Obama's speech on education banned from schools

[kyleb]

I thought the speech was rather Conservative - didn't he even mention God at some point? What will the Liberals have to say about that?

Er, only the belligerently atheist would have any reason to take issue with the mere mention of God, and they are but a small fraction of our population.

 

[WhoWee]

Er, only the belligerently atheist would have any reason to take issue with the mere mention of God, and they are but a small fraction of our population.

Are you kidding me? Have you read any of the posts on PF regarding this subject?

 

[Hepth]

On a side note. Is there ANY oversight as to what content a president can present to school students? Is the speech release early, etc. ? I'm not worried about Obama, nor would I have been worried about either Bush or any of our past presidents. But is there anything in place to keep a future president from having this kind of presentation, and then spouting a bunch of extreme ideas (either left or right) and intentionally trying to feed the students propaganda? (Other than the concern of their approval rating?)

I could see it happening, a president in his final months of a bitter two term presidency try to push some unfiltered extreme political/religious agenda onto children.

 

[mheslep]

Best I can tell anyway, you are presenting a superficial account of history to suggest Republicans should emulate the stupidity of Democrats. Is that the gist of your postion here?

No. I thought I was clear; I was kidding. As I said, I don't want the Republicans in Congress to do anything (other than what some bean counting laws require?). My point was that memories are very short, even with the aid of the internet, on the Democrats doing 3X the harassment 18 yrs ago on the same subject. Despite the history, we now hear that because some talking heads are harassing this President on the school speech that the very life of the republic is under grave threat.

 

[russ_watters]

His "We have direct empirical evidence of at least one person arguing tooth-and-nail that" was the same argument as my example, only addressing a different subject, but which is equality lacking in substantiation. So, why only take issue with one but not the other? [emphasis added]

Because the part in bold is clearly wrong (or at least intentionally misleading). We know your example lacks substantiation and we know Hurkyl's example is true.

This is a really silly game you are playing, kyleb.

 

[physics girl phd]

According to the local news, our TN district gave both "teachers and principals" jurisdiction in the decision (though I wonder what would happen if a teacher and principal conflicted). Our sons didn't see it... and I hope there's no retaliation against our youngest for inquiring (we've already conflicted as parents with his teacher when he was sent home because of minor allergy symptoms and massive germaphobia on the part of some classmates). He'll watch it online this weekend with dad.

 

[kyleb]

Are you kidding me? Have you read any of the posts on PF regarding this subject?

I am curious to see whatever polls you are referencing, but I am talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States" , which shows a strong majority of our population identifying as religious, leaving the belligerently atheist to only make up some some potion of the rest.

No. I thought I was clear; I was kidding. As I said, I don't want the Republicans in Congress to do anything (other than what some bean counting laws require?).My point was that memories are very short, even with the aid of the internet, on the Democrats doing 3X the harassment 18 yrs ago on the same subject.

Again, I such a superficial historical comparison doesn't seem like a serious argument. Even though the article you posted was seriously lacking in depth, it still pointed out the notable differences of the controversy not gaining prominence until after the content of the speech had been presented.

Despite the history, we now hear that because some talking heads are harassing this President on the school speech that the very life of the republic is under grave threat.

What talking heads have you heard go that far?

Because the part in bold is clearly wrong (or at least intentionally misleading).

I have yet to see anyone here even attempt to substantiate the concerns that Obama was planing to push a political agenda in is speech, and hence it would be a flagrant lie for me to for me to suggest otherwise.

This is a really silly game you are playing, kyleb.

I have never had any interest in playing games here, and would appreciate it if you could ever bring yourself to get over your delusions to the contrary.

 

[mheslep]

...What talking heads have you heard go that far?

? As discussed in this thread, both parts. Criticism: Post #1, talking heads criticizing the lesson plan, etc in the Yahoo News piece (which is fine, I don't care). Criticism poses greatest threat to the republic: Post #11

 

[mheslep]

Are they really unfounded? We have direct empirical evidence of at least one person arguing tooth-and-nail that Obama should push a political agenda with this speech.

