Opinions on Obama's speech to students next week? UPDATE given in first post

[justlearning]

I just received an email with a link to this article from foxnews: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/02/critics-decry-obamas-lesson-plan-students/
Of course if you google it, you can find whatever source you wish that addresses this subject.

I'm wondering what you as moms think of this planned speech and accompanying lesson plans? If you support Obama and the plan, do you see this as a shrewd political move or completely apolitical?

And lastly, do you know if your child's school will be participating next week? Just curious...

Edited to add on 9/3 that here's a link to an article today about how the White House is rewriting the controversial questions for students that are being provided to teachers: www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/03/white-house-withdraws-students-help-obama/

I didn't intend at all for this thread to become an antagonistic thread about liberalism in the schools, etc. I was just curious if people found the original curriculum accompanying the President's speech to be intentionally political or not. This has become a controversy in the past two days and I was wondering what moms on this board thought about the speech and curriculum itself.

[sariana]

I saw something about this on the teachers board I visit. I don't know much about it, but I can say his timing is bad. Our district doesn't start until September 10th.

[Laurel]

I think he is the President of the United States and gets to do stuff like this. Seems fairly benign to me...I failed to see where the Obama "agenda" was being forced in this context, but I am a socialist liberal elitist ;). I think we can support and respect the office of the President without agreeing with every thing the President does.

I think those who are calling this "indoctrination" would have been calling it "patriotic" a few years ago and vice-versa.

I'm weary of every single thing becoming a partisan fight.

[ellies mom]

I think he is the President of the United States and gets to do stuff like this. Seems fairly benign to me...I failed to see where the Obama "agenda" was being forced in this context, but I am a socialist liberal elitist. I think we can support and respect the office of the President without agreeing with every thing the President does.

I think those who are calling this "indoctrination" would have been calling it "patriotic" a few years ago and vice-versa.

I'm weary of every single thing becoming a partisan fight.

:yeahthat:

[wellyes]

i think those who are calling this "indoctrination" would have been calling it "patriotic" a few years ago and vice-versa.

I'm weary of every single thing becoming a partisan fight.

thank you! I am so tired of everything being a controversy. Even a president asking students to work hard.

It's the press's fault, they can't just say "the president is going to do xyz", they feel they have to be "balanced" by saying "the president is going to do xyz and his critics disagree because abc". Every. Article. Every viewpoint is given equal weight, whether there are 4 protesters or 4000. It's maddening.

[AngelaS]

The liberal agenda is pushed every day in public schools, so this really isn't any different.

[Laurel]

The liberal agenda is pushed every day in public schools, so this really isn't any different.

Just because I'm curious about other viewpoints, could you give examples of what you think constitutes the "liberal agenda" being pushed in public education please?

I find there is a lot about public education pushes that other agendas that I disagree with.

[wellyes]

The article says:
"It essentially tries to force kids to say the president and the presidency is inspiring, and that's very problematic," McCluskey said. "It's very concerning that you would do that."

Those crazy liberals, wanting people to respect the Presidency!

[Laurel]

The article says:

Those crazy liberals, wanting people to respect the Presidency!

Ok, that quote you posted had me laughing out loud! I feel like I've been living in crazy backwards land since January 20th.

[StantonHyde]

Here, they are having a fit about a video that was on youtube, I think, of different stars saying how they would support service and Obama advocating service. Some of the ideas are silly--listen to music, but the more controversial ones here have to do with driving a high mileage vehicle vs an SUV and recycling. That's right--The local head of the local Eagle Forum said "those are values that should be taught in the home". yep, I live in whack job land.

[vludmilla]

The liberal agenda is pushed every day in public schools, so this really isn't any different.

Is the teaching of "intelligent design" as a scientific theory part of the liberal agenda?

Are abstinence-only health/sex ed programs part of the liberal agenda?

Is corporal punishment part of the liberal agenda?

[kijip]

Well let's see here: I think that... I listened to speeches by and wrote letters about/to Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and Bill Clinton (who was president when I graduated from high school) as part of history, civics and social studies classes or sections. I recall having to address letters to each Dukakis and G. HW Bush in 1988 about "an issue in our school!". :jammin: I recall another assignment to write the elder bush about something we admired about the nation.

T's kindergarten class wrote letters (drew pictures etc) to Bush last fall. They got a coloring book about the election with both McCain and Obama in it, they got a coloring book about the inaugaration and watched Obama's inaguration. I would assume that had McCain been elected, they would have watched that too.

And I would assume that every year for generations students ranging from age 5 to high school, at any school with an inkling of teaching civics, have been asked to learn about the sitting president and address correspondence to him. My dad wrote to Truman and Eisenhower. My mom to Kennedy and Johnson. My older brother to Jimmy Carter etc. Getting up in arms about writing a letter to yourself about academic achievement seems to be grasping at the thinnest of straws for making a case of malevolent indoctrination. I think it is as silly as getting upset about the pledge of allegiance. Gosh darn it, I am just appalled that students would be ask to make pledges about their future sucess in school!

GW Bush oversaw the largest EVER expansion of the federal role in local schools. It was his signature issue to a large degree. How was that any better or worse than Obama making a speech that essentially will from what I can gather say "work hard and you can succeed, work hard and we will help you succeed". We have better technology than ever before and that allows for a student geared message during the day. Seems sort of cool to me. And I would think the same if McCain were in office.

[larig]

haven't read other posts, but this quote from upthread made me so exasporated I just had to get this posted...

The liberal agenda is pushed every day in public schools, so this really isn't any different.

this is just plain insulting to the thousands of hard-working, under-paid, under-appreciated educators who go to school 180 days a year to teach children math, science, reading, writing, music, art, pe, home ec, typing, ...

and what is this so-called liberal agenda to which you're referring? common denominators? long-division? gerunds? cursive? the dreaded sentence diagramming? balancing chemical equations?

[AngelaS]

Is the teaching of "intelligent design" as a scientific theory part of the liberal agenda?

Are abstinence-only health/sex ed programs part of the liberal agenda?

Is corporal punishment part of the liberal agenda?

None of those things are taught in schools here---Evolution, safe sex (including passing out condoms) and no punishment are the norm.

Schools are liberal. Even down to "all school supplies are shared", which screams of socialism. No child left behind, because we don't want to hurt anyone's self esteem because they didn't move up with their classmates. Every winter holiday except the birth of Christ is celebrated, there's no prayer at graduations, gay groups have more rights that Bible studies and the list could go on and on.

But I'm stopping now, because I've been attacked one too many times by the liberals on this board. I should not have posted in this thread.

[wellyes]

No child left behind, because we don't want to hurt anyone's self esteem because they didn't move up with their classmates.

I'm not going to attack - but based on this, I do think you may have misheard about NCLB. It's very conservative-friendly (state-based, standardized results regardless of classroom circumstance or student ethnic/racial background, etc). Here is the wikipedia writeup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_child_left_behind).

[AngelaS]

I know several teachers who HATE it. Kids know they can't fail and therefore don't care and don't try. They also have to spend so much time teaching so kids will do well on the test that they don't have time to cover the other stuff that kids really need to know.

[SnuggleBuggles]

Wasn't NCLB created during Bush's administration? Hard to blame that on a liberal agenda. Btw, I am liberal and I hate NCLB.

Beth

[wellyes]

I know several teachers who HATE it. Kids know they can't fail and therefore don't care and don't try. They also have to spend so much time teaching so kids will do well on the test that they don't have time to cover the other stuff that kids really need to know.

Oh, I'm not a fan, trust me. But it just goes to show, bad school policy does not = liberal. It was Bush's.

[vludmilla]

None of those things are taught in schools here---Evolution, safe sex (including passing out condoms) and no punishment are the norm.

Schools are liberal. Even down to "all school supplies are shared", which screams of socialism. No child left behind, because we don't want to hurt anyone's self esteem because they didn't move up with their classmates. Every winter holiday except the birth of Christ is celebrated, there's no prayer at graduations, gay groups have more rights that Bible studies and the list could go on and on.

But I'm stopping now, because I've been attacked one too many times by the liberals on this board. I should not have posted in this thread.

I did not attack you in my response to your quote. I questioned your statement that schools are so liberal.

