Home/Work

Children see much more than for which we give them credit.  They will not parrot ignorance.   This will shake out a great lesson that people really care about how they say things as well as what they say.   Children will be watching, listening, and learning  a great deal.    I am a Democrat raised by Republican parents with a complete extended family of Republicans and some Independents.  The children, I am not the least concerned about.  They will see us for who we all are.  For us, there is debate and, finally, more contention than one can shake a stick at.    

I have to totally agree with you...and I'm a conservative!!! I believe that people were being a bit ridiculous!  He spoke to children about staying in school, working hard, and nothing comes easy.  Why is that so bad?  I don't know!

I believe as you...we may not agree with everything the president says or views but we should respect him.

Amen!  My wife and I are among the parents who pay to send our kids to a private, Montessori school (with financial aid, I might add).  I have to confess we feel a little guilty about it, having both come up through public school systems ourselves--a guilt in part because we support the goals and the "social glue" that public schooling can provide.  

But, yes, I too am increasingly concerned about the message that "it's okay to show disrespect to a Democrat" that I see going around these days.  There was disrespect shown to Bush, to be sure, but not at anything approaching the levels Obama has seen.  Perhaps that was because the left was so soundly stomped on by the mainstream media in the run-up to the Iraq war.  But do you remember the ballisticity of the reaction to moveon.org's "General Betrayus" ad?  The Right had a hissy fit, and the media joined in, quietly tut-tutting the tastelessness and unAmericanness of the ad.  Are we seeing a similar sense of outrage over the birthers?  The "Obama=Hitler" or "Obama=Joker" pictures?  Are we seeing widespread condemnation of the unpatriotic behavior of parents who disrespect the office of the president?  At worst, it's being called "silly."  So thank you for discussing the more serious underpinnings of this behavior.

We're stationed overseas in Germany so the speech was on at 6pm here. And I sat my kids down to watch it. I saw nothing political in it and it was an excellent message. And Im republican! It seems as though no matter what the party affiliation the president is no one is happy. So many people ridiculed and hated Bush and now the same seems to be happening with Obabma. I dont see why we cant support the people WE put in office at least by showing them respect.

This single event concerned me as much as anything dealing with the fabric and future of our nation in my long lifetime. It was, on its surface, a flash in the pan, but it is far more significant. What it signaled is unhealthy mob rule - not democracy at work - but the power of mob hysteria fueled by the lies spewed over the airwaves and Internet. The mob didn't question those lies, but simply march-stepped, saluted and said "amen."  Shame on the weak-kneed public officials who caved in to it and shame on parents who bought into it.

Oh my Lord! You've just taken every thought I've been having since last week and expressed them all. Much more eloquently and with far less profanity, I must add.  I am also in fear that the next step is going to be one of the tinfoil hat group managing to kill our President. If that happens then I fear for our country and its ability to survive the eruption of anger that will envelope all of us.  I've actually said the words "civil war" in conversations this weekend. Over this? Yes, over this. This shows such a depth of disrespect and (to borrow from another blogger) batshit crazy that I too fear for our country. Somebody has to step back from that side.  And I find it ironic that the same side of this argument that is accusing the President of Hitler-like youth recruitment actions is the same side of the argument that forced the schools to so quickly opt out of allowing that message mostly due to their own Nazi-like mobspeak behavior.

Hello 1984? We see you and we know you... but you're 25 years late.

Katie, I understand and appreciate you stance on this, and like you would have supported my kids (if we had any) to listen to the president's message. The seeds for the backlash against the speech were sown years ago, however, and the old truism that states "What goes around, comes around" has never been more true than in this case.

www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html

The link above reference GHWBush's address to students back in 1991.

So, rather than the outrage you feel, I can only respond by shaking my head ruefully, realizing that the groundwork for the rejections we saw to President Obama's speech were laid many many years ago. In fact, I'd say that almost any outrage against politics on either side of the aisle is misplaced. Pigs like mud, mosquitoes like swamps, politicians like controversy. Why should we be surprised and/or outraged when we see a truism playing out in front of us?

