What's So Hard About Inclusion?

The numerous examples within Dr. Chancey's writing of biblical studies in current public school curriculum leave little doubt in my mind that what's being taught is always biased, and frequently unabashedly so. What I wonder is why, if the Bible needs to come into the classroom, it can't be accompanied by other religious texts such as the Qur'an and Talmud/Torah. I understand the argument that religion plays an important social role, and studying religion is absolutely viable for public schools, but to specifically study the Bible shows inherent bias. In order for a public school to talk about religion, namely the Bible, I think the rule should be that other religions are examined with equal thoroughness and from an academic standpoint. Instead of masquerading Bible classes as English or Social Studies, public schools could, much like higher education, offer religion courses that examined religious claims from a non-theological standpoint. The inclusion of specifically Christian theological beliefs in public schooling is, to me, shockingly wrong.

Why hasn't this solution been accepted by school districts? To me, the obvious solution to one group demanding their scripture be involved in schooling is to offer a course where multiple scriptures are involved and viewed impartially. Chancey notes that in school districts with educators who have more education in religion tend to have less biased curriculum, but they're still only speaking about one scripture, one religion, so even these educated attempts are biased essentially. If the Bible needs to be in schools, then so do other religious scriptures, plain and simple.