I know that in my fairly liberal area (NYC metro area) there are NO condoms in any of the suburban schools near me. In my district, they don't teach anything about sex at all until 10th grade health class. There most certainly is punishment, just not corporal punishment. We also celebrate Christmas and Hannukah along with other holidays. Children are also, most certainly, failed and retained. I don't know where you get your information but school districts vary considerably, even in liberal areas and the broadbrush you use to paint all public schools seems ludicrous to me. Of course the things you cited may have occurred in some schools but to act like those examples are emblematic of ALL public schools seems like it has to be disingenuous.

[larig]

this is just plain insulting to the thousands of hard-working, under-paid, under-appreciated educators who go to school 180 days a year to teach children math, science, reading, writing, music, art, pe, home ec, typing, ...

and what is this so-called liberal agenda to which you're referring? common denominators? long-division? gerunds? cursive? the dreaded sentence diagramming? balancing chemical equations?

this is what I said, I'm not attacking you, but I thought your statement (not you, personally, but what you wrote) was unjustified and unfair. It's hearing/reading statements like that that makes me glad I'm not teaching anymore. You attacked teachers, I'm just standing up for them.

[Naranjadia]

Oh good heavens. Where were these people when Ronald Reagan made his Challenger speech, which came with study guides? What about President Bush (I) and his speech on drugs?

Honestly, I had Ronald Reagan come to my high school to make an education speech a month after it was revealed that we were covertly selling arms to Iran to secretly support the Contras in Nicaragua. I don't recall anyone pointing out how political a move it was to make his first public speech after the scandal broke to an auditorium full of high school students.

But now some adults are calling for a sick-out? It makes me livid after years of hearing about respecting the presidency that we are having such a breakdown in decorum. We've got the Florida GOP chair protesting Obama's visit, a pastor in Arizona publicly praying for our President's death, etc, etc.

[katydid1971]

and what is this so-called liberal agenda to which you're referring? common denominators? long-division? gerunds? cursive? the dreaded sentence diagramming? balancing chemical equations?

Yep its the sentence diagramming (or maybe that's just the work of the devil, I'm not sure)

[larig]

yep its the sentence diagramming (or maybe that's just the work of the devil, i'm not sure)

:hysterical:

[kijip]

Schools are liberal. Even down to "all school supplies are shared", which screams of socialism. No child left behind, because we don't want to hurt anyone's self esteem because they didn't move up with their classmates. Every winter holiday except the birth of Christ is celebrated, there's no prayer at graduations, gay groups have more rights that Bible studies and the list could go on and on.

But I'm stopping now, because I've been attacked one too many times by the liberals on this board. I should not have posted in this thread.

Schools are...

that reads that all schools are. I don't think you can back up the statement that all schools are as you describe. I personally have never attended a school EXACTLY as the one you described, and I live in one of the most liberal cities in the nation. For your examples, I can point to examples of the opposite- my husband went to school with prayer group and they sang religious (only Christian) songs in the choir for one. Gay kids were bashed verbally and physically for years and straight kids suspected of being gay were bashed and the teachers and administration turned a blind eye, stating that kids will be kids. And oh so many others from different schools I have attended or read about etc.

When will disagreement on this board be seen for what it's face value- disagreement of opinion- and not for an attack? I think your remarks are a touch dismissive of both liberals and schools but I don't see them as an attack, I see them as a different point of view. FWIW, I agree with you that there certainly situations that match, at least partially, your descriptions. But trust me there are many, many that do not. Certainly educators are not all liberals, there are plenty of conservatives drawn to the teaching profession. In my opinion, there are many, many great teachers, liberal and conservative, that teach well and in a factual, generally unbiased way.

A truly good educator (in the subjects where politics does come into play like civics and history) is not going to only teach their personal values- they are going to challenge students to think for themselves, obtain a fairly complete understanding of historical events and contexts, and achieve a high level of rigor in their research, essay and general writing skills. I believe that my generally liberal world view was the most challenged by a teacher and high school mentor who is himself extremely liberal with strong socialist beliefs (Green party candidate for Congress and city council). But he was (is still) an excellent civics and history teacher and sought to teach students to challenge whatever belief set they came to him with and I learned more respect for many aspects of conservatism from him than from any other teacher, high school or college. Combine that experience with studying Econ with Chicago school economists, and I find I have generally read more conservative writings and opinion than many conservatives.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Oh, I'm not a fan, trust me. But it just goes to show, bad school policy does not = liberal. It was Bush's.

:yeahthat:
And I am a liberal that believes in kids sharing school supplies, and LGBT groups, and so on. NCLB is poo-poo. But, we have Bush to thank for that. The prayer stuff goes with "Separation of Church and State" which has been around a looonnngggg time. I think if we allow prayer, we should allow it for ALL religions and that is just not realistic. I also believe in Winter Break, as I grew up with Muslims, Jews, etc. and I myself am agnostic, I celebrate Festivus. Maybe I will ask that they get a pole for our family if they have a Christmas tree.:ROTFLMAO: If we do it for one, it is only fair to do it for all!

[larig]

The liberal agenda is pushed every day in public schools, so this really isn't any different.

Maybe this isn't an attack on teachers, but it most certainly is an inflammatory statement, in my book, and merited an unvarnished response.

And frankly, I'm just so sick of this friggin' LIBERAL AGENDA b.s. I mean, come on people, conservatives were in power for EIGHT years. We've had a dem in the white house for 9 months and if the conservatives in my family are to be believed everyone's taxes have gone up (not true), they're encouraging kids to have sex in schools, brainwashing kids to become obamabots, taking away people's guns, killing grandma, forcing abortions and paying for it with tax dollars, letting the "terrorists" win, we've become *gasp* socialist! (egad!! do people even know this is an economic theory?). All I have to ask is REALLY, REALLY!? You REALLY believe this? Where is the evidence of the tax increase (unless you're a smoker). What has actually changed for you in your life on a day-to-day basis since obama was inaugurated? REALLY?

If you're going to complain about obama and what he's doing, at least pick REAL things to complain about (there are plenty). This is just crap. It gets old. I'm so sick of it, and we've got at least another 3 years to listen to it. I may have offended people here, but you can't say stuff like that and not expect people to challenge it.

[kcandz]

Even down to "all school supplies are shared", which screams of socialism.

I always thought sharing was a good thing? Aren't we always teaching our kids that on the playgrounds?


No child left behind, because we don't want to hurt anyone's self esteem because they didn't move up with their classmates.

NCLB was started by a conservative president.


Every winter holiday except the birth of Christ is celebrated, there's no prayer at graduations, gay groups have more rights that Bible studies and the list could go on and on.

I think there is no prayer at graduations because to include all religions equally, that would be a lot of praying.

I don't think it is "a liberal agenda" to be inclusive to all types of students from all backgrounds. I think it is American.

[pinkmomagain]

I don't think it is "a liberal agenda" to be inclusive to all types of students from all backgrounds. I think it is American.

Beautifully put.

[mommylamb]

Schools are liberal. Even down to "all school supplies are shared", which screams of socialism. No child left behind, because we don't want to hurt anyone's self esteem because they didn't move up with their classmates. Every winter holiday except the birth of Christ is celebrated, there's no prayer at graduations, gay groups have more rights that Bible studies and the list could go on and on.


:hysterical: When I read the first sentence of this quote, I thought you were being sarcastic, but then reading the rest of the paragraph, I guess you're serious. sharing school supplies=socialism... a new chapter in the communist manifesto I guess.

Seriously though, NCLB was Bush's signature domestic policy issue. I think it's a poorly thought out law for a lot of reasons, none of which are liberal in my book.

As for celebrating winter holidays other than "the birth of Christ," I can't speak to what your school system does, but I think all religious teachings should stay out of public school. If you want to teach that Christmas is the birth of christ and celebrate it, go to a private religious school. Kids in public school come from different backgrounds.

It sounds to me like a liberal agenda in school in your book basically means that christianity isn't forced on non-christian students.

[Ceepa]

Angela, I agree with you on several points, but I'm joining a number of other folks who don't see this board battle as being worth wading into this: :29:

And I see sarcasm is the flavor of this thread so ... maybe Obama can have students offer ideas about how they and their children can pay the enormous debt being created by this administration. ;)

[Globetrotter]

I always thought sharing was a good thing? Aren't we always teaching our kids that on the playgrounds?
NCLB was started by a conservative president.
I think there is no prayer at graduations because to include all religions equally, that would be a lot of praying.

I don't think it is "a liberal agenda" to be inclusive to all types of students from all backgrounds. I think it is American.