I share your fears. I think the blatant disrespect started with W, if not with Clinton. Sadly, I think these particular actions were less about the school speech and more about finding ways to demonize Obama no matter WHAT he does. It's scary to hear so many people saying, "He's not MY president" - which started back when W. was president.

I think it's naive to think this speech wasn't political.  Rather, the speech itself was fine - the motivation for it was political.   I voted for Barack Obama, and I'd vote for him again.  But I think it's clear he was targeting children in an attempt to boost his popularity.  And my bet is he's going to get a twofer:  (a) higher approval ratings; (b) Republican opponents who have made themselves look like the village idiots.  Score!  I'm not cynical enough to think Obama anticipated the outrage and played the Republicans like a violin - but I'm cynical enough to think he's rubbing his hands with glee.  

Katie, I fully agree with your take, with one quibble...the poison that is broadcast daily, disguised as "news", is what threatens our cohesiveness.  

Phil, a few partisan Democrats holding hearings, which, btw, were not televised or widely discussed, is a far cry from organized, purely partisan fear-mongering that has been the strategy against everything our President has set out to do.  Let me ask you, where does this all end?  If what goes around truly  comes around, it continues to do so, right?  So, our side has no choice but to attack without mercy the next Republican President, regardless of his agenda, or risk becoming politically insignificant.  

Katie is right, this is potentially dangerous.  Where the hell are the grown-ups?

Preach it, lady. :)

I think the thing that grates upon me most, is that the same people railing against this speech (and Obama in general) are the ones who told me while Bush was president that I was a bad American if I didn't respect the office.  I can't abide hypocrisy.    

This is nuts.  Both Bush Sr. and Obama were wrong-headed about this, and both the reactions were ridiculous. It was a huge waste of the President's valuable time, both in 91 and now, and neither of the stay-in-school speeches really qualified as a civics lesson.  Motivational speeches have their place, but this was just unneeded.  BTW, I was in school when GH Bush gave his speech, and I remember thinking, "That's it?  The president sounds like the DARE guy."  I read this one on Monday and thought "Fantastic.  My kids totally need to hear the Harry Potter-was-rejected-12-times factoid again.  Really, that's worth holding off math."

Also, a major problem a lot of parents had was the accompanying lesson plan, which seemed to focus quite a bit on Obama himself, not the role of the President (which would have actually been a civics lesson), or what each child can do for their school, community, etc.  The question "How will the President inspire me in this speech?" smacked to me of a focus group questionnaire, which is frankly a little creepy.

My kids' school didn't show it--I wouldn't have kept my kids out of school if they did--and I don't know if parent complaints were involved.  I do know, though, that after the note came home explaining that our district was not showing the speech, my cub scout pack was informed we could no longer do a 10min activity at lunchtime the same week, aimed at informing more kids about scouting opportunities.  I have a feeling that a vocal atheist in my community had a hand in that.

myanna:   So if a local atheists' group wanted to come to your school at lunchtime to put on a 10-minute program about how there is no god - would that be A-OK with you?

Myanna:

(I hope I'm allowed to address other people here...)

I understand your concerns about math being put off. Math always seems to get put off.

But the truth is a lot of kids in our public schools haven't heard the Harry Potter factoid twelve times already and they don't have adults in their lives who provide support, motivation, and high standards. The public schools have a responsibility to cater to those kids too.

What you and many other opponents of the speech see as a self-centered quality I see as the president telling the kids that he wasn't born the president. In fact, he was once a kid in a one-parent household that sometimes relied on welfare. I think it's very powerful for kids to hear that. How many young kids think their teachers spend their entire lives in the classroom? If they think that about their teachers you can only imagine what their misconceptions might be about the president!

I don't think "How will the President inspire me?" is a great question either. However, if the questionnaire had instead asked "Did the President inspire you?" which would have been the more neutral question 99% of children would have given a one word answer (either yes or no).

However, I don't believe there is anything wrong by being inspired by a President who doesn't share your politics. If we teach kids that you can only be inspired by someone with whom you entirely agree, I agree with Katie that we will find ourselves in a very dangerous place.

I don't mean to make you feel bombarded by the other side. It'd just be nice now that this is over to have some actual dialogue on this issue as I agree with Katie that it is an incredibly important one.

