GOP: We don't want the President talking to schoolkids

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Parents are not qualified to make many of the decisions they are empowered to, by more than the ability to procreate. Giving them veto over those who are qualified inevitably results in both censorship and indoctrination.

I was with you all the way up to this part... Parents should and do have the right to keep their kids from going to school, for whatever ideological reason they can come up with (and whether I personally think it is dumb or not - I am not their parent).
Likewise, individual public schools should have the right to decide their own curriculum, even though they are going to get all kinds of crack calls from parents with divergent beliefs that require it one way or the other 'or else.' Schools have to deal with the demands of all parents, no matter how reasonable or ridiculous they end up being.
Likewise, POTUS has the authority/traditional privilege to request a national speech to public school kids, with the hope that he will respect the unique nature of that platform by not politicizing it. And, the nature of the beast is that the non-sitting party will always cry foul for the slightest of perceived slights to this national platform, in order to curry political favor and perhaps whip up the opinions of we Americans - who should friggin know better than to get caught up in the partisan crapfest over something so benign as a presidential speech to kids. This speech could change their life just like the next pep rally might.

dw

[Zarathustra]

Obama's speech wasn't too bad, once he decided that it shouldn't be followed up with encouraging students to work for Obama's policies rather than for the best interests of their country as was described in the speech that was given.

I agree. The speech was actually pretty benign. There were only three points that I disagreed with (as I pointed out on the last page).

Again, I made sure my kids knew that Obama's message was a good message (the revised version), and there was lots of ground for agreement within it.

[finn]

Parents are not qualified to make many of the decisions they are empowered to, by more than the ability to procreate. Giving them veto over those who are qualified inevitably results in both censorship and indoctrination.

I was with you all the way up to this part... Parents should and do have the right to keep their kids from going to school, for whatever ideological reason they can come up with (and whether I personally think it is dumb or not - I am not their parent).
Likewise, individual public schools should have the right to decide their own curriculum, even though they are going to get all kinds of crack calls from parents with divergent beliefs that require it one way or the other 'or else.' Schools have to deal with the demands of all parents, no matter how reasonable or ridiculous they end up being.
Likewise, POTUS has the authority/traditional privilege to request a national speech to public school kids, with the hope that he will respect the unique nature of that platform by not politicizing it. And, the nature of the beast is that the non-sitting party will always cry foul for the slightest of perceived slights to this national platform, in order to curry political favor and perhaps whip up the opinions of we Americans - who should friggin know better than to get caught up in the partisan crapfest over something so benign as a presidential speech to kids. This speech could change their life just like the next pep rally might.

dw

DW,

Parents do have the right but they are not qualified....there is no certification required to be a parent. Schools are staffed by people who are qualified. I lean to a view that parents should have to deal with the schools demands rather than the oter way round. That may offend parents but the demands of the school are based upon qualified opinion and are made with the best ineterests of the students in mind.

Just another thought, don't kids get to see the State of the Union addresses?

[rdhopeca]

Not to turn this into a debate on what schools do well or not (that's for another thread), but this:

That may offend parents but the demands of the school are based upon qualified opinion and are made with the best ineterests of the students in mind.

I would argue that there are plenty of instances where the decisions are made with the best interests of the teachers and administrators in mind. The students come further down the priority list.

[finn]

I'm sure a similar argument could be made that the parents demands are also often in their own interests and not necessarily those if the children. It's my own viewpoint and not one I expect all to share, but many of the issues associated with the Y-Gen attitudes is a result of this.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Play Obama's speech backwards.
He clearly says "kill the Jews" and "Rev Wright is right".......



I'm kidding!
(although has anyone checked the playing backward thing yet.....?)

From the beginning there was that comment about "helping me" that touched off the protest.
That was fine, it got people talking and discussing things and apparently Obama modified his speech because of it?
Is that true?
No idea.
But I'm glad it happened if it produced the speech he did give.
It was a great talk to America's kids from the 1st African American President urging them to try hard, stay in school and succeed.
Home run Obama!
[insert broken clock analogy here]

[Cybrweez]

Sure school boards in conjuction with parents can hire and fire teachers, so what is the result? Teachers protecting their jobs by kow-towing to those administrators with no formal training in the educational process: it's small wonder that creationism and cults can grab hold of mainstream education by the ankles.

So who's grabbed hold of it now? Or, who should, in your opinion?

Parents are not qualified to make many of the decisions they are empowered to, by more than the ability to procreate. Giving them veto over those who are qualified inevitably results in both censorship and indoctrination.

So who's qualified, in your opinion?

[finn]

In my opinion mainstream education should be controlled on two levels. The first being the policy, ie the basic criteria that a society sets for itself. This might be basic 3Rs, PE, etc with a variety of options in social, business or technical fields within a structured curriculum. the determining body would be government guided and advised by professional education specialists drawing on a variety of sources to determine a best practice.

The second level is in the application of that curriculum and this should be the domain of teachers who are trained in the education process and in most schools form part of a heirachy of experience that can best determine the teaching in terms of the academic and life (ie, personal development).

As with so many things, money talks and the administrators end up balancing the financial needs of the school against the cost of servicing those needs. Contributors with certain leanings may/will expect their particular hobby horse to be given some prominence. A Flat Earther who contributes a tidy sum to the new gym roof fund might not expect Flat Earth to appear on the timetable, but they might expect teaching to the contrary to be de-emphasised. I mean isn't Texas doing just this right now with creationism, insisting that actual science degrees be meted out to people who refuse to accept carbon dating.