:yeahthat:

[TwinFoxes]

I think it's ridiculous that people are saying it's part of a plot to indoctrinate students. I also say what's good for the Republican goose is good for the Democratic gander. This is from today's Washington Post article about the President's upcoming speech:

In October 1991, then-President George H.W. Bush gave a nationally televised speech to students at the District's Alice Deal Junior High School, encouraging them to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers. At the time, House Democrats assailed the speech as a misappropriation of education funds for political purposes.

It's called partisan politics. Each side does it. It usually only really bugs people when it's not their side doing it.

[kijip]

And I see sarcasm is the flavor of this thread so ... maybe Obama can have students offer ideas about how they and their children can pay the enormous debt being created by this administration. ;)

Why does everything have to be

other side = BAD

poster's side = GOOD

on this board?

Obama is not a guy you like so the federal debt is solely his problem...after Bush's presidency sees the elimination the first budget surpluses in years through a combination of spending, the event of recession and lowing taxes (while increasing spending), leaving it at it's highest ever level? Some liberals would chime in here and point to Clinton reducing the deficit and debt but I don't give Clinton full credit for that - low interest rates and boom time economy have a way of reducing the debt. Every recession we have ever had, has had a negative impact on the deficit and debt. So even though I think Bush contributed, I don't put full blame at his door. I just wish people (in this case Fox) did not seek every opportunity to demonize someone.

[Ceepa]

Why does everything have to be

other side = BAD

poster's side = GOOD

on this board?

Obama is not a guy you like so the federal debt is solely his problem...after Bush's presidency sees the elimination the first budget surpluses in years through a combination of spending, the event of recession and lowing taxes (while increasing spending), leaving it at it's highest ever level? Some liberals would chime in here and point to Clinton reducing the deficit and debt but I don't give Clinton full credit for that - low interest rates and boom time economy have a way of reducing the debt. Every recession we have ever had, has had a negative impact on the deficit and debt. So even though I think Bush contributed, I don't put full blame at his door. I just wish people (in this case Fox) did not seek every opportunity to demonize someone.

Get back to me in 2013 with a calculator and we'll go over the numbers.

And I don't know if you were directly addressing my post, but I didn't characterize members' stances as "GOOD" or "BAD."

[infocrazy]

In reading this particular article, I really don't think that Fox is saying the president's speech is all bad. I feel they do a fair job of presenting both sides. Like many people have said, the country is so partison these days that I think you just can't win regardless.

As a conservative, my only problem is the wording of "how the student can help the president". I would personally prefer "how the student can help the country" since helping the president DOES imply that he is making the right decisions. I do not believe that he is, however, my child needs to respect that the president IS the president and although we may vehemently disagree with most of the steps he is taking, he still deserves respect as the leader of the US. Just as I would expect for your child to respect Bush or any conservative president while they were in office.

FWIW, I DO agree that at least locally, the public schools do have a liberal spin. I think that some of this is because in MY opinion, political correctness has gone WAY past the point of appropriate and in my mind, that is affiliated with Clinton and the liberal viewpoint.

[mommylamb]

I think it's ridiculous that people are saying it's part of a plot to indoctrinate students. I also say what's good for the Republican goose is good for the Democratic gander. This is from today's Washington Post article about the President's upcoming speech:

In October 1991, then-President George H.W. Bush gave a nationally televised speech to students at the District's Alice Deal Junior High School, encouraging them to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers. At the time, House Democrats assailed the speech as a misappropriation of education funds for political purposes.

It's called partisan politics. Each side does it. It usually only really bugs people when it's not their side doing it.

Totally agree with this. I know which side I stand on, but the fact is both sides are rife with hypocrisy over stuff like this.

As per the "this administration creating the debt" conversation, the bulk of the debt isn't from something that happened in this administration. The recovery act (the only major spending passed so far during this administration) is a drop in the bucket in comparison to spending on ongoing items. Medicare is probably the biggest debt problem going forward. A good example of the hypocrisy on both sides is some of the current talk about cuts to Medicare. In the current debate over health reform, the Democrats have proposed some pretty hefty cuts to Medicare to cover costs associated with increasing the number of insured. These same cuts are cuts the Democrats outright opposed during the last Administration. The Republicans-- who supported those cuts during the last Administration-- are now accusing the Democrats of "Stealing from Medicare" and are totally opposed to making those cuts...

[Ceepa]

Totally agree with this. I know which side I stand on, but the fact is both sides are rife with hypocrisy over stuff like this.

As per the "this administration creating the debt" conversation, the bulk of the debt isn't from something that happened in this administration. The recovery act (the only major spending passed so far during this administration) is a drop in the bucket in comparison to spending on ongoing items. Medicare is probably the biggest debt problem going forward. A good example of the hypocrisy on both sides is some of the current talk about cuts to Medicare. In the current debate over health reform, the Democrats have proposed some pretty hefty cuts to Medicare to cover costs associated with increasing the number of insured. These same cuts are cuts the Democrats outright opposed during the last Administration. The Republicans-- who supported those cuts during the last Administration-- are now accusing the Democrats of "Stealing from Medicare" and are totally opposed to making those cuts...

You're welcome to the review in 2013 as well. :wink2:

[lovin2shop]

This situation just makes me so frustrated and sad with how polarized and politicized everything has become in our country. I think that it is sad to drag our kids into the fight. One large district in our area is sending the kids whose parent's don't consent to the cafeteria during the presentation. What kind of a message does that send, both to the kids that don't watch and even those that do? I'm still trying to figure out how to explain why some kids parents won't let them watch to my 6 year old. Can't we all just try to get along at least in front of the kids?

[mommylamb]

You're welcome to the review in 2013 as well. :wink2:

So long as I can add up the spending from 2000-2008, I'm there.

Out of curiosity, if you got to make the decisions, what would you cut?

[Ceepa]

So long as I can add up the spending from 2000-2008, I'm there.

Out of curiosity, if you got to make the decisions, what would you cut?

Hmm, I would have to give that further thought. Wouldn't want to create national policy just off the cuff, you know? And don't I get some advisors? At least some power point slides to review?

[mommylamb]

Hmm, I would have to give that further thought. Wouldn't want to create national policy just off the cuff, you know? And don't I get some advisors? At least some power point slides to review?

As you think about it, take a look at this:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2755

Now, yes, CBPP is a left of center think tank, but even the Republicans on the Hill I know swill admit that their analysis is very good. From a number crunching standpoint, it's hard to say they're off base.

[pinkmomagain]

This situation just makes me so frustrated and sad with how polarized and politicized everything has become in our country. I think that it is sad to drag our kids into the fight. One large district in our area is sending the kids whose parent's don't consent to the cafeteria during the presentation. What kind of a message does that send, both to the kids that don't watch and even those that do? I'm still trying to figure out how to explain why some kids parents won't let them watch to my 6 year old. Can't we all just try to get along at least in front of the kids?

I think that's crazy! Maybe I'm naive, but I really can't believe that parents would ban their kids from listening to the president! If they felt the need, they could always discuss and present their point of view over the dinner table after the kids come home from school....but pull them out of the classroom? No wonder my husband can't get me to leave Long Island........

[kijip]

Get back to me in 2013 with a calculator and we'll go over the numbers.


So you can see the future, 2013 but not the past 2000-2008? The good and the bad is Obama=bad, your opinion = good. Can't there be some gray? Some room to admit that most people are working hard to do good even if they disagree. Could Bush's role in building this debt be recognized at all by conservatives?

[Ceepa]

As you think about it, take a look at this:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2755

Now, yes, CBPP is a left of center think tank, but even the Republicans on the Hill I know swill admit that their analysis is very good. From a number crunching standpoint, it's hard to say they're off base.

Thanks. I'll keep this entry in mind. It actually helps support my theories when I notice an article's sources and how they're cited and used.

[mommylamb]

Thanks. I'll keep this entry in mind. It actually helps support my theories when I notice an article's sources and how they're cited and used.

They also do a lot of budget for dummies stuff that breaks down the budgeting process and how tax money actually goes out that I find pretty helpful.

But when people talk about spending too much money (and I agree, there's a lot of waste out there), I always wonder what it is that they would cut. It's not as easy as it seems.

[Moneypenny]

Hmm, I would have to give that further thought. Wouldn't want to create national policy just off the cuff, you know? And don't I get some advisors? At least some power point slides to review?

