Considering that there is a mention of teaching a form of ID in Social Studies class(on a recent article of the Dover newpaper), I'd say you are mistaken.
I believe that may have been before this decision came down. Considering how incredibly broad the Establishment Clause was taken with this ruling, I'd have to conclude that any criticism of the scientific basis for the TOE by any teacher in any classs would be considered an Establishment of Religion.
All the policy did here was to mention that ID may be a viable alternative to the TOE. Thus, it can be deduced that any attempt by any school official to endorse or encourage the study of ID would have to be considered verbotten.
For instance, if, instead of reading the offending statement regarding ID in science class, the school board stated that it must now be announced over the loudspeaker during lunch to the general student population, do you think that would pass muster with this judge? Or if the statement were now required to be prominently placed in the school newspaper or displayed on the classroom bulletin boards, do you think that the ACLU would not be dragging this school district back before this judge and requesting that they be held in conempt?
If so, then you are naieve. This case was an all out assault on the first amendment in an attempt to interpret the establishment clause so broadly as to muzzle every teacher from giving his or her opinion questioning the scientific validity or the factual basis for the TOE.
It is amazing to me that the TOE is such a fragile theory that its propoenents would make a federal case over the reading of that sentence one time during a school year. Apparently the Theory itself must be built upon a foundation of quicksand, otherwise I cannot imagine that anyone could possibly care one whit that the district instituted this policy.