Corporate interests, for example the fast/junk food industry or the pharmas will contribute big time for access to the kids. Hardware and software vendors contribute billions to schools to win over the hearts and minds of tomorrow purchasers. If the education process is left entirely to free market capitalism does anyone really think that their kids education is in safe hands?

Teachers do three to four years as full time students to qualify. Its a bit less than doctors but graduates are trained and competent and with a few years of experience will almost certainly have a better knowledge of what a particular kid needs for its development than the kids untrained parents.

[Rawedge Rim]

Personally, as a Conservative, I'm quite baffled at the hub-bub over the POTUS speaking to school children. Short of the POTUS calling for jihad, the POTUS should give at least one or two speeches aimed at school children, regardless of political affiliation. This is the POTUS, arguably the most powerful man in the world.

[Cybrweez]

Yea, I didn't see the big deal either. I had a problem w/liberal shock that conservatives made it a big deal, trying to turn it into something unique to conservatives. That's just as silly as getting worked up about the speech.

[Zarathustra]

I think it all started from one single line in the assignment after the speech: write a fantasy letter to yourself describing how you can help the president. This was viewed as political indoctrination. What if children didn't want to help the president? What if children wanted to resist the president? That should be their right. They shouldn't be forced to consider how they can help him, if they disagree with him.

But after this was taken out, I had no problem with it . . . until Gibbs described these legitimate concerns as "Animal House food fight."

Eventually, these arrogant leaders are going learn to stop insulting us for our political views.

[rdhopeca]

I think it all started from one single line in the assignment after the speech: write a fantasy letter to yourself describing how you can help the president. This was viewed as political indoctrination. What if children didn't want to help the president? What if children wanted to resist the president? That should be their right. They shouldn't be forced to consider how they can help him, if they disagree with him.

But after this was taken out, I had no problem with it . . . until Gibbs described these legitimate concerns as "Animal House food fight."

Eventually, these arrogant leaders are going learn to stop insulting us for our political views.

I get where you are coming from, but the President should be able to say something akin to "think about how you can help me"...sort of like "ask what you can do for your country". Perhaps the word choice is off, but to me, it's ok for him to say that. If you want to resist him, then ignore that statement. Let's give people some credit for being able to think for themselves at any age.

[Zarathustra]

I get where you are coming from, but the President should be able to say something akin to "think about how you can help me"...sort of like "ask what you can do for your country". Perhaps the word choice is off, but to me, it's ok for him to say that. If you want to resist him, then ignore that statement. Let's give people some credit for being able to think for themselves at any age.

Fair enough. But the question I posed on the last page is still unanswered: do any of you think children should have been forced to hear the president say this?

I agree the president should have the right to say it. I do not agree that the president has the right to force everyone to hear it. If parents disagree, they should be able to have their wishes regarding their own children honored.

If the president has the right to force children to listen to him, why don't the rest of us also have this right? Are the President's First Amendment rights greater than mine? Why should the President, distinct from every other free citizen, have unique rights to be heard?

[Avatar]

Good posts guys. I pretty much agree...mountains outta molehills. But like I said, turnabout is fair play. If the dems moaned when Bush did it, the reps get to moan now.

--A

[Tjol]

It isn't the speaking to a captive audience that's the biggets issue, but rather that Obama's people cooked up a post-speech lesson plan that included students making pledges to help Obama with his agenda.

[Avatar]

I thought it was just a suggested excercise about how they could help the president? Very different from pledging to uphold his agenda. (Which I agree would be a scary prospect.)

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

I get where you are coming from, but the President should be able to say something akin to "think about how you can help me"...sort of like "ask what you can do for your country". Perhaps the word choice is off, but to me, it's ok for him to say that. If you want to resist him, then ignore that statement. Let's give people some credit for being able to think for themselves at any age.

Fair enough. But the question I posed on the last page is still unanswered: do any of you think children should have been forced to hear the president say this?

I agree the president should have the right to say it. I do not agree that the president has the right to force everyone to hear it. If parents disagree, they should be able to have their wishes regarding their own children honored.

If the president has the right to force children to listen to him, why don't the rest of us also have this right? Are the President's First Amendment rights greater than mine? Why should the President, distinct from every other free citizen, have unique rights to be heard?

I'm not seeing the problem. Unless you wish to shelter kids from political life, then giving them an oportunity to hear the politician who influence events that either expand or limit thier options is a good thing. And those who oppose the other guy can speak to schools and classrooms also, which is also a good thing.

[Avatar]

If you can't afford a movie, go to the Zoo. And if you can't afford the Zoo, go see a politician.

I've always loved that quote (from The Stand). I took it to heart in my university days, and often went to see politicians when they gave speeches at uni.

(Oh...and schools force kids to do all sorts of stuff...why should this be any different? )

--A

[Tjol]

I thought it was just a suggested excercise about how they could help the president? Very different from pledging to uphold his agenda. (Which I agree would be a scary prospect.)

--A

The part of the lesson plan was to ask students to offer proposals about how they could help the president implement his policies.

It is scary, and once it hit daylight....that's why the post speech lesson plan idea was scrapped.

[Avatar]

Not the same as pledging to help him luckily. (Was it even as specific as "implement his policies"?)

--A