I don't understand this type of response. How is it helpful to just pick on the policies that are out there but not offer alternatives? I know the Republicans are sending out emails instructing people to just criticize Democrats and sit back and hope that they fail, and then the Republicans will enact their policies when they are next in power, but what good does that do anybody?

[Ceepa]

So you can see the future, 2013 but not the past 2000-2008? The good and the bad is Obama=bad, your opinion = good. Can't there be some gray? Some room to admit that most people are working hard to do good even if they disagree. Could Bush's role in building this debt be recognized at all by conservatives?

Of course Bush contributed, the Oval Office wasn't vacant for eight years. Gray area? Sure. Let's all assume everyone is working from a position of wanting what's best. It seems we simply disagree on what's best and how to get there. Diversity. Love it.

[mommylamb]

Of course Bush contributed, the Oval Office wasn't vacant for eight years. Gray area? Sure. Let's all assume everyone is working from a position of wanting what's best. It seems we simply disagree on what's best and how to get there. Diversity. Love it.

Actually, I think there is a lot of agreement on what's best. It's the how to get there that people diverge on. An economically vibrant, healthy populace with ample opportunity for all is something I think most people could agree on. How you achieve that is the question. I try to think of that when I disagree with what a politician does.

But I get frustrated when people just try to be obstructionist because their party isn't setting the rules, rather than trying to work with the party in power. And, I'm not saying the Dems are better than the Republicans on that either. Though, I can think of multiple instances when the Ds attempted to work with Bush on things (No Child Left Behind, immigration, some of the 2001 tax cuts, etc) and it seems that so far this administration that the Republicans in Congress haven't been willing to try. I think the governors have done a better job.

[mommylamb]

And, when we have our 2013 pow wow to compare notes, I'll be including the cost of the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

More from a CBPP report from September 08:
The federal budget is projected to run a $546 billion deficit in 2009, compared with the $710 billion surplus that budget experts projected for 2009 back when President Bush took office nearly eight years ago. This $1.3 trillion deterioration in the nation’s fiscal finances for 2009 can be seen by comparing estimates that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released this week with those that CBO released in January 2001.
Impact of Tax Cuts and Spending Increases on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009

As noted, tax cuts and program increases enacted by Congress have worsened the budget by about $1 trillion in 2009. (These figures assume that tax and program policies in place today will be continued.[1]) As shown in Figure 1, the key components are:

* Tax cuts. Enactment of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, along with AMT relief, the normal “tax extenders,”[2] and a variety of minor tax provisions have worsened the 2009 budget by $427 billion and thus account for 42 percent of the $1 trillion deterioration. These figures include both the direct[3] costs of the tax cuts and their associated interest costs. (By reducing projected revenues, the tax cuts have increased deficits and debt relative to the January 2001 projection. With higher debt, the Treasury must pay more interest.)
* Increases in appropriations for defense, international affairs, and homeland security. Expenditures projected for this portion of the budget in 2009 are much higher than CBO projected in early 2001. While a substantial portion of the extra costs stem from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there have also been significant increases in the underlying budgets of the Departments of Defense, State, and Homeland Security that are not directly related to these wars. Total increases in this part of the budget amount to $399 billion in 2009, relative to CBO’s projection, and thus account for 40 percent of the $1 trillion deterioration, when the associated interest costs are included.
* Increases in entitlement programs. Since 2001, Congress has enacted a number of entitlement increases, most notably the Medicare prescription drug benefit, but also increases in farm and nutrition programs, military retirement and health care, veterans’ education benefits, and other, smaller programs. These cost increases amount to $119 billion in 2009, or 12 percent of the $1 trillion deterioration.
* Increases in appropriations for domestic, or non-security, programs. Funding for this portion of the budget has also increased above the levels projected in 2001, although this funding peaked in real terms in 2004 and has generally declined since then. The largest increases have occurred in education programs, veterans’ health care, and transportation programs. The increased expenditures in this part of the budget total $66 billion in 2009, or 6 percent of the $1 trillion deterioration.

As can be seen, tax cuts and defense/security increases account for 82 percent of the budget deterioration in 2009 that is attributable to legislation enacted since January 2001. Increases in domestic spending account for 18 percent.

[infocrazy]

* Increases in appropriations for defense, international affairs, and homeland security. Expenditures projected for this portion of the budget in 2009 are much higher than CBO projected in early 2001. While a substantial portion of the extra costs stem from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there have also been significant increases in the underlying budgets of the Departments of Defense, State, and Homeland Security that are not directly related to these wars. Total increases in this part of the budget amount to $399 billion in 2009, relative to CBO’s projection, and thus account for 40 percent of the $1 trillion deterioration, when the associated interest costs are included.

I hesitate to post here, since I am admittedly not fully knowledgeable about this particular issue. However, anecdotedly, DH was active in the Marine Corps for 2 yrs prior and 2 yrs post Clinton's inauguaration and saw first hand the differences in the administrations. There were major cuts in the military, enough so that DH felt that our country was not well prepared for the future security of the US. So, I can see why a republican administration would increase the budgets of those different departments unrelated to the war, because from their standpoint they were underfunded to begin with. With 9/11, I think MOST politicians agreed that increased homeland security was important, but again had different opinions on how to accomplish that goal.

I would think there is no disagreement that the republican and democratic ideologies have different views of the budget support level the military requires.

[mommylamb]

I hesitate to post here, since I am admittedly not fully knowledgeable about this particular issue. However, anecdotedly, DH was active in the Marine Corps for 2 yrs prior and 2 yrs post Clinton's inauguaration and saw first hand the differences in the administrations. There were major cuts in the military, enough so that DH felt that our country was not well prepared for the future security of the US. So, I can see why a republican administration would increase the budgets of those different departments unrelated to the war, because from their standpoint they were underfunded to begin with. With 9/11, I think MOST politicians agreed that increased homeland security was important, but again had different opinions on how to accomplish that goal.

I would think there is no disagreement that the republican and democratic ideologies have different views of the budget support level the military requires.

I'm not saying that those aren't important things to spend $$ on. I'm just pointing out that it's hard to make the "where to cut" decision. There's just a lot of talk about Democrats and spending, when both sides do it. And as for the increased deficits during the Bush years, I'm less concerned about general military increases (not including the Iraq war, which i never thought was a good idea) and homeland security than I am about some of the tax cuts for the most wealthy, like the estate tax and dividends taxation.

[wellyes]

One large district in our area is sending the kids whose parent's don't consent to the cafeteria during the presentation.

Oh goodness gracious, are you serious?

My only hope is that the conservative tactic of loudly expressing how appalled they are at everything Obama-related backfires with the moderate majority.

[arivecchi]

This situation just makes me so frustrated and sad with how polarized and politicized everything has become in our country. I think that it is sad to drag our kids into the fight. One large district in our area is sending the kids whose parent's don't consent to the cafeteria during the presentation. What kind of a message does that send, both to the kids that don't watch and even those that do? I'm still trying to figure out how to explain why some kids parents won't let them watch to my 6 year old. Can't we all just try to get along at least in front of the kids? What a poor example these parents are setting. Instead of having children listen and analyze for themselves, the parents are teaching them to stick their heads in the sand. I sure am glad I did not have parents who foisted their political views on my education.

[Snow mom]

What a poor example these parents are setting. Instead of having children listen and analyze for themselves, the parents are teaching them to stick their heads in the sand. I sure am glad I did not have parents who foisted their political views on my education.

My parents didn't talk about politics when I was growing up. It was a house rule that I assumed as a child stemmed from a disagreement over political ideology. Now that I'm older I know they are both pretty liberal. I think they just didn't believe in indoctrinating us with their beliefs on politics, religion, etc. I'd like to raise DD in a similar fashion but might have some issues with DH who is vehemently anti-religion. I agree with PPs though that if it's important to you that your children know where you stand politically it's better to have a conversation with them about your beliefs vs. the beliefs of others than try to shield them from the views of others. Personally I don't see this speech as a huge deal (having Obama tell DD to work hard and stay in school is no more or less offensive to me than having another president tell her to work hard and stay in school) but I understand how some parents could be unhappy about not having full control over what their DC are exposed to. I worry much more about other things she might be exposed to in school when I have so much less control over her environment (hello, recent thread about graphic pictures of aborted fetuses.)

[wellyes]

And now the inane protest is on the front page of the New York Times. Conservatives are so, so good at politics. Too bad they haven't shown themselves to be good at governing.

[SkyrMommy]

Commonsense seems to be the thing that is missing in so much of the political world and now it is filtering down to the schools.