Best,

Leah

Obama's speech itself does not qualify as a civics lesson.  

A good civics lesson would be to have (older) kids research the controversy and write a paper about it - but somehow, I don't see that happening in too many places.

A few comments on your post:

My kids, even my first grader, were allowed to watch the speech.  The more people that tell him that school is important the better.  However, the early outrage serves an important purpose.  First, it serves notice to all Presidents that school is not the place to make political speeches.  Second, Obama benefitted in that it gave him an opportunity to change his speech and materials (which his administration admitted were "poorly worded") so that the speech was benign.  That made his detractors look foolish.  

Your post also ignored an important point made by a commentor that one reason the speech was made to bolster people's opinion of this President at a time that he needs support.  And the President is using children's class time to bolster his personal approval ratings.  The President's speech would have been seen as a more sincere effort to underscore the importance of education had it occured in the first or last month of Presidency.

That said, the more people who tell my children school is important the better.  All speeches by politicians serve a political purpose. As long as the content of the speech is politically nuetral, I won't object.  

As for Mack's comment, perhaps you weren't around during the last eight years. MANY on the left did attack mercilessly President Bush, and yes, what goes around does come around.

Fred, you say <i>The President's speech would have been seen as a more sincere effort to underscore the importance of education had it occured in the first or last month of Presidency.</i>

Don't you think encouraging students to do well in school makes more sense at the beginning of the school year than it would in the middle of winter break?

Sadly, I think unfortunately it means that being the president doesn't mean anything anymore and probably never will again.

What I think bothers me the most is the *rational* folks who use GHWBush speech in 1991 ('See you Dems did it too?') as rationalization for this completely asinine reaction.  No one remembers this apparent event really so they just google (or cut and paste from another person who googled it) to make themselves feel better I guess.  And I doubt people were threatening to keep their children home from school in 1991.

Obama is great for Rush and Glenn on a business level.  Period.  I'm sure a lot of people that got worked up thinking "I should control what my kids hear at school" after the fact probably feel a little silly about the whole thing.  And hey, probably more people read this speech because of this whole media blitz than would have without the controversy.

I think the speech was fine, I think it is fine for kids to hear it and there is plenty of time for instruction to pause for this type of event.    

I'm with ya sister!  If this had been done to Bush, the conservatives would have been screaming UNAMERICAN!

cub scouts is open to children of all faiths, and of no faith at all.  Its origins are Christian and no one hides that, but the only evidence of it is the optional badge that a boy can get by learning about and doing a presentation about his faith.  There is a Star of David, a Crescent, etc. and a badge with with just a star that can be earned by learning about philosophy for an atheist child.

And, if the atheist organization offered a non-preaching program with day camp, athletics, first-aid courses, mentoring, leadership opportunities, etc.  I would be 100% on board.

Katie, I agree wholeheartedly with what you said.  And I can also happily report that the two kids from my class who opted out of watching the speech did not do so for political reasons.  In fact, I heard several kids tell me that their parents said they "HAD to watch that speech!"

Just to add one more very simple point to your position on the issue: as a teacher, I can say truthfully that my students don't need any help from their parents in learning to ignore authority figures who try to encourage them to do their best on a daily basis.  They've already got that down, thanks.

I don't want to take over katie's board, but I did want to have a dialogue as Leah mentioned.  

To address Clisby (read your comment a little too quick the first time) I actually would object to an atheist group holding a presentation meant to convince children about the nonexistence of a deity.  That I would object to.  We weren't going to use any religious terms in our activity either, which consisted of showing off a tent kids could earn selling popcorn, showing off badges that could be earned, and passing out fliers and stickers for a getting-to-know-scouts event.  I do agree with you that it would be an excellent civics lesson for older kids to observe and write about the controversy, and I wish more projects would encourage--even require--students to watch the news or read the paper and look at controversial issues from both sides.

As far as the point that children might have misconceptions about the president being born into the job because they think teachers live at school...I just don't see it.  Very young children think that Mrs. Jones lives at school because it is developmentally apropriate that they don't yet think of others beyond the role they play to in their own lives.  At election time, kids in lower levels learn about how a man or woman (I can dream!) becomes president, and that would be an excellent time for schools to tell not only President Obama's inspiring story, but President Lincoln's and President Cleveland's, and President Ford's and President Clinton's.  Leah is right that there is nothing wrong with being inspired by a President--or anyone else--you disagree with.

