school or community (Feinberg and Layton, p.1294). For instance, a teacher that explicitly informs students that Christ now supersedes Hebrew law will have been deemed often violating this principle; thus, this will be an obstacle to learning because of the bias. Moreover, the fact that academic integrity requires teachers to present a subject in a manner consistent with the findings of disciplinary standards, and systematic inquiry was significant. It covers how the information should be constructed and transferred to students (Feinberg and Layton 1302). Generally, it was important to learn that in the long rand, educational legitimacy requires that teachers of religion and the Bible maintain professional standards and respect student’s autonomy as independent decision-makers. On the same note, flexibility is essential has it forms the basis for dialogue and reflection that can lead to modification and adaptation. This is important because the concepts of educational legitimacy seek to prevent educational harm and not necessarily advance the best educational good.
Works cited
Feinberg, Walter, and Richard A. Layton. “Teaching Bible in Public High Schools.” American Educational Research Journal, vol. 50, no. 6, 2013, pp. 1279-1307.