As a teacher, and now new mommy... it isn't an easy road to balance out what your children hear - the students in my class are as much my 'kids' as my own and it is hard to expose them carefully to things in this world and then teach them strong enough reasoning skills, commonsense and personal worth so they can draw their own conclusions. I know as a mom I like to know what my child is learning and doing, but I will trust the teachers to do the best they can. As a teacher - I know that I'm doing the best and most balanced job with the students that I can.

Somehow the message in this speech 'stay in school and work hard' hardly seems controversial. But then again... could he have sent out the speech with accompanying information so that teachers could prep the students for better understanding... maybe.

[cdlamis]

I think that's crazy! Maybe I'm naive, but I really can't believe that parents would ban their kids from listening to the president! If they felt the need, they could always discuss and present their point of view over the dinner table after the kids come home from school....but pull them out of the classroom? No wonder my husband can't get me to leave Long Island........

:yeahthat:

[randomkid]

I've read this entire thread and I think the point of the article has been sorely missed. It doesn't seem that people are upset about the President talking to the students, it's the "assignment" to write a paper about how they can help the President. I don't think that's encouraging freedom of choice, is it?

I wouldn't send my child to the cafeteria. I think it would be an honor to have the President speak at my child's school regardless of whether or not I personally agree with his/her policies or not. However, I would NOT require my child to complete the paper unless she wanted to. To me, it's not the message of the speech that's the problem, but the message of the assignment. He's the President, so you HAVE to help him. You have no choice because you are a little kid who is very easily influenced by a very influential individual, so he must be right because I'm told I have to help him. Very wrong IMO. Children should be taught to have their own opinions. What I don't get is how having the children write an article about how they can help the President has anything at all to do with the supposed message of his speech. If he is talking about staying in school and working hard, then the paper should have something to do with that and what the kids got out of it. You know, to see if they got/understood the message, learned from it and to evaluate their comprehension abilities. The paper is totally irrelevant to his planned speech.

As far as the national debt. Um...government run healthcare, anyone? If Medicare, which is government run btw, is causing such a deficit, what will a program for everyone do? Where is that money going to come from? I agree we need healthcare reform, but saying the government will pay for healthcare when they don't have any money to do so seems a bit irresponsible to me.

[C99]

I fail to see what makes this so political when Obama's predecessor pushed school kids (and everyone else) to support the armed services deployed to the middle east in an unnecessary war.

[kijip]

I've read this entire thread and I think the point of the article has been sorely missed. It doesn't seem that people are upset about the President talking to the students, it's the "assignment" to write a paper about how they can help the President. I don't think that's encouraging freedom of choice, is it?


I addressed that in my first post- students have often written letters to presidents. This letter idea seems to be centered on how the student can help themselves succeed academically, which is the goal/plan in the speech. Again, writing a letter to yourself is a common school assignment. I think it is a good idea and would think it was a good idea even if T was writing something like that at the request of McCain or GW Bush. Are we so far gone as a nation that we can't have bipartisan support for academic excellence as an end good?

[mommylamb]

As far as the national debt. Um...government run healthcare, anyone? If Medicare, which is government run btw, is causing such a deficit, what will a program for everyone do? Where is that money going to come from? I agree we need healthcare reform, but saying the government will pay for healthcare when they don't have any money to do so seems a bit irresponsible to me.

Medicare is a single payer system. The health care reform proposal on the table does not create a single payer system for everyone else . Government wouldn't pay for health care. Government would offer a publicly run health care option that would be supported by premiums/co-pays/deductibles the same way privately run health care plans are supported by premiums/co-pays/deductibles except that it wouldn't be profit motivated. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about health care reform, especially that the government will set up a single payer system and all your health care would be covered free of charge. That one is just flat wrong.

[jse107]

I addressed that in my first post- students have often written letters to presidents. This letter idea seems to be centered on how the student can help themselves succeed academically, which is the goal/plan in the speech. Again, writing a letter to yourself is a common school assignment. I think it is a good idea and would think it was a good idea even if T was writing something like that at the request of McCain or GW Bush. Are we so far gone as a nation that we can't have bipartisan support for academic excellence as an end good?

Ditto.

And FWIW, I think that although we may disagree as citizens, our job is to support the common good. I doubt that the kindergartners would be writing to the POTUS about health care.

[StantonHyde]

When Bush spoke to students here, everyone saw it as patriotic--it was a child's duty to go or a privilege. Now that Obama is speaking, many districts here are scheduling an alternate activity for kids whose parents don't want them to see the speech. This is truly sad IMO.

[bubbaray]

Am I the only one who thinks that school curricula should be non-partisan?

I can see current political issues in h/s politics or social studies classes. Other than that, I really don't see a point to discussing politics in the classroom.

JMHO.

[Naranjadia]

Am I the only one who thinks that school curricula should be non-partisan?


I think, as some of the disagreements in this thread about what's already taught in school have shown, it's pretty difficult to be completely non-partisan. I personally know a number of Republicans who are very sharing people, but evidently to some people that is a (liberal) partisan value.

There is a history to this kind of engagement by the U.S. President with the schools. U.S. public ed has always been in part about citizenship and public ethics. I'm all for having a conversation about that, but something's not quite right about the outrage over this particular president doing what others have done before him.

Heck, I remember the dang Presidential Fitness Test when I was a kid. We were supposed to strive to be strong and healthy for our country and kids who passed got a special piece of paper "signed" by the President.

[wellyes]

Am I the only one who thinks that school curricula should be non-partisan?

I think most people would agree with that. But I also think it's impossible. Teaching evolution is seen (as on this thread) as part of the "liberal agenda". Teaching creationism would be seen as "church infringement upon schools". Not teaching it is no solutoin. So, how can science be non-partisan?

[bubbaray]

I see this more as teaching a clearly political issue as opposed to curricula choices that have political ramifications, KWIM? I don't see getting an achievement certificate re fitness in the same category at all.

[billysmommy]

Heck, I remember the dang Presidential Fitness Test when I was a kid. We were supposed to strive to be strong and healthy for our country and kids who passed got a special piece of paper "signed" by the President.


I'd totally forgotten about this ~ my mom saved the ones my brothers and I got. She had one for each of us put in a little frame and hung on our walls :)

[Snow mom]

I think most people would agree with that. But I also think it's impossible. Teaching evolution is seen (as on this thread) as part of the "liberal agenda". Teaching creationism would be seen as "church infringement upon schools". Not teaching it is no solutoin. So, how can science be non-partisan?

Well, I agree that this is the view of some, but really evolution is science whereas creationism/ intelligent design is theology. Evolution is no more a part of the liberal agenda than ecology. Both are science that involves hypothesis testing. Creationism does not have a place as science because there is no hypothesis testing but rather faith in ideas that cannot be tested through experiments.

[Naranjadia]

I see this more as teaching a clearly political issue as opposed to curricula choices that have political ramifications, KWIM? I don't see getting an achievement certificate re fitness in the same category at all.

We had big assemblies to give out the certificates. It was very ra-ra, serve your President and your Country with your healthy body, type thing. They read out letters from the current President, etc. I remember these ceremonies acutely because I never even got a passing score, much less a certificate. I kept thinking, well if I can't do well with my body, I guess all I have to offer is my mind. :tongue5:

[Ceepa]

How much did the flexed arm hang suck? Hated it.

[mommylamb]

I think, as some of the disagreements in this thread about what's already taught in school have shown, it's pretty difficult to be completely non-partisan. I personally know a number of Republicans who are very sharing people, but evidently to some people that is a (liberal) partisan value.


I don't think anyone was saying that sharing is a Democratic value and that Republicans don't share. The discussion about sharing was in response to someone saying that sharing school supplies amounted to socialism and is part of a liberal agenda.

[K-Bear]

It doesn't seem that people are upset about the President talking to the students, it's the "assignment" to write a paper about how they can help the President. I don't think that's encouraging freedom of choice, is it?
I've seen people say that a lot. They aren't upset about the speech, they are upset about the "assignment".

But then why don't those parents protest the assignment? Why don't the schools hand out permission slips to do the assignment or not do the assignment? Why don't schools ban the assignments? Why do they have to ban the speech, hand out permission slips for the speech, etc. if it's just the assignments people are concerned about?

[Naranjadia]

How much did the flexed arm hang suck? Hated it.

Totally!! :D

[wellyes]

Wait.... are you guys saying that there is no presidential fitness test anymore?