If this speech was given by a basketball player, or a local successfull business owner, or something like that, it would annoy me still somewhat because I just think these things get used for goof-off time by kids.  Given that it was the President, who has war, a plummeting economy, the current rigamarole over healthcare and trouble with his appointees to deal with, it bothers me a lot more because, as Fred noted, he is using taxpayer time and money to boost his approval ratings.

I do take issue with Fred's saying that the fact that the Whitehouse changed the lesson plan made the detractors look foolish.  It made them look like they had a point, which I happen to think they did.

And to anyone claiming that the disrespect of keeping one's child away from this speech is worse than the disrespect shown to Bush...no, it really isn't.  There were very common comparisons of Bush to Hitler, not one but two Comedy Central shows dedicated to lampooning Bush (That's My Bush and L'il Bush) and a film devoted to an assasination of Bush, the Oliver Stone mess, and much much more.  I think it is now tradition that American presidents will be called a nazi by their detractors.  It was silly when Bush was called a nazi; it's silly when Obama is.  I know without a doubt that my very liberal sisters-in-law would have kept their kids away from a speech by GW Bush or by John McCain if he had been elected.  That doesn't make it right--to me it just makes it more obvious that a vanilla speech aimed at boosting the ratings of a sitting president belongs at a campaign event or a town hall--not the classroom during a school day.

Thanks for allowing my two (or more) cents.

Katie,

  I would have written exactly what you did if I were as articulate as you are.  Bravo!  Thanks for putting my thoughts into words.  

Katie,

  I would have written exactly what you did if I were as articulate as you are.  Bravo!  Thanks for putting my thoughts into words.  

@myanna--I taught in public schools for 6 years (and now teach college level) and believe me there is plenty of time for the President of the United States to make a short speech to inspire kids to stay the course.  

And why is it so hard to imagine that it is possible that President Obama actually wants to send a message to kids to stay in school and work hard? I remember when he was a Senator and not yet nominated by the DP he went on 'Wait Wait Don't Tell Me' and they discussed with him some flack he was getting because he had told some parents that they were making too big a deal out of 8th grade graduations.  He essentially was like 'we should be saying good job now get to high school and go to work.'

The question no one seems to be able to answer for me is what on earth could he have said that anyone would find inappropriate? I'd really like some examples of what someone thinks he might have said that someone would not want children to hear?  

Like I said, mamatried, I found the content to be kind of redundant, but not inappropriate.  Well, I was a little annoyed at the President's recommendation of what to study in college.  That was also part of GH Bush's 1991 speech and it irritated me as a student then.  Neither President, frankly, was elected to be Motivator-In-Chief or a surrogate father.  The speech itself was fine enough, in fact seemed to be written with the goal of offending no one but it just isn't what the President should be doing with his time and office.  I do believe that President Obama wants to send a message to kids to stay in school, and honestly, now that I think about it, if he had wanted to devote more of his personal time, like his recent vacation, to motivational speaking, that would be fine.  President Obama will likely have many opportunities in 4 or 8 years to speak (which he does very well) on that very issue while being paid for that and not for another very important position.

mamatried:  

What could he have said that would be inappropriate?  Well, if he gave an abstinence only speech my guess is that Katie would have considered keeping her kids home.  Maybe not . . . since he's the President.  

How about if he said that he thinks marriage is for a man and a woman?  How about if he said that those oppose him on health care are selfish?  

I don't know, I think his comments were fine.  But I think there are lots of comments that would be inappropriate for k-12.  

Fred--really?!?  That is all you've got?  You think Obama would talk about either of those issues in a major address to children?  I mean, I guess he COULD say anything but come on these are a reach for examples.   Once again this just seems like an attempt to justify the overreaction to this speech and no one can come up with any real, concrete examples of what Obama would say that would be offensive to children.

If presidents are not elected to be Motivators-in-Chief, why do they have to spend most of their campaign time acting as if they are?  