Sorry I'm missing the allusion - you mean the author of the original lesson plan?

 

[kyleb]

? As discussed in this thread, both parts. Criticism: Post #1, talking heads criticizing the lesson plan, etc in the Yahoo News piece (which is fine, I don't care). Criticism poses greatest threat to the republic: Post #11

Ah, it seems I had misparsed your statement read it as suggesting TV pundits have been claiming that harassing Obama over this speech is the greatest threat to the republic. My bad there.

However, it seems you have misconstrued Ivan's comment, as he was clearly speaking of "right-wing nuts who are dividing this nation with crazy talk and lies" in general, with this incident being only one example.

 

[mheslep]

Ah, it seems I had misparsed your statement read it as suggesting TV pundits have been claiming that harassing Obama over this speech is the greatest threat to the republic. My bad there.

However, it seems you have misconstrued Ivan's comment, as he was clearly speaking of "right-wing nuts who are dividing this nation with crazy talk and lies" in general, with this incident being only one example.

I'm only referring to this one example, for the moment. The 'in general' part is off topic.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sorry I'm missing the allusion - you mean the author of the original lesson plan?

Noblegas was pushing the idea that Obama should use this speech to push some plan for education reform.

 

[sylas]

Because that's what the Democrats did, oh so seriously, in 1991 when President GH Bush made a school speech.

For my part, I am kidding about calling for anything from Congress and could care less about the Pres. making a speech to every kiddy in the US. I'm serious though about pointing out the historical myopia.

I suspect that many Americans, regardless of political affiliations, are not concerned about the president making a speech specifically for school kids, either now or in 1991. I think it is a good thing; and that the president (in 1991 or in 2009) would not be so foolish as to try and make it politically partisan.

I also don't think we can slam all democrats, or all republicans, because of what some individuals do. Some people often do silly things in politics, and there's certainly been a lot of incredible nonsense expressed about this speech in 2009. It would not surprise me to know it was just as bad in 1991.

But neither would I merely assume that 1991 and 2009 are comparable. That someone might make a fuss is unsurprising, but I confess to being a bit curious about any similarities and differences, and the magnitude of the fuss. And we might add that Reagan also made a nationally televised speech to school kids in 1988.

I gather that the issue in 1991 was about funding of the speech, and this came up afterwards rather than before. That strikes me as stupid also. Some democrats apparently set up a hearing of some kind, and it all came to nothing. As it should. I'd be interested to know what the wider public response was, however.

I don't think it makes any sense to say that "republicans" object now and "democrats" objected then. Better to say that some people object now and some people objected then, and that in neither case did the objections have much merit. The people who objected, in each case, tended to be people who are predisposed to look out for ways to attack the president at the time; and that means objectors then were Democrats and those now were Republicans, for the most part; but it doesn't mean that all democrats or all republicans were endorsing those attacks.

Although -- full disclosure -- I confess I would be amazed if the fuss made in 1991 was as great at the fuss in 2009, with parents wanting to pull kids out of schools for the event and so on. It seems to me that the right wing side of American politics has a significant problem at present with a historically anomalous oversupply of extreme nutcases. I don't mean that as a general comment on all republicans, of course; in fact I think the problem is recognized by some within the GOP who would like to improve things for the party.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[humanino]

Is television allowed at all in public schools ? I mean, would it be acceptable to have children watch advertising/promotion messages on a regular basis, but worry about a once-in-a-year (or less) anyway boring (I guess for a significant amount of the kids) speech by a president ? Would it change anything if the president came in person in the schools ? Would anybody object to that as well ?

 

[Hurkyl]

Are they really unfounded? We have direct empirical evidence of at least one person arguing tooth-and-nail that Obama should push a political agenda with this speech.

This may be a mild tangent, but I just came across this article from the Center for Education Reform¹. Much to my surprise², there really are groups trying to push political agenda alongside Obama's speech.

