Sunday, September 6, 2009
Obama to address the Nation's school children
I have been reading/hearing about Obama addressing the Nation's school children and the controversy surrounding it. I was curious to know what ya'll think about it. I think this has been done in the past with other President's sending out positive messages to school kids and first lady campaigns with positive messages to the nation's school children. I see no harm in this. I think it to be a good thing to have the President encourage kids to go to school and stay in school. What I am leary about however, isn't the message from the President, but the follow up discussions led from teachers/administrators and their possible pro-Obama indoctrination. I would love to see positive messages from Mr. President with no political agenda, and nuetral teachers enforcing those positive messages, with out the political inuendos. His message shouldn't be about his politics, and the follow up discussions he is encouraging the teachers to have, shouldn't be about his politics either. I am afraid his leftest political views will be what many of the discussion leaders will want to talk about, and that would be the wrong platform for it. Let's hope that he keeps his message of going to school and staying in school on topic...and the follow up the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree with Teresa that it is ok for a President to speak to schools and school children as long as the content is non-partisan. The problem is the followup homework assignment where children were to be asked how they could help Obama. The idea was to reach and teach our children using a presidential speech and instruction guides. In other words, "How can you help the President achieve his goals." I don't think Obama does much original thinking, so one has to wonder where he got the idea? He is an admirer and student of Bill Ayers (the bomber and radical educator) and he incorporates many ideas from him and other radicals. Ayers has written a book used in education school courses which focuses on the moral necessity of teaching social justice to students in K-12 classrooms. "Social justice" is the codeword for "equality of outcomes," which supersedes "equality of opportunity" in the eyes of left-wing radicals.
From what I understand President Obama was kind of blind sided on the opposition to his proposed speech. His only agenda was to provide students with a positive role model and encourage them to work hard, stay in school, do their best, and don't do drugs. I think it would be a good thing to let him address the kids.
I do not think it wrong for a sitting president to visit schools or encourage kids to stay in school. I think everyone can agree on that.
Former President Bush was in a school talking to kids when the world trade center was attacked. So for one side to oppose the sitting president from visiting schools should be considered hypocritical.
But that is not what this was all about. The White House originally wanted a captive audience of all government schools to broadcast live, an undisclosed speech about undisclosed subjects within that speech. That is what caused the uproar!
No president had ever done that. The White House then backed off and said it would furnish a written transcript just prior to the speech. Still an uproar about short notice and having all kids supportive or not listen. The WH further retreated by saying it promised it would be a "Stay in school speech and study hard" rah-rah-rah speech.
Now the WH can say, what kind of person would not want their president to take such a stance? Only far right wing extremist who only want to destroy Obama.
If that was his original message why didn't they just say so when the idea was first floated out there. Like many ideas of corporations, and political parties, they fling an idea against the wall and see what sticks and what slides off. The "rah-rah" speech is all that is left of their orginal idea.
I have kids who are in school and I am not opposed to a president talking to kids in school. However, without any disclosure about the topic or what is to be said has many parents scared. Katie was sick this afternoon and called to come home. I didn't know about hte speech until Katie told me about it and that afterward they will have to write a report about it. However, Katie said that about 1/2 of the kids were not there today because their parents held them out of school...not wanting their kids to have to listen to Obama. I cannot speak for other areas of the nation but Southern Utah is having a hard time keeping kids in school when he talks. So, if he wants kids to stay in school and do well, he should probably talk to them when they are NOT in school.
Conservatives have been lambasted by the left for complaining about this. Flashback: Democrats held hearings to find wrongdoing by the President Bush I who spoke to schools like Obama did today.
Did they really? They held hearings? What on earth did they need to hold hearings for? What on earth did he say that would cause a need for hearings? Surely they could voice their concern about it with out the expense of holding hearings....
It wasn't what he said it was explaining the funds used from the Department of Education (federal funds) to air and produce his speach.
The reports that many teachers are asking kids to write have some parents upset as well. It is reported that many schools may ask kids to write reports on how they can help and support the President of the United States. Problem is what if they don't want to help or think they should help the President in his political beliefs/agendas. This is just what I have heard from the different news channels.
This may sound cynical.
Indoctrination is in the eyes and ears of those who receive it. If one agrees with statements made in school situations, one rarely bothers to stand up for the principle that all such statements ought to be purely nonpartisan, but let such statements come from a non-trusted source or the opposite camp, and suddenly heightened scrutiny seems to be all important.
We ignore indoctrination that suits us, in fact, we don't even consider it to be indoctrination. There are ample examples: the pledge of allegiance states one nation under God, I consider that to be gross indoctrination, I should think that you do not and because you do not, the principle of indoctrinating belief in God in our public schools is not indoctrination at all to you. Or it is indoctrination of which you approve.
Permitting the ROTC to function in our schools is another example often disputed.
The responsibility is that of the parents to teach their principles at home, to teach their children to understand that they will always be confronted with opinions, propaganda, advertisements, statements made by any number of individuals teaching, coaching, or leading them. One begins this at the earliest age.
Protect them from what one will, but from the President of the United States? Really? Seriously?
Post a Comment