This is unfortunate, but fortunately actionable. For more, go here and here.
This is, most likely, overzealous avoidance of any whiff of endorsement, which is an unfortunate byproduct of the the "subjectivism" encouraged by Sandra Day O’Connor’s First Amendment jurisprudence. When my son was in first grade, his teacher tried to persuade him that on his Thanksgiving poster (to be displayed in the hallway), he shouldn’t say that he was thankful for his church. I almost went nuclear (since "private" religious expression in response to an assignment is clearly permissible), but the teacher was sensible enough to consult the principal and the principal actually was at least vaguely familiar with U.S. Department of Education guidelines.
I don’t see the ADF losing this case, though it is sad that they even have to litigate.
When I was a little girl in the first grade, Madelyn Murray O’Hare was in the forefront of the "separation" of God & government. I was learning how to write sentences. I wrote "I love Jesus." My teacher marked it as an error and sent it home with me to "correct." My mother called the school, wrote to the teacher & principal and was told that I would only receive a perfect grade if I changed the word "Jesus" to anything or anyone else. My mom firmly stated that I should be allowed to write that sentence, as I was only 7 years old. She was told that the school could not allow it because of the concern of separation of church & state. I didn’t know anything about that, I just knew that I loved Jesus and didn’t understand why people were mad at me for writing it.
It’s a sad thing if we can tell our children "You can say anything you want" because of our freedom of speech, and yet, they will learn that freedom of speech really only applies to what is deemed "politically correct" or "open-minded" or "non-offensive" by other people without any real definition or delineation...
Perhaps someone should send the Frenchtown school board a copy of the First Amendment. I am quite certain that it prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." What part of this easily-understood sentence do these people not comprehend?