1: Who are these guys? I've never heard of 'em before.
2: though I really shouldn't've been

 

[kyleb]

I'm only referring to this one example, for the moment. The 'in general' part is off topic.

The "in general" is the context of the statement from Ivan you referenced.

Who are these guys? I've never heard of 'em before.

They are a group pushing charter schools. Obvious communist front, eh?

though I really shouldn't've been

It was your previous insinuations of Obama pushing a partisan agenda in his speech that didn't make any sense. On the other hand, it would be surprising if something the president did went by without some interest group clinging on to it to push their own agenda.

 

[mheslep]

...Although -- full disclosure -- I confess I would be amazed if the fuss made in 1991 was as great at the fuss in 2009, with parents wanting to pull kids out of schools for the event and so on. It seems to me that the right wing side of American politics has a significant problem at present with a historically anomalous oversupply of extreme nutcases...

I see nuttiness in different places. In 2009 we have the odd soccer mom that may or may not have kept her kid home (about the lesson plan, not the speech), but nobody in the opposition with any power doing anything to anybody. In sum, nothing is going to happen except tongue wagging. In 1991 we had elected representatives actually using power to attack the '91 administration over Bush's school speech. They called the Education secretary to testify. They started up the inspectors office to eat time and money going through files. Now frankly, I see all the '91 stuff as the same ol' politics, though restraint should have been shown. What I find truly odd given the above, are those opinions that somehow still imagine that Democratic ranks are staffed only by the truly enlightened and rational, and that the other side is nuts.

 

[kyleb]

In 1991 we had elected representatives actually using power to attack the '91 administration over Bush's school speech.

Are you familiar with the details of those complaints? Were there perhaps specific lines from the speech they took issue, or anything of that sort? Not knowing one way or another, I can't rightly consider the comparison reasonable.

 

[mheslep]

Per the link above:

The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event.

which is simply stupid. The president spoke to some kids at a school, as has nearly every other President. But really, why do you care what he said? The President can't walk out his front door without causing the expenditure of money on what can always, always, be considered to have some purpose of publicity.

 

[sylas]

I see nuttiness in different places. In 2009 we have the odd soccer mom that may or may not have kept her kid home (about the lesson plan, not the speech), but nobody in the opposition with any power doing anything to anybody. In sum, nothing is going to happen except tongue wagging. In 1991 we had elected representatives actually using power to attack the '91 administration over Bush's school speech. They called the Education secretary to testify. They started up the inspectors office to eat time and money going through files. Now frankly, I see all the '91 stuff as the same ol' politics, though restraint should have been shown. What I find truly odd given the above, are those opinions that somehow still imagine that Democratic ranks are staffed only by the truly enlightened and rational, and that the other side is nuts.

You claim to be seeing opinions somewhere that correspond to "imagine that Democratic ranks are staffed only by the truly enlightened and rational, and that the other side is nuts". That's unhelpful hyperbole. There are obviously some differences of opinion, but it doesn't help to just phrase views you disagree with in such over the top terms.

What you say about the '91 stuff being the "same old politics" sounds about right to me. I tried to find out a bit more about it, and the 1991 objections sound like self serving grandstanding, which wasted time and money with hearings and inspections that came to nothing, over what (in my opinion) should have been a cause for bipartisan support. I agree with your reaction to this.

In 2009, many people just don't like Mr Obama and don't want him to have any input to schools at all. The focus on the lesson plan is a bit more reasonable... but not much. It's not really a lesson plan; just a list of possible activities teacher might consider for including in their lesson plans. Many criticisms of these classroom materials have been as over the top as everything else. It's not everyone who is objecting, and not all republicans either. I'm not trying to smear all of one side with an issue, but looking at the issue itself regardless of who and how many think there's a problem.

The specifics of objections to the provided classroom materials don't make any sense. The big issue has apparently been that it involved students writing letters to help the president. Here's a link to the http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf, from the Department of Education. For comparison, here's a previous version someone has made available.