Motivating, inspiring, giving awards, and acting ceremonial are precisely among the jobs of the president.  

Not to hijack the thread, but I was also curious about the implication above that the "vocal atheist" must have opposed the scouts on the grounds that he/she was an atheist.  Might he/she not have opposed the scouts on the grounds that they don't allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters--something that's entirely separate from atheism?  (That is to say, one can be religious and pro-gay.)

Honestly, Salvador I wish they didn't spend their campaigns along those lines and I think this past election has seemed to particularly over-sentimalize the role of president.  Presidents are meant to inspire the populace with what they get done in the office, not so much their life story.  Obama is inordinately gifted in telling his remarkable life story, but it disturbs me a little that his presidency seems to be the end of his listed achievements.  Other Presidents have had life stories that are remarkable as well, but when they have an unremarkable or controversial Presidency, their inspiring story seems to disappear.  When the President "acts ceremonial" it is often when they are representing the US in a diplomatic fashion.  Giving awards, primarily military honors, makes sense because if you are in the military, the President is your boss.    They are meant to motivate the armed forces by being a proper commander-in-chief, again, not by endlessly (I say endlessly because the man is not yet 50 with two autobiographies under his belt) reiterating how remarkable he is as a person.

Also, I should have typed "vocal atheist group" because it was a vocal atheist group that has been openly hostile to cub scouts in my community, including an email campaign to deny us the ability to use the campus for monthly pack meetings or even the parking lot as a van pickup point.  They identify as an atheist group, but they do advocate for a lot of liberal causes that are not specifically atheist--you are certainly right that one can be pro-gay and follow a religion.  I do believe that the administration cancelled our lunchtime activity because this group might've played on the fact that some parents were able to get the district to move the speech, but that their lone complaint (which was made when we asked for the time a few weeks ago) didn't get the oh so controversial scouts removed again.  This is particularly irritating to me, because while the President's 15min speech was inoffensive, I am skeptical that any k-6 child will get long-lasting motivation and life-changing inspiration from it.  Call me cynical, but I don't think it does the trick.  Scouts, on the other hand, provide at-risk (and not) boys with positive role models and opportunities to build self-esteem and work ethic through real achievement and mentoring from first grade tiger scouts all the way through high school.  I can tell you first hand that scouting does change lives.  Speeches, no matter who they come from, rarely do.  If it *is* the President's job to motivate and inspire and schoolchildren, he'd do better by delegating it to boy and girl scouts, big brothers/big sisters, and other community organizations who can be constant, personalized inspirations and motivations, not 15 min of "I did it, so you can too." which can easily be drowned out by a lifetime of parents and teachers countering it with "Are you really comparing yourself to President Obama?"

Oh, and mamatried, I asked a neighbor who said she was against the speech.  She said she was afraid he would mention healthcare reform, his hope to pass a single payer program, or other divisive goals he has for his term.  I think Obama had more sense than to mention something so controversial, but I can see the point.  I was mostly concerned with the lesson plan, which was dropped around the same time our school district decided to move the speech to a link on their website.  I don't want my kids growing up with the idea that it is their job as a citizen to "help" or "serve" the President.  The President works for us, not the other way around, and the fact that the WH put that out bothers me a great deal.  Oh, and for all the rhetoric about critical thinking, did anyone else see a question that encouraged kids to criticize the speech, or say what they would have changed about it?

@myanna--But nothing in Obama's past speeches or actions indicates that he would include such things in an educational speech to students.  So the fears are not based on anything concrete or consistent with what we all *know* about Obama.  

In the same light, if GWB had given a speech I'm sure some folks would be worried that he would say something to justify the war in Iraq or promote No Child Left Behind (which was bipartisan in support) but my response is so what?  Is mentioning health care reform to children really damaging?  Is saying we should support our troops? And again I think it is very inconsistent with what we know about presidential speeches to think either man would include these issues.