Awwww. I mean, part of me thinks -- Lucky kids, if they only KNEW what we used to have to put up with! But OTOH I do like the idea of lending that kind of gravitas to gym class. Partly because fitness really, truly is important. And partly because looking back, that stuff was really actually important to some of the kids whose only success in school was in gym class.

[Naranjadia]

Wait.... are you guys saying that there is no presidential fitness test anymore?

Awwww. I mean, part of me thinks -- Lucky kids, if they only KNEW what we used to have to put up with! But OTOH I do like the idea of lending that kind of gravitas to gym class. Partly because fitness really, truly is important. And partly because looking back, that stuff was really actually important to some of the kids whose only success in school was in gym class.

Actually, I don't know if it's still around. Seems a little more competitive and less encouragement oriented than what I would expect these days, but my kids are nowhere near school age. I agree, it did add a level of gravitas to gym class. And if only we had known I had a congenital muscle disease at the time, I wouldn't have found it so agonizing to be "off the charts." ;)

[elektra]

How much did the flexed arm hang suck? Hated it.
The sit and reach was more brutal IMO.

[maestramommy]

Wait.... are you guys saying that there is no presidential fitness test anymore?

Awwww. I mean, part of me thinks -- Lucky kids, if they only KNEW what we used to have to put up with! But OTOH I do like the idea of lending that kind of gravitas to gym class. Partly because fitness really, truly is important. And partly because looking back, that stuff was really actually important to some of the kids whose only success in school was in gym class.

I dunno. When I was in HS, they called it the Marine Fitness test. Is that the same thing?

And I loved the flexed arm hang! I couldn't do pullups but I could hang for a very long time! :jammin:

[JBaxter]

Our school system wont show it :). I personally thing elem school is to young to listen for an hour to the president. It should be geared more to middle/high school kids.

http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=229973&format=html
Washington County Public Schools won't air Obama's speech live

September 4, 2009

• Some parents oppose airing Obama's speech in schools


The Washington County Public Schools system has decided not to air live President Obama’s nationwide televised message to students on Tuesday.

Public schools “staff members just recently learned of the President’s intent to deliver a message to educators and students during the school day,” the school said in an official statement to be sent home with students today.

“WCPS is extremely cautious when making decisions that disrupt academic instruction and school schedules, and the limited notice does not allow appropriate time to manage the logistical challenges of airing the speech simultaneously at all WCPS locations,” the statement says.

“Because of the reasons above, WCPS will not be airing the speech live,” according to the statement.

“However, WCPS recognizes the value of hearing the President’s message and will make it available to students and families interested in viewing the speech,” the statement says.

“For this reason, WCPS will place links to the President’s speech on the school system’s website and DVD copies of the speech will be made available through each school’s library,” the statement says. “Additionally, if anyone wishes to record the speech or view it online, it will be broadcast live on C-SPAN and will be available on the White House website” at www.whitehouse.gov.

In addition, the statement says, “Families will be offered the opportunity to use school Internet and video resources to view the speech, as requested.”

“WCPS wishes to demonstrate respect for the Office of the President and the school system appreciates the attention being given to the importance of education,” the statement says.

[cdlamis]

[quote=JBaxter;2467344]Our school system wont show it :). I personally thing elem school is to young to listen for an hour to the president. It should be geared more to middle/high school kids./quote]

I read that its only 15-20 minutes long.

[randomkid]

I addressed that in my first post- students have often written letters to presidents. This letter idea seems to be centered on how the student can help themselves succeed academically, which is the goal/plan in the speech. Again, writing a letter to yourself is a common school assignment. I think it is a good idea and would think it was a good idea even if T was writing something like that at the request of McCain or GW Bush. Are we so far gone as a nation that we can't have bipartisan support for academic excellence as an end good?

I'm late coming back to this, but I just can't get over how you all are changing things up to make it seem like something it isn't. The letter is NOT centered on how students can help themselves, it's how they can help the President.

"Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."

Just THINK about how influenced children are by simple things and how much they can feel pressure to do things the way a teacher or other authority figure wants them to do it. I don't want anyone guilting my child into supporting anyone or anything at such a young age. I would have a problem with this no matter who the President was or even if it were someone other than the President. Having them write the letter is bad enough, but giving it back to them later is even worse. Now, having them write a letter like you described would be fine. That is not what the "recommended assignment" seems to say to me.

So, not only do they have to write the letter, but they get it back at a later date to remind them (i.e. guilt them) into feeling responsible for helping the President. IMO, which I am entitled to, this in no way is helpful to my, or any other, child. I have no problem with a child writing a letter to a President or about his speech, no matter what party, as long as it isn't telling the child to do something so specific. If a child didn't like the President or his speech, that child should be FREE to write what he thinks. Honestly, if I were a teacher, I would not make my class do that assignment.

BTW, this is my only objection to the whole thing. Let the President go speak at the schools. Fine, but don't dictate assignments like that. Allow the children to think freely and form their own opinions.

[kijip]

I'm late coming back to this, but I just can't get over how you all are changing things up to make it seem like something it isn't. The letter is NOT centered on how students can help themselves, it's how they can help the President.

"Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."


Unless I am unable to read correctly, the speech is about educational achievement, correct? The letter is about how students can help the President on the topic of the speech, not help the President water the Rose garden or pass a healthcare reform bill, correct? So the letter is a letter about holding yourself accountable to the educational goals you decided on when you listened to a speech about high academic standards? Again, what is the big deal? Maybe we have different news sources? Clearly we have a different reaction which is great and fine...but it's a matter of opinion and not fact which "side" is changing things up to make them something they are not.

And why are there sides on good education?

[randomkid]

Well, I agree that this is the view of some, but really evolution is science whereas creationism/ intelligent design is theology. Evolution is no more a part of the liberal agenda than ecology. Both are science that involves hypothesis testing. Creationism does not have a place as science because there is no hypothesis testing but rather faith in ideas that cannot be tested through experiments.

Based on this thought, then there should be no religion (of any denomination) or mythology teachings in school either. If creationism is taught as a theory, then it is educational. The fact is, some people believe in creationism. To not teach it in school is just making kids uneducated about it. I think it should be taught as "this is what creationism is", not as fact.

If I want to teach my child about Creation in a religious way, that is up to me. However, I don't think it should be ignored in school so my child is led to believe it doesn't exist. The fact is, scientifically based or not, no one knows how we got here. That is what should be taught, along with "these are the theories people have".

I know, I know. Next, I will hear that we would then have to include every religion's theory. Fine, put that in a religion class. I took Mythology in HS and every type we covered went over their belief of how humans came to be.

[randomkid]

Unless I am unable to read correctly, the speech is about educational achievement, correct? The letter is about how students can help the President on the topic of the speech, not help the President water the Rose garden or pass a healthcare reform bill, correct? So the letter is a letter about holding yourself accountable to the educational goals you decided on when you listened to a speech about high academic standards? Again, what is the big deal? Maybe we have different news sources? Clearly we have a different reaction which is great and fine...but it's a matter of opinion and not fact which "side" is changing things up to make them something they are not.

And why are there sides on good education?

I was referring to the original assignment. That seems to be what initially had people so upset and now that has transformed into something else. Sort of like the guy who doesn't want double wide strollers in his store, now getting death threats. It's ridiculous. However, I can see how people were upset - that was my point. Whoever came up with that assignment was wrong. They have changed it, but only after backlash. They changed it to something it should have been in the first place. It's obvious that the original intent was absolutely there because they have made no effort to say "it was worded poorly" or what have you. The original message was wrong and changing the assignment is too little too late. They should have thought that through before putting it out there.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/03/white-house-withdraws-students-help-obama/

I don't think there are "sides" on good education. However, there will always be disagreement on what constitutes good education.

I've spent enough time on this thread. I have to go feed my child. I know there will always be disagreement, and I'm fine with that. Just trying to give a viewpoint as to why people may have been so upset to those of you who don't understand it.

[wellyes]

Creationism can be covered in World Religions class or Social Studies or whatever they call that now. No one should come out of school not knowing what creationism is. They should also know who Mohammed is and who Vishnu is. Basic cultural literacy.


Just THINK about how influenced children are by simple things and how much they can feel pressure to do things the way a teacher or other authority figure wants them to do it. I don't want anyone guilting my child into supporting anyone or anything at such a young age.You do not want children influenced by teachers? You do not want them to support anyone or anything? I guess I don't really understand.