There are a number of minor changes that I will ignore. These include things like replacing "can" with "could", or "President" with "president", breaking sentences, adding commas, and making minor word replacements or rearrangements.

There is a deletion of one possible activity, involving making a video (see related contest website), which was originally as follows:

Teachers could encourage students to participate in the Department of Education video contest. On September 8th the Department will invite K-12 students to submit a video no longer than 2 min, explaining why education is important and how their education will help them achieve their dreams. Teachers are welcome to incorporate the same or a similar video project into an assignment. More details will be released via www.ed.gov.​

The only other significant change was to replace

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.​

with

Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. Teachers would collect and redistribute these letters at an appropriate later date to enable students to monitor their progress.​

Frankly, I think the original letter idea was much better, and that objections to "helping the president" have been ridiculous. And -- ironically perhaps -- this activity echoes a similar idea expressed explicitly by President Bush in 1991, in his national address to students!

Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.​

This was a good idea when Bush gave it in 1991, and it was a good idea when included in the classroom activities in 2009. It's positive, it encourages good civic activity, and it does not require or imply in any way that you have to agree with the president about everything. The objections to the classroom activities as they were originally proposed are absurd.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[kyleb]

I tried to find out a bit more about it, and the 1991 objections sound like self serving grandstanding, which wasted time and money with hearings and inspections that came to nothing, over what (in my opinion) should have been a cause for bipartisan support.

I took the time to do a bit of research myself, and found that the issue with http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450". While the hearing did not judge the use of funds to be inappropriate, at least in that case the complaint had a rational basis, while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like.

 

[WhoWee]

Has anyone commented on the length of the speech? My experience tells me he probably had the kid's undivided attention for about 3 minutes?

 

[sylas]

Has anyone commented on the length of the speech? My experience tells me he probably had the kid's undivided attention for about 3 minutes?

Yes, there have been some quite hilarious comments on that matter. I wish I could find again a rather hilarious blog article someone had about his kids on the matter -- but the kids involved were quite young and I think it was more a chance for comedy and poking fun at lots of people who have been taking it way too seriously.

Of course, kid's reactions are going to vary a lot with age. I think many students will indeed have given it undivided attention all the way through; young teenagers are often genuinely very interested in political matters. There are a number of news reports from school classrooms indicating that it was something school kids found interesting.

I remember I once told a young friend of mine (aged 12) that I would cast my vote at an upcoming election in any way she chose for me. Other people might try this project also as a way to involve children in civic issues. That vote got more careful attention and research than any vote I have ever cast, I think. Having high expectations for the thoughtfulness and seriousness of children can sometimes pay off big.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Galteeth]

You know, it's funny how these things tend to bring out people's tribal instincts. It pretty much always comes down to "my team" versus "your team." It amazes me how many people get into this. It's like the R and the D have these cultural contextual meanings for people, despite the fact that their policies are always exactly the same. It's amazing.

 

[WhoWee]

It's like the R and the D have these cultural contextual meanings for people, despite the fact that their policies are always exactly the same. It's amazing.

Really?

 

[sylas]

I took the time to do a bit of research myself, and found that the issue with http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450". While the hearing did not judge the use of funds to be inappropriate, at least in that case the complaint had a rational basis, while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like.

I saw that as well, and ignored it as irrelevant. That was not a meaningful basis for a hearing, IMO. It is symptomatic of a problem with party politics (it's just as bad here in Australia) that when the leader of the nation makes a positive address to schools, people look for an excuse to belittle it. "Pimping his agenda" fiddlesticks.

It's entirely appropriate to have high expectations of our leaders and its good democracy in action to be critical of them. It's also good to be supportive of them as a leader, even if not the leader you would have chosen for yourself. The downside comes when some folks can see nothing at all that is good in their elected leader and start second guessing even the most trivial points.

