Monday, September 07, 2009
Nobody's been commenting, so let me try this...
It is virtually impossible to have a complete understanding of a public issue, and I do not profess to have a complete understanding of the controversy associated with President Obama’s upcoming address to the nation’s school children. Still, I thought some of you, knowing that I am a teacher, might wonder what my opinion is.
For good or ill, public awareness of his speech came on the heels of the “I Pledge…” incident in Farmington, Utah (See my previous post "Food for Thought"). The Farmington incident was a consequence of a local decision, but nonetheless may have helped set the scene for an outcry from conservatives when the announced nationwide address became center-stage. I think it is well within the president’s role to address our nation’s children. Conservative presidents have done it in the past, and have even used some of the phrases that President Obama’s critics find offensive.
As a consequence of the outcry, the speech has been amended, and the administration has moved more to a soft-sell in promoting it. The original perception was that it would be near-obligatory viewing for children, and an imposition upon classroom teachers.
Today I read the speech, and only had two editorial comments.
First, President Obama seems to be assuming that most of his listeners dislike school, come from broken homes, are underprivileged, or have a disability. I would like to have read more material directed at normal, motivated, well-nurtured children. In our press to promote a spirit of inclusion, I feel we sometimes overlook our mainstream majority.
My second observation is in the final full paragraph, where the president says:
“Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn (italics added). But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.”
The president is right in encouraging children to do their best. He is right to want to create a nationwide environment that promotes successful schools, so that children have the opportunity to get the education they need. I do not believe it is his role, however, to fix classrooms and get materials. That is the role of the states, counties, and individual school districts. He is implying a constitutional national responsibility for education. If the federal government would leave more money in the states, schools wouldn’t have to write federal grants to run their programs.
For good or ill, public awareness of his speech came on the heels of the “I Pledge…” incident in Farmington, Utah (See my previous post "Food for Thought"). The Farmington incident was a consequence of a local decision, but nonetheless may have helped set the scene for an outcry from conservatives when the announced nationwide address became center-stage. I think it is well within the president’s role to address our nation’s children. Conservative presidents have done it in the past, and have even used some of the phrases that President Obama’s critics find offensive.
As a consequence of the outcry, the speech has been amended, and the administration has moved more to a soft-sell in promoting it. The original perception was that it would be near-obligatory viewing for children, and an imposition upon classroom teachers.
Today I read the speech, and only had two editorial comments.
First, President Obama seems to be assuming that most of his listeners dislike school, come from broken homes, are underprivileged, or have a disability. I would like to have read more material directed at normal, motivated, well-nurtured children. In our press to promote a spirit of inclusion, I feel we sometimes overlook our mainstream majority.
My second observation is in the final full paragraph, where the president says:
“Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn (italics added). But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.”
The president is right in encouraging children to do their best. He is right to want to create a nationwide environment that promotes successful schools, so that children have the opportunity to get the education they need. I do not believe it is his role, however, to fix classrooms and get materials. That is the role of the states, counties, and individual school districts. He is implying a constitutional national responsibility for education. If the federal government would leave more money in the states, schools wouldn’t have to write federal grants to run their programs.
# posted by Bradley L. Hill @ 7:26 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I was sad to hear our school would not be playing it live. I think individual classes will watch it at a later time (unless you signed the note asking to opt out.) Interesting feedback- I haven't heard it yet- I was getting new tires on our van.
Post a Comment
<< Home
