For somebody writing an article based on Constitutional law, you display a shockingly limited grasp of understanding its basic tenets.
There are many interpretations as to the correct approach for reading the Constitution. Here is a review of the most common approaches.
A “strict constructionist” looks only at the exact text. He would say that the First Amendment restricts Congress from establishing religion. Congress being the Federal government. However, the federal government has little, if any, say in education. That is handled at the State level. Thus, a strict constuctionist would say that in theory, all 50 States could pass laws directing their schools to pray to any and all of Jesus, Allah, Ganesh, Budda, Stephen Hawking, Science or some giant monkey on a mountain and there is nothing that the Supreme Court or anybody can do about it.
An originalist would examine the original intent of the drafters. Given that Thomas Jefferson referenced a “Creator” in the Declaration Of Independence as granting inalienable rights, it is hard to believe that the intent of the Bill of Rights drafted merely a dozen years later was to say “shame on you Jefferson, you referenced G-d in a State document”. So clearly, your reading does not jive with that approach either.
You seem to latch onto a “Precedent” perspective, through your reference of the dicta “separation of Church and State”, which was first used by the Court in Reynolds v. US (1879). However, precedent clearly states that the First Amendment is NOT violated by the State referencing a Creator or belief in G-d, but by promoting a specific religion. Thus, State agencies decorate for Christmas and do not run afoul of the First Amendment, because they put up a menorah and whatever Kwanzans salute toward. Thereby, the State is not promoting “religion X”. The SCOTUS has routinely held this to be legal. So again, when you claim that G-d is prohibited altogether from the classroom, you are swimming on dry land.
Those who “view the Constitution as a living document” and are realists, would say that atheism has taken the role of worshipping science with no less blind conviction than any religion. Thus, prohibiting reference to G-d in school, would arguably be deemed as itself a violation of Church and State, by exclusively promoting the agenda of the devout followers of the burgeoning religion of science. In order to avoid this, we must include both science and religion in school. So again, no help there.
Finally, we have the “10th Grader Perspective” which is to read 2 pages worth of material on Constitutional law the night before the paper is due and then spout off as if you know something while misstating basic facts known by most college students. Usually, the student gets a failing grade. Yours, is no exception.