If the President was saying "I want to reform health care. Write a letter to yourself explaining how you will help me. You will be held accountable to what you write" -- yes, certainly, I could understand the outrage. Absolutely.

But what on EARTH is controversial about encouraging kids to study and work hard?

I really feel like media is working really hard to manufacture a controversy here and keep spreading outrage. About the president making a speech encouraging kids to study.

I read that Obama called the controversy "silly" and I agree with him.

ETA - I've read the original & revised texts. Really still not getting the outrage. I work in corporate training. Letters asking how they can "help" Obama is just a typical education tactic. Very common workshop technique to engage learners - make them feel empowered as agents of their own destiny rather than just passively sitting through a lecture.

[Snow mom]

Based on this thought, then there should be no religion (of any denomination) or mythology teachings in school either. If creationism is taught as a theory, then it is educational. The fact is, some people believe in creationism. To not teach it in school is just making kids uneducated about it. I think it should be taught as "this is what creationism is", not as fact.

If I want to teach my child about Creation in a religious way, that is up to me. However, I don't think it should be ignored in school so my child is led to believe it doesn't exist. The fact is, scientifically based or not, no one knows how we got here. That is what should be taught, along with "these are the theories people have".

I know, I know. Next, I will hear that we would then have to include every religion's theory. Fine, put that in a religion class. I took Mythology in HS and every type we covered went over their belief of how humans came to be.

Well, I think if people agree to religion in public school that's where creationism could be taught. I'm just saying that creationism isn't science. People believe all types of things, but there is a pretty clear line between science and everything else. Google "flying spaghetti monster" if you want more on the idea we can't give equal weight in the classroom to everything people believe. Parents can give more weight to their beliefs at home if it is important to them. I also wanted to point out in regard to the section I bolded above, teaching evolution has (or if properly taught should have) very little focus on how we got here. In evolution we humans are just another species. I'm getting a Ph.D. in evolution, and I assure you my research would not sully the minds of children. Creationism by scientific definition is not "another theory." To be a theory has to be testable and able to be refuted by evidence.

When it comes to separation of church and state, you are right that there is some gray area about teaching religion with things like mythology, which was certainly taught when I was in high school. I guess a world religions class where students were taught about different beliefs without being told you must believe x isn't objectionable to me and I consider myself liberal. I know other people would object to this but I honestly believe DD would benefit from understanding what different people believe.

[Melaine]

BTW, this is my only objection to the whole thing. Let the President go speak at the schools. Fine, but don't dictate assignments like that. Allow the children to think freely and form their own opinions.

:yeahthat: I wouldn't have a problem with my children hearing the speech. And if specific teachers wanted to springboard assignments from the content, sure. I'm not comfortable with the letter though, and at the least, it should have been worded differently.

[mom2binsd]

How much did the flexed arm hang suck? Hated it.

Are you kidding....I could hang there for days!!!!!!!!!!!! Today, I'm not sure I could hang in there for more than 5 seconds!!!

In Canada we didn't get a signed letter from the Prime Minister but these very fancy fabric patches!

[wellyes]

I was in HS during the first Bush administration. We had a big rally when Gulf War I was declared. I don't know if that was a national, state or local thing.... I only know that I had to dress up in my uber-dorky marching band uniform during regular school hours & was quite embarrassed. Anyway, THAT assignment was pretty politicized. Obama's, not so much. He is reaching out to kids. That's bad now?

FWIW I really think Bush II was a terrible awful president for so many reasons -- and I disagreed with No Child Left Behind -- but I never doubted his sincerity when it came to wanting to be "The Education President". I don't think a 15 minute Bush speech would raise this kind of ruckus.

I sincerely & truly believe that this kind of criticism of a sitting president -- over asking kids to work hard -- during a time of war if it McCain had won would outrage conservatives.

[kijip]

I read that Obama called the controversy "silly" and I agree with him.

ETA - I've read the original & revised texts. Really still not getting the outrage. I work in corporate training. Letters asking how they can "help" Obama is just a typical education tactic. Very common workshop technique to engage learners - make them feel empowered as agents of their own destiny rather than just passively sitting through a lecture.

Same here. I maintain that as originally written it was fine not objectionable.

I am actually a little peeved that they/HE would change it based on the objections raised. It's a suggested assignment, not some mandated thing. It is and WAS about doing well in school and working hard.

I see WHY some people on the conservative swing of things are upset but I just don't agree that it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's just a plain old sheep.

[kayte]

I am just going to say it, because as a former school teacher I have thought it since all this "controversy" began...

I wish that parents gave as much consideration to the crap that Scholastic book fairs put in front of children...

http://commercialfreechildhood.org/bookfairs/home.htm

Or cared as much about all the stuff they pass off as food in school cafeteria's...

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/school-lunch-junk-food-47030601

Or... the list can go on and on and on......

[kijip]

I am just going to say it, because as a former school teacher I have thought it since all this "controversy" began...

I wish that parents gave as much consideration to the crap that Scholastic book fairs put in front of children...

http://commercialfreechildhood.org/bookfairs/home.htm

Or cared as much about all the stuff they pass off as food in school cafeteria's...

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/school-lunch-junk-food-47030601

Or... the list can go on and on and on......


OMG, YES! It's was hard to find the books at the book fair practically. I had no idea that a Hannah Montana sticker pad or a Sponge Bob doll was a book.

[Sillygirl]

Hearing everyone reminsce about the Fitness Test, even though we're from all over the country. . .and thinking back to watching a few of the early shuttle launches in school - these are the things that help build a sense of statehood. Part of our problem is that we are so fractured as a society. We live, work, play and worship (or don't) with people just like us. So the shared experiences across a nation have meaning. However small, they create some common ground. That's important.

[SnuggleBuggles]

I just found out that my school will not be watching it live. They are going to get the DVD, screen it and decide from there (and after they solicit parent feedback). Ay yi yi. Just show the darned thing live! I'm quite surprised by my school's decision. It seems out of character. They give in to the squeaky wheel too much, I think.

Beth

[Ceepa]

Hearing everyone reminsce about the Fitness Test, even though we're from all over the country. . .and thinking back to watching a few of the early shuttle launches in school - these are the things that help build a sense of statehood. Part of our problem is that we are so fractured as a society. We live, work, play and worship (or don't) with people just like us. So the shared experiences across a nation have meaning. However small, they create some common ground. That's important.

I agree with this. Everyone creates such a personalized community for themselves that there is no shared experience anymore. At least not what we had growing up. There were fundamental differences in our childhoods but we all knew of the same music, same games, same shows and movies, same current events, same toys, same school classes, same books. Everyone is now so set on tailoring life to fit themselves so specifically that they have trouble relating to, let alone caring about, what their neighbor is experiencing. It's a generality, but I think it's pervasive and more destructive to community than some political disagreements.

[JBaxter]

I just found out that my school will not be watching it live. They are going to get the DVD, screen it and decide from there (and after they solicit parent feedback). Ay yi yi. Just show the darned thing live! I'm quite surprised by my school's decision. It seems out of character. They give in to the squeaky wheel too much, I think.

Beth

Its logistics here more than squeeky wheels. The district wasnt given enough time to figure out just how to do it and reschedule what is already planned. Some schools are just starting classes and it will just add to chaos of the first week of school.

Bad PR bad timing

[kayte]

Its logistics here more than squeeky wheels. The district wasnt given enough time to figure out just how to do it and reschedule what is already planned. Some schools are just starting classes and it will just add to chaos of the first week of school.

Bad PR bad timing

At least some places are willing to record it and re-show. Schools here are actually going with the position that it interferes with lunch schedules so it can't be worked in.

[JBaxter]

At least some places are willing to record it and re-show. Schools here are actually going with the position that it interferes with lunch schedules so it can't be worked in.

Ours will have it on DVD if you wish to view it. I can see how it would totally screw with some lunch schedules. Food has to be prepared at a certain time in order to get everyone fed and lunch to be cleaned up it cant be just pushed back 15/20/30miutes etc. There are 750 kids in ds3's school.

[randomkid]

I agree with this. Everyone creates such a personalized community for themselves that there is no shared experience anymore. At least not what we had growing up. There were fundamental differences in our childhoods but we all knew of the same music, same games, same shows and movies, same current events, same toys, same school classes, same books. Everyone is now so set on tailoring life to fit themselves so specifically that they have trouble relating to, let alone caring about, what their neighbor is experiencing. It's a generality, but I think it's pervasive and more destructive to community than some political disagreements.