It doesn't matter that Bush was about to start campaigning. That's a perfectly good time to get kids thinking about presidents. Bush's speech was innocuous, and something like that should have, in my opinion, strong bipartisan support; both then and now.

As Bush was elected into the role of president, he does legitimately have a special significance and it's good for the leader of the nation to speak to children in this kind of way. It's not something you want to see every week (annual would be okay by me) and its certainly not something where you want to make it some kind of party based dialog with everyone lining up to have a turn as if on a campaign. If the speech was partisan, that would be a problem. It wasn't; neither then, or now. It was the president, speaking as president. And that's a good thing.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[kyleb]

Bush's speech was innocuous, and something like that should have, in my opinion, strong bipartisan support; both then and now.

Bush's America 2000 plan was a highly partisan initiative, and while he only mentioned it once directly, much of the speech was pushing the ideas of plan. It would be akin to Obama pimping his healthcare reform plans to our school children with his speech, which I would have taken issue with just the same.

 

[WhoWee]

I took the time to do a bit of research myself, and found that the issue with http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450". While the hearing did not judge the use of funds to be inappropriate, at least in that case the complaint had a rational basis, while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like.

You say that Bush Sr. "was pimping his agenda" and "while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like" - could you please explain/support?

If I recall Bush was focused on education at the time.

 

[turbo]

For those that were not paying attention in 1991, a key provision of Bush's program was to use taxpayer money to allow parents to send their kids to any school that they wanted - even parochial schools. Then, as now, a very high proportion of white students in the deep south attend "Christian" Academies that are racially segregated. No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches and only church members can send their kids to the "Christian" Academies associated with those churches. Bush wanted to not only perpetuate the segregation, but to use taxpayer money to pay for it. Great strategy if you want the Southern right-wing vote, but not so good for the taxpayers.

Occasionally, you will hear a GOP candidate claiming that school vouchers would help inner-city kids. They never seem to be able to explain how run-down full-to-capacity schools could accommodate influxes of additional students if they have better curricula than neighboring schools, much less explain how to transport the students. There is more than meets the eye to Bush I's claim to be the "education president".

 

[kyleb]

You say that Bush Sr. "was pimping his agenda"...

Pimping his America 2000 agenda, which I linked, along with text of his speech discussing it, and article about him promoting it in his campaigning. Did you overlook all that?

and "while all we've got here is hollow Nazi comparisons and the like"

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-obama-student-speech-story,0,6631126.story" basically sums up the complaints I've seen so far.

 

[WhoWee]

Pimping his America 2000 agenda, which I linked, along with text of his speech discussing it, and article about him promoting it in his campaigning. Did you overlook all that?

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-obama-student-speech-story,0,6631126.story" basically sums up the complaints I've seen so far.

What is the definition of "pimping" in your post? Wasn't his speech delivered to school children?

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pimping
" * Main Entry: pimp·ing
* Pronunciation: \ˈpim-pən, -piŋ\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: probably akin to Middle English pymple papule — more at pimp
* Date: 1640

1 : petty, insignificant
2 chiefly dialect : puny, sickly"

Is this what you mean?

 

[kyleb]

You are quoting the adjective section, while I was using the term as a verb.

 

[sylas]

Bush's America 2000 plan was a highly partisan initiative, and while he only mentioned it once directly, much of the speech was pushing the ideas of plan. It would be akin to Obama pimping his healthcare reform plans to our school children with his speech, which I would have taken issue with just the same.

I've looked at the speech again, and you're right: he does mention the America 2000 plan. In fact, this speech is substantially more "political" than the 2009 speech. So I shift my account a bit from the previous post; it's not completely "innocuous". The main thrust of the Bush 1991 speech, however, remains the same as the Obama 2009 speech... students taking resonsibility for themselves.

I have not liked the proposals on education I have seen from the republican party, and this "America 2000" seems to have been a case in point; I would likely have been a critic. But even given this, I can't see that the speech by Bush was out of line. Education was an issue he was interested in, it was topical, he was the leader of the nation, and he didn't put it into partisan terms implying that only one side of politics wanted to improve education.

