Why are some people so upset with Obama's speech to the children?

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

What about them?

Even some liberal leaning message board members agreed they were not appropriate.

They were forced? Really?

Of course, unless they could get up and leave the classroom. (maybe that was an option). Again, this isn't about the single classroom, but the idea that some parents were worried that what happened in that single classroom would have happened on the national level. A valid concern IMO.

Believe it or not at our school they brought in a very vocal anti-choice "minister" to speak to students at the HS here. This was done without telling parents he was going to speak. I was pissed and told the Superintendent I was. Just like I expressed my displeasure about not offering yesterdays speech to students.

I would not label you has "delusional" or "ridiculous" for doing so.

[billms]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I'm not making myself clear here. Parents were concerned that what Obama said to a single classroom, would be what was broadcasted on a national level. Until Obama released what he was going to say, some parents were concerned. I don't think I would label them deluded.

Would you have had a problem if Bush had been spending the last 6 months defending the war in Iraq, trying to raise support for it, and announced he was going to address the school children of our country, without giving people what he was going to say in that address?

Would you label parents that would be concerned in the circumstance above as delusional?

No. I'd call them nutjobs.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

As I've stated in other posts, a teacher worth his/her salt would use his/her discretion in what questions to ask, or whether to have a discussion on the speech

So what if you have a bad teacher? There are A LOT of bad teachers out there. Do those parents have valid concerns?

Once again this should be at the discretion of the teacher and the age of the students. It might make a good discussion in civics/government classes, not so in math.

Not in a public classroom, IMO.

So no one should listen to viewpoints they disagree with? Just let parents "Brainwash" their kids and not teach them to think for themselves?

Yes, it is every parents right to do this. Whether you agree with them or not.

I wish I could have told my World History teacher that 40 years ago when she called "Earth Day" a communist plot.

Earth Day is stupid. Just my two cents!

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by billms

No. I'd call them nutjobs.

At least you are short and too the point!!

I respect that opinion, although I disagree with it!

[billms]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

At least you are short and too the point!!

I respect that opinion, although I disagree with it!

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Even if Bush were to go out and try to sell the war to our kids it would be a great discussion point for our dinner table. I have no problem with my kids getting exposed to ideas I disagree with - and from a very young age. I think thats healthy.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by billms

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Even if Bush were to go out and try to sell the war to our kids it would be a great discussion point for our dinner table. I have no problem with my kids getting exposed to ideas I disagree with - and from a very young age. I think thats healthy.

Well not everyone has the ability or time to have a great discussion with their kids. I myself would welcome it, if I had kids, but I'm not going to call someone a "nutjob" because they are concerned politicians may be using the public classroom to talk about their political agenda.

Again, kudos to Obama for not doing that!

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

So what if you have a bad teacher? There are A LOT of bad teachers out there. Do those parents have valid concerns?:

I agree there are bad teachers. Just as there are bad parents. Once again this is where good parenting comes in, teaching discretion. Once again, I am talking about above the grade school level. Concerns about bad teachers should be brought to school leadership. (I realize there are union problems) I just don't feel that this one instance would scar students for life.

Not in a public classroom, IMO.

So, a high school civics/government class should not talk about current events? Curious, what should they teach???

Yes, it is every parents right to do this. Whether you agree with them or not.

Parents should be involved, but once again I feel that once their kids reach a certain age they should be taught to think for themselves. If they are not, they will never be prepared for the real world.

Earth Day is stupid. Just my two cents![/QUOTE]

I was young and idealistic.

[Boilerfan]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I would not label you has "delusional" or "ridiculous" for doing so.

Thanks, but you may have if you would have heard me. I was not happy. He said some things that I think only the farthest of the right would have been comfortable with kids hearing in a school.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

I agree there are bad teachers. Just as there are bad parents. Once again this is where good parenting comes in, teaching discretion. Once again, I am talking about above the grade school level. Concerns about bad teachers should be brought to school leadership. (I realize there are union problems) I just don't feel that this one instance would scar students for life.