And your situation with the Scouts is very unfortunate.  Religious groups (like Teens for Christ) actually meet at the high school at which I taught (and many other local schools) before/after school which to me is a fine use of public space so I am not sure what the opposition to the Scouts would be.  

mamatried:   I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not at all opposed to Scouts (or Teens for Christ) meeting in a public school building outside of school hours.  My objection is to a religious group being allowed into a public school to recruit members.   The Boy Scouts like to pretend they're open to all boys when, in fact, they do not accept atheist/agnostic members or leaders.  Nor do they accept gay members/leaders.  So no, it doesn't sit well with me that they'd come to a public school, talk up the Boy Scouts as a great fun organization, and then say, "Oh, no, honey, you're not fit to be a Scout.  While we're at it, your fathers aren't fit to be troop leaders."

Clisby--while it is true that BSA does not accept gay male scoutmasters, there is absolutely NO limit on the boys who can participate in scouts.  I would wager that few boys under 12 (and most boys who participate in scouts are well under 12 when they first sign up) can honestly be called gay, so the implication that I, or anyone else in scouts would tell a child he is not fit to be a scout is just offensive.  Have you ever heard a scout leader tell a child that he is not "fit" to be a scout?  Both of my brothers joined scouts as kids and my elder brother who is gay actually went farther in it and was more positive about his experience.  Boys who have gay fathers, absent fathers, gay mothers, etc. are always welcome in scouts.  Gay fathers may certainly participate in nearly every activity there is to do with scouts.  Scoutmasters, however, who lead overnights with pubescent boys should be straight men, not women, not gay men.  This is just a matter of comfort level for the boys involved (the boys unrelated to the scoutmaster) , NOT a statement that gay men are somehow "unfit".  There is a two-mom family in my pack, though I don't know them well, who are very active.

To clarify the trouble with doing scouts at school--the group was not successfull in their email campaign to deny us the use of the school, but when the complaints about the President's speech were decided to have merit, suddenly their complaint about our lunchtime activity the day after the speech had merit, too.

@Clisby--I see where you are coming from especially just the implication that a person who identifies as 'straight' is somehow less likely than someone who identifies as 'gay' of being a predator.  I mean, that is very offensive.  

When I was in high school, a religious group called 'Young Life' came in and talked to students during lunch and they were pretty aggressive so I agree that we should probably limit access to students during school hours.  Which is unfortunate because I think SO many students benefit from groups like the Scouts and contacting during lunch may be the only way to reach out to them or let them know about opportunities.  I am not even religious and I let the 'Teens for Christ' meet in my room before school!  I did not agree with the religious aspects of their group but I liked the support they gave the students honestly.

But I'm way OT, sorry Katie.

yes, I'm sorry for bringing scouts in at all

Hi Katie! Yet again, you put my feelings into words so much better than I can. Thank you so much, you rock!

What I think is un-American is the idea that your position or power somehow denotes how much civility or 'respect' you should receive. President Obama gets the same amount of respect I would show to any other man of his age. That respect, by the way, does not entail allowing him to speak to my children on a whim. President Obama is not the kind of role model I want for my children and I won't pretend that he has a right to take a paternal attitude towards my children. Nor do I find that disrespectful. He's a man who's been elected my President, but he's still just a man. He just happens to have a very important job that I seriously doubt he's capable of fulfilling.

I have no objection to the speech, but I thought it was pretty funny that someone who went to private schools most of his life was speaking to public school kids.  I wonder if the big O would be where he is today if he had gone public?

What a good point.  He has also never chosen to send his girls to public school.  If only there was a (vouchers) way to make sure that (vouchers) everyone got that choice...(vouchers)

I know a mother--a lesbian, liberal, granola-eating, super-crunchy mama, whose daughter recently got married.  The mother was all up in arms, because this daughter, who was raised in a very "question authority" type household, ended up being a card-carrying Republican who married a military man.

Now, of course this mother loves her daughter;  she's just surprised at the choices the daughter has made, considering those decisions are so different from the way she was raised.  

The mother now says if she had the opportunity to do it over again, she would've raised her daughter in a conservative household, so when she grew up and rebelled, she'd be a liberal.  The mother, I think, is only half-kidding.

Anyway, my point is, all these kids who were pulled out of school are one day going to rebel against their parents--perhaps by becoming socialists!  (Of course, all of our kids who are raised on a diet of the Ramones and social justice have the potential of growing up to be suit-wearing stockbrokers who only care about the almighty dollar...)