In 2009, the amount of opposition now seems to be much greater. I don't believe it is even remotely true that the fuss made in 1991 by some democrats was as far reaching as what has occurred this year. The animosity this year is very much focused on the person delivering the message. Some people in the USA have such a strong antipathy to their own elected president that they have gone over the top in criticism, beyond all reason.

The same has been true in the past, from some elements of the political left directed at the previous administration. There's a difference between voting against someone and disagreeing with their policies; and withholding basic respect and courtesy and minimal fairness to that same person when they have become your legitimately elected national leader.

The biggest thing by far that turns me off your posts -- despite the fact that we might well be more or less aligned on politics and policy -- is that gutter word "pimping". It exposes the ugly face on the other side of politics.

It's a problem when citizens cannot give basic decency and respect to their own elected national leader. This doesn't mean unconditional approval, or never making any openly critical remarks. It's a democracy, after all. But you can do better than this, I hope.

I've seen a lot of that in recent months from a noisy minority (I hope) directed against Mr Obama. Your language is undermining your contribution by showing yourself to be the same thing from the other side.

 

[noblegas]

For those that were not paying attention in 1991, a key provision of Bush's program was to use taxpayer money to allow parents to send their kids to any school that they wanted - even parochial schools. Then, as now, a very high proportion of white students in the deep south attend "Christian" Academies that are racially segregated. No blacks are allowed in conservative white churches and only church members can send their kids to the "Christian" Academies associated with those churches. Bush wanted to not only perpetuate the segregation, but to use taxpayer money to pay for it. Great strategy if you want the Southern right-wing vote, but not so good for the taxpayers.

Occasionally, you will hear a GOP candidate claiming that school vouchers would help inner-city kids. They never seem to be able to explain how run-down full-to-capacity schools could accommodate influxes of additional students if they have a better curricula than neighboring schools, much less explain how to transport the students. There is more than meets the eye to Bush I's claim to be the "education president".

yes a high proportion of students sent there kids to christian schools, but that's because most parents wanted their kids to be sent to christian schools a. The voucher did not give you the only option of sending your kids to christian schools, its just that most private schools happened to be christian schools, in the south, because that's the kinda school most parents want to send their kids to . I am sure that their are a variety of different schools students can attend outside the south that are not christian schools; Why do you make school vouchers out to be a republican issue, why can't you take off your partisan glasses and look at is as: Hey , the federal government is providing kids free money to give them the option to send their kids to schools where the students learning needs would be met immediately rather than attending the public schools that continually barely graduate 20 percent of their student body , let alone most of their student body ; Most european countries implement a voucher system for european kids;

I did not think that George W bush was a strong proponent of the voucher system as he was of just giving more students more standardized tests to take. kids should not be forced to attend a subpar school just because its in their neighborhood;

 

[turbo]

I did not think that George W bush was a strong proponent of the voucher system as he was of just giving more students more standardized tests to take. kids should not be forced to attend a subpar school just because its in their neighborhood;

1991 was not about George W Bush, but about his father, who wanted to use education funds to implement the GOP's "Southern strategy". Years ago, I was doing consulting work for a mill in Alabama. I was working closely with the the mill's chief EE, who had no advanced in-house capability in automated process control, and had met his younger daughter who was headed to college that year. I asked him if his daughters had graduated from Thomasville HS, and he glared at me and said "I would never send my girls to school with that trash! My girls went to a good Christian school." Guess what? T-ville's public school was almost 100% black and that well-educated, mentally-sharp engineer (originally from the bayous of MS) refused to let his daughters associate with blacks. That was an eye-opener.

The "voucher" argument is not about providing choice, because most schools are at or over capacity already, and cannot accommodate bulk movements of students for the sake of "choice". Vouchers are all about trying to make all us taxpayers pay for on-going racial segregation so that the GOP can lock in Southern right-wing votes. No mystery.