Teachers should stick to the basics IMO. Our kids aren't exactly killing it academically. No need to bring in political discussions discussing the morality of universal health care IMO. They can get plenty of that in college.

So, a high school civics/government class should not talk about current events? Curious, what should they teach???

Give me the context of what they are talking about and I'd probably have a better discussion about it. IMO though, there is plenty of things to learn talk about to fill every day of the school year, that don't revolve around a hypothetical health care system.

Parents should be involved, but once again I feel that once their kids reach a certain age they should be taught to think for themselves. If they are not, they will never be prepared for the real world.

I don't necessarily disagree, but there are plenty of homeschooled kids that are labeled this way and they do just fine in the "real world". I mean, I didn't discuss too many political things in grade school and high school that I can remember, but I fit in alright. Of course I talk on a political board WAY too much, so maybe I'm messed up more than I know!

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

Thanks, but you may have if you would have heard me. I was not happy. He said some things that I think only the farthest of the right would have been comfortable with kids hearing in a school.

I'm glad you voiced your concerns afterward. Just like I don't look down on those who voiced their concerns beforehand. No doubt many are crazy (i was an elementary principal for 3 years and a teacher for 2 years), but most parents just want what is best for their kids IMO. If something outside of the realm of normal education concerns them, I can understand their concern. Obama was good about changing the things and giving advanced notice of the speech that eased a lot of parents minds.

[4hzglory]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I'm glad you voiced your concerns afterward. Just like I don't look down on those who voiced their concerns beforehand. No doubt many are crazy (i was an elementary principal for 3 years and a teacher for 2 years), but most parents just want what is best for their kids IMO. If something outside of the realm of normal education concerns them, I can understand their concern. Obama was good about changing the things and giving advanced notice of the speech that eased a lot of parents minds.

As a conservative (not Republican),and a parent who disagrees with most of our President's policies, I have no problem at all with his speach. I am very glad released his speach early though as that did relieve the concerns I did have. I do think it is crazy that so many Republicans were so upset, even after he released his speach as if it was a President they agreed with there would have been no issue. As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility to teach my children (my oldest is a 3rd grader) why I believe in certain things. My belief is that protecting and teaching my children isn't to shelter them from everything I don't agree with (they would never get outside or do anything), but to explain and discuss those things they are exposed to while they are in my care so that when they are on their own, they aren't in shock by the world around them.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Teachers should stick to the basics IMO. Our kids aren't exactly killing it academically. No need to bring in political discussions discussing the morality of universal health care IMO. They can get plenty of that in college.




Give me the context of what they are talking about and I'd probably have a better discussion about it. IMO though, there is plenty of things to learn talk about to fill every day of the school year, that don't revolve around a hypothetical health care system.






I don't necessarily disagree, but there are plenty of homeschooled kids that are labeled this way and they do just fine in the "real world". I mean, I didn't discuss too many political things in grade school and high school that I can remember, but I fit in alright. Of course I talk on a political board WAY too much, so maybe I'm messed up more than I know!

Maybe its a good thing I did not get into teaching (not that I had any interest). If I taught government/civics my first assignment would have been a paper on the health care/insurance debate.

I guess I came from the wrong era, we talked about stuff in class. Vietnam, the ERA, topics of the day. The teacher was not Liberal either, he asked tough questions on both sides, made you prove your case.

I guess to me, this is where "no child left behind" failed.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Maybe its a good thing I did not get into teaching (not that I had any interest). If I taught government/civics my first assignment would have been a paper on the health care/insurance debate.

I guess I came from the wrong era, we talked about stuff in class. Vietnam, the ERA, topics of the day. The teacher was not Liberal either, he asked tough questions on both sides, made you prove your case.

I guess to me, this is where "no child left behind" failed.