ITA. I believe a big factor in causing the loss of cohesiveness has come from trying to make everything so PC. Too many people have complained about being offended by something and it's usually something minor. How can there be a sense of community or shared experiences when that is going on? Society has been fractured by this. How can you have a sense of community when you have to screen everything you do to avoid possibly offending someone? So, people tend to congregate with others who have the same beliefs and culture so they can relax and enjoy it.

[o_mom]

Its logistics here more than squeeky wheels. The district wasnt given enough time to figure out just how to do it and reschedule what is already planned. Some schools are just starting classes and it will just add to chaos of the first week of school.

Bad PR bad timing

That may or may not be true (that this is the real reason, not doubting that this is what you have been told). On another message board I am on there is a teacher that was initially told everyone should try to show it to their class, it would be shown districtwide, please make it a priority, etc. Then after the controversy reported in the press they get an annoucement yesterday that they will NOT be showing it - even if they want to and it fits with their lesson plans. However, if asked they are to tell the parents that it is exactly the reason you stated here. They are to say they were not given enough time to plan for it. She was pretty much incredulous that a week and a half was not enough time to plan an hour lesson (speech + discussion) into the day.

Back to the original question - I see nothing controversial in this, even in the original wording of the suggested supplemental activities. Certainly FAR less political than having a sitting VP making a speech at a high school, during a mandatory assembly, in the midst of a presidential campaign. Yeah, I was there (it was mandatory ;)) and not a word was said against it, just everyone was thrilled to have a VP talking to kids regardless of party.

[kayte]

Ours will have it on DVD if you wish to view it. I can see how it would totally screw with some lunch schedules. Food has to be prepared at a certain time in order to get everyone fed and lunch to be cleaned up it cant be just pushed back 15/20/30miutes etc. There are 750 kids in ds3's school.

I meant that here they have published their reasoning for not showing it as lunch schedules in our paper. But they are unwilling to show it another time. I think it's a convenient non-political excuse.

[o_mom]

Just bumping to add a link to the text of the speech, in case anyone is interested: http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

[Laurel]

Just bumping to add a link to the text of the speech, in case anyone is interested: http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

Just read it. It's completely scandalous, y'all ;) I think he mentioned Harry Potter as a secret nod to the satanists.

[carryingandstrollingabout]

What bothers me about the speech is the negativity. My kids love school and don't know that they won't like every class or every teacher and don't know about dropping out or not doing homework or expecting things to come easily to them or playing video games instead of doing homework... They actually don't know you can cut a class or skip a homework assignment. It just doesn't exist in their world...

It comes off to me as a negative message, rather than a positive one. It sounds as if the expectation is that there will be problems in school and potential drop outs, rather than the assumption that kids will go to school and do great and love it.

The references to poor also bother me. We are somewhat comparatively "poor" but try to keep financial awareness out of our school relationships. The kids don't yet think about whether they are rich or poor. Again, it is bringing in the negative...

I also don't think it is age appropriate for all ages. My early grade schoolers don't know about AIDs or gangs or anything. I think it might create anxiety in grade schoolers.

And it sounds as if it is required for everyone in our school system. If a child doesn't want to participate, child can turn and face the wall or something like that.

So I'm asking how old your kids are, and if you all think the assumption of problems and the length of the speech is appropriate for kindergarten and first grade?

[MamaKath]

I also don't think it is age appropriate for all ages. My early grade schoolers don't know about AIDs or gangs or anything. I think it might create anxiety in grade schoolers.

And it sounds as if it is required for everyone in our school system. If a child doesn't want to participate, child can turn and face the wall or something like that.

So I'm asking how old your kids are, and if you all think the assumption of problems and the length of the speech is appropriate for kindergarten and first grade?
:yeahthat:I agree with this. I understand that it is meant to be motivational, but I don't think the same thing that motivates 6 year olds works for 16 year olds. I felt strongly that kids should watch the inauguration (I feel that way no matter which party is elected), but I do not think that this should be a mandatory thing.

[shawnandangel]

I am republican and I totally approve of his speech. I don't find it negative at all, but instead inspiring.

It's great that some kids don't know anything about gangs and dropping out but there are many many families who struggle to keep their kids from skipping, doing drugs, joining gangs ect. If the president can reach those children/young adults and inspire them to stick to their guns and stay in school - well then, it's a speech well done.

If he can give them the courage through his words to speak to someone and ask for help - then fantastic!

Just think. There are children who are beaten every day and are told they are worthless and won't amount to anything. If these children have THE PRESIDENT tell them they are worthwhile, they can amount to something, they can follow their dreams. Maybe a child will have the courage to tell a teacher.

I don't know if any of these scenarios will actually happen, but I think it's a great speech. Hopefully it will help some kiddos.

[kayte]

I just want to mention that as child I sat through the televised Ronald Reagan speech--complete with his (republican) stances on gun control, tax cuts, giving control of education funding to state and local governments... And I am not scared and still managed grew up to be a card carrying Democrat.

Here's a link to the video of the Reagan's speech ...

http://gothamschools.org/2009/09/04/from-the-archives-ronald-reagans-1988-speech-to-students/

And a link to GB's shockingly similar to Obama speech from 1991...

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450&year=1991&month=all

He is the President ----- part of his job description--whether the minority likes it or not-- is to be a role model, an inspiration and to make our country a better place--I think our children is the best place to start.

[Ceepa]

I support any message that encourages kids to grow up depending on themselves and being able to be responsible for their actions and decisions. And although I don't agree with the "do it for your country" sentiment, it's refreshing to hear some pro-America language from Obama.

[Melaine]

In reading the speech, I definitely have no problem with it and wouldn't mind it being show to my children at all. I agree with pp that it might be a little much for the youngest students, but even so I think they might be bored more than anything.

[ChunkyNicksChunkyMom]

I am republican and I totally approve of his speech. I don't find it negative at all, but instead inspiring.

It's great that some kids don't know anything about gangs and dropping out but there are many many families who struggle to keep their kids from skipping, doing drugs, joining gangs ect. If the president can reach those children/young adults and inspire them to stick to their guns and stay in school - well then, it's a speech well done.

If he can give them the courage through his words to speak to someone and ask for help - then fantastic!

Just think. There are children who are beaten every day and are told they are worthless and won't amount to anything. If these children have THE PRESIDENT tell them they are worthwhile, they can amount to something, they can follow their dreams. Maybe a child will have the courage to tell a teacher.

I don't know if any of these scenarios will actually happen, but I think it's a great speech. Hopefully it will help some kiddos.


Completely agree and you don't get much more conservative.

[KBecks]

I'm actually pretty ambivalent about it if it is a one time thing.

If the President starts regular school broadcasts, I'd be PO'd.

[KBecks]

Adding on that I agree that the book fair materials suck. Read a funny blog post about it once, and I am not looking forward to them.

[KrisM]

I read the speech and think it's pretty much okay, in general. I am glad DS1 won't see it at school, since there are topics that he is very unfamilar with and I'd rather be watching it with him (which is our plan). DS1 starts school tomorrow and only goes 9-10:30, so it just doesn't matter :).

[kijip]

So I'm asking how old your kids are, and if you all think the assumption of problems and the length of the speech is appropriate for kindergarten and first grade?

I think that kids tend to take what they can at their level. I watched it with my 6 year old and, all things considered, he is pretty sheltered (we are very conservative about tv access and what we consider age appropriate) but he was not disturbed by anything and he responded in chatting about it to things that he understood, like the importance of trying things again if you don't succeed the first time and that you aren't good at much of anything the first time you give it a try etc. I don't think it was scary and he is very sensitive/somewhat prone to be scared in certain situations.

I think what is going to resonate with a 6 year old is different than what will resonate with a 16 year old but there is a take away message for each level.

WRT mentioning being poor, I think it was pretty mild and I doubt that there are many kids, even very young ones, that don't grasp on some level income differences, even if they don't have the words for it. This mainly went to public school kids, of which nearly half overall and in some schools a vast majority, qualify for free or reduced lunch. By age 6, most kids in low income families are to some degree conscious of having less than others, more so if they are exposed to TV or in a mixed income school/area etc. Believe me, the message about having less not being a reason to do less in school is important to that group. It was certainly an important message I received when I was eating my free rectangle pizza and fruit cups in the 1980s. ;)