We did too. In fact, "Problems of Democracy" was a one semester required course for all seniors in DoDDs schools. It was all current events stuff.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Yes Obama is at the make or break stages of his presidency, it's now or never time for him to make people believe in his health care thing, whether he becomes a FDR or a Jimmy Carter. Bush Sr. did it when he was immensely popular coming a highly popular war operation, of which he was above 90% in the polls a few short months earlier, he looked unstoppable at the time he gave the speech in 1991, re-election looked like a given, there wasn't any Democratic challengers in site. Your contextual argument doesn't hold water in this case.

First of all, Obama is not in the make or break stages of his Presidency. It's been 10 months for God's sake. How did Bill Clinton do after he failed to get health care reform passed? IIRC, he went on to win the next election.

No matter what Bush Sr.'s popularity was, the truth of the matter is that the speech was given much closer to the next Presidential campaign, as in, a year away. The next Presidential campaign this time is 3 years away. That's a huge difference.

My contextual argument holds plenty of water. You have pointed out personal opinions that are not relevant to the issue and, given recent historical precedent, are not likely to be true. The facts you have pointed to - Bush's speech being when he was popular a year before the election - only serve to buttress my point about context because Obama's speech is a full 3 years away from the election and cannot in any reasonable fashion be considered a "campaign" speech.

I don't like what the Democrats did to Bush over the speech. It was petty and stupid. But the context of the two speeches was different, and clearly, your attempts to equate them fall flat.

[smr-nj]

Originally Posted by Melody

We did too. In fact, "Problems of Democracy" was a one semester required course for all seniors in DoDDs schools. It was all current events stuff.

I know that during the latest presidential election, there were lessons that encouraged talking about the issues, and (I was present for a couple of them at the 7th grade level) the point was made that no one needed to yell to get their opinion across, but that each person was to listen to the other, waiting for them to finish before offering their take on it.
The kids did quite well, actually. You could see their frustration sometimes, wriggling in their seats, but they pretty much agreed after the fact that "debating" worked better when you actually listened to what the other person had to say.
Most kids at that age are reflecting what their parents view is at home, which is normal, and in the particular school I was in, it was about a 50/50 split.

Anyway, just wanted to join in the fun ( ), and offer the opinion that grade schoolers are quite capable of talking about the issues and current events, and IMO , they should be doing so.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by Melody

We did too. In fact, "Problems of Democracy" was a one semester required course for all seniors in DoDDs schools. It was all current events stuff.

Definately a different era. One of my favorite political commentators made reference earlier this week to the anniversary of Everett Dirksen's death (40 years ago).

I wondered what he would have thought of his party or the opposition party today. The man was a class act.

[Chaz]

A radio DJ in Tampa that pays $7000 a year for his son to attend a Catholic School is wondering what is up.. His son had a mock election last year and Obama won..this was a school project..now the head of the school would not let his speech be broad casted in school..should be interesting what the guy has to say

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Definately a different era. One of my favorite political commentators made reference earlier this week to the anniversary of Everett Dirksen's death (40 years ago).

I wondered what he would have thought of his party or the opposition party today. The man was a class act.

Our federal court is named after Everett Dirksen.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by smr-nj

I know that during the latest presidential election, there were lessons that encouraged talking about the issues, and (I was present for a couple of them at the 7th grade level) the point was made that no one needed to yell to get their opinion across, but that each person was to listen to the other, waiting for them to finish before offering their take on it.
The kids did quite well, actually. You could see their frustration sometimes, wriggling in their seats, but they pretty much agreed after the fact that "debating" worked better when you actually listened to what the other person had to say.
Most kids at that age are reflecting what their parents view is at home, which is normal, and in the particular school I was in, it was about a 50/50 split.

Anyway, just wanted to join in the fun ( ), and offer the opinion that grade schoolers are quite capable of talking about the issues and current events, and IMO , they should be doing so.

You know, I did my sophomore year of high school biology at a school in NJ. The teacher was Mr. Rose. He set aside time for a formal debate in class (the kind that required research, notes, etc.) over Darwinism vs. Creationism. He didn't participate or comment at all. Nobody's Christian kid (or Jewish, he was a practicing Jew) turned "heathen" and nobody's agnostic kid threw up his hands and had a holy-ghost experience. (We also made homemade wine in class and got to drink little sips of it.)

Different era, indeed.

[Melody]

You know, I think I've figured it out. I graduated before Jimmy Carter was elected and established the Department of Education. Prior to that, there really wasn't any reason for political interest in what local schools were teaching so no power struggle to be had.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by Melody

You know, I think I've figured it out. I graduated before Jimmy Carter was elected and established the Department of Education. Prior to that, there really wasn't any reason for political interest in what local schools were teaching so no power struggle to be had.

I would imagine that before the Department of education, it was purely a local matter. Like it should be.

[ewsieg]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

If the speech was something like this, you would have a problem with it?


Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Area Junior High School Students


Check out the questions about the budget and the gun laws?

Were they planted, or do only Obamaites do that?

Well, I don't have any problems with it, just as I didn't have any problems with Obama's speech and his Q&A.

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

Do you think a group of HS kids could keep their mouth shut about that? Maybe he threatened their families or told them they would not get any financial aid for college or something.

See, this is why i'm not getting any love in the MTS favorite poster thread!

1) The adults his administration has used as plants haven't been able to keep quiet, so yes, I would expect that sooner or later it would come out, assuming of course my crazy assertion was correct.

2) I was just making a quick quip in regards to some past indiscretions in his own administration. It wasn't meant to say that they were indeed planted students.

I think i'm one of the better republicans at being able to look at what my party is doing and call shenanigans. That being said, when i'm seeing the left defend going after Bush Sr because their was an investigation into financial benefit by the republicans for Bush Sr's speech I just laugh. If I can get my congressman to waste money by investigating Obama for his 'true' purpose for his speech, does that mean there no longer would be a difference between Bush Sr's speech and Obama's?

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

I would imagine that before the Department of education, it was purely a local matter. Like it should be.

It shouldn't (and can't) be a purely local matter imo.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by Blue Square Thing

It shouldn't (and can't) be a purely local matter imo.

Of course it can and should be a local/state matter. That is why we have a separation of government power in this country -- because what's good for people in Iowa isn't necessarily good for people in Texas or New York or California. A "one size fits all" Department of Education cannot serve the needs of these different communities all well as the actual communities can.

[CMRivdog]

Gotta love this...

Think Progress » School district that barred students from hearing Obama will bus them to Bush speech.

The Arlington Independent School District in Texas decided not to show President Obama’s address to students live yesterday because it reportedly didn’t want to interrupt its regularly scheduled lesson plans. However, the district has now decided to bus its students off-campus on Sept. 21 to hear President Bush speak:

District officials said it’s part of a Cowboys Stadium field trip that the North Texas Super Bowl Host Committee invited 28 fifth-grade classes to attend several months ago.

In addition to hearing from Bush and former first lady Laura Bush, the students will hear from legendary Dallas Cowboys players and North Texas business and community leaders. The event launches the Super Bowl committee’s largest-ever youth education program.

Dwight McKissic, the pastor at the Cornerstone Baptist Church, which offered an alternative venue for Arlington families wishing to listen to the President yesterday, criticized the school district’s “blatant double standard.” “Why is it appropriate for students to hear from former President Bush on Sept. 21 at the Cowboy[s] Stadium, but inappropriate for the current president to address students while they remain on school campuses?” McKissic asked. (HT: Raw Story)

If I ever have grandkids in Texas, I'm moving there to teach them myself.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by Melody

You know, I think I've figured it out. I graduated before Jimmy Carter was elected and established the Department of Education. Prior to that, there really wasn't any reason for political interest in what local schools were teaching so no power struggle to be had.

Before the Department of Education, there was HEW (Health, Education and Welfare). Under Carter it became Health and Human Services and Education, two seperate positions.

I think there was still some political interests in the 60's and 70's.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Gotta love this...

Think Progress » School district that barred students from hearing Obama will bus them to Bush speech.

If I ever have grandkids in Texas, I'm moving there to teach them myself.

The Bush speech is a local event of major local significance, so its hardly the same thing. Looks bad, though.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

The Bush speech is a local event of major local significance, so its hardly the same thing. Looks bad, though.

I guess it can't be any worse than a school band appearing at a political rally.

(We did that in 1969 when Nixon campaigned for Linwood Holton in Virginia. Could you imagine the uproar today?)(At least I got to play "Hail to the Chief" on kazoo)

[Oblong]

In 6th grade Reagan had a campaign stop at Sears in Lincoln Park. Our school let us leave school to go see him. I don't remember if they actually took us over there or if we had to ride with our parents. Granted, it was a private school.

It was right after the Tigers winning and I remember he said something like "You guys know about winners!"

[Melody]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Gotta love this...

Think Progress » School district that barred students from hearing Obama will bus them to Bush speech.

That's actually misleading, and it's disappointing that Dr. McKissic (a republican, by the way) would go that direction, particularly in view of the fact that he ministers to and in the poorest areas of Arlington.

Some students (not all or even a majority), with parental permission, will be participating in a field trip to the event of which the speech is only a small part. In that district a certain number of field trips are permitted each year for each grade. Typically, the "teaching team" for the grade at the local school decides what the field trip will be. This was planned and arranged well before the Obama speech was announced. No child was ever going to be required to participate. And the point for the kids was an opportunity to visit the new stadium which many of them might not ever otherwise have an opportunity to see. It's a big, fun event and will include professional sports players as well that I doubt are Republicans.

I bet that if you asked any of the kids whether they'd choose to go to the stadium event or go to the auditorium at their school and watch an Obama speech on television, they'd choose the field trip.

AISD is one of those that lacks the technology in many, if not most schools to broadcast the speech live. Some of their schools have almost 100% participation in free lunch programs, so the 11 a.m. timing was an issue especially given the short advance notice.

All of that said, if you have grandchildren in Texas, I'd recommend homeschooling over the AISD or the FWISD unless they lived in certain areas with individual schools that are better than most.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by Melody

All of that said, if you have grandchildren in Texas, I'd recommend homeschooling over the AISD or the FWISD unless they lived in certain areas with individual schools that are better than most.

Not holding my breath on grandkids anytime soon.(I think). My son and his wife are in Frisco, or maybe I should say Hackberry hoping to get annexed by Frisco.

Your explanation makes more sense, the new stadium does look cool btw, from what I saw about a year ago from the Rangers ballpark.

[Melody]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Not holding my breath on grandkids anytime soon.(I think). My son and his wife are in Frisco, or maybe I should say Hackberry hoping to get annexed by Frisco.

Your explanation makes more sense, the new stadium does look cool btw, from what I saw about a year ago from the Rangers ballpark.

Oh, if it's been a year since you were in that area you wouldn't recognize it. Still construction hell on the roads around there, though.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Of course it can and should be a local/state matter. That is why we have a separation of government power in this country -- because what's good for people in Iowa isn't necessarily good for people in Texas or New York or California. A "one size fits all" Department of Education cannot serve the needs of these different communities all well as the actual communities can.

No, I think when you have a constitution which specifies things that will or will not happen in each and every state that you inevitably have an element which is controlled centrally - a specific example being the separation of church and state in your case.

Some of the ways in which specific interest groups have attempted to control educational policy in some areas would also really concern me.

I'm not suggesting that there can't be some element of local control. I think in some areas there may be a rationale for some central guidance - perhaps of a non-statutory manner - as well, for example in terms of some of the challenges produced by the use of new technology or even stuff like questioning strategies.

It also depends quite how local and then that, in turn, may lead to an economies of scale argument.