I was reading a few articles in about the proposed September 8th speech by President Obama and was struck by the following reader comment:
Posted by ( reptaddict ) on 09/03/2009 at 09:05 pm. "Sometimes you just have to sit back and look at what lies before you. We are actually debating about whether parents should opt their children out of listening to the President of the United States, who rose from meager beginnings to Harvard Law to the highest office in the land, speak to the children about the importance of education. Dear God, what have we become? Can we as a people possibly be this pathetic? I guess on Tuesday we'll find out".
I believe parents have a right to opt out of certain controversial lessons. But as a student I remember having to write book reports on various presidents, or having to memorize speeches. Never and I mean never, did my mother have to ability to opt out of my doing school work. I would have received a zero, plain and simple.
I remember receiving topics I was strongly opposed to when we were learning to debate and I had to argue in favor of the topic. Sometimes my mind was changed and sometimes my position was made stronger (typically the latter). But the lesson did what it was intended to do; create critical, higher lever thinking skills. Isn’t that our job? Some wonderful, spirited debate could evolve out of this Presidential address.
Another point being made by the opposition is the avenue President is using to communicate with students. One statement made was "the concern here is that it's a one-way communication,"… "that's the fear of indoctrination."
His message will be delivered via web cast and broadcasted on CNN. The reality is that today’s kids spend hours searching YouTube videos and updating their MySpace. The internet is what they understand.
It is also being argued that his delivery platform is going to be unprecedented. This is absolutely true. Never before has any other president used technology the way President Obama has. He is the first president to carry a blackberry and have a Whitehouse blog. He has fully embraced technology. Remember that the TV was unprecedented at one time. Bottom line, what does it matter how he communicates his message?
I will conclude with this. I am constantly hearing people say that one of the biggest problems with our society is lack of respect for authority from our youth. Where are they learning this disrespect? One may not agree with a President and has a right to voice opposition, but he deserves respect and he has earned his place in the history books, just like all the Presidents before him. We must respect the Office of the President. Keeping students home or opting out sends the wrong message.
Read the Tampa Tribune articles here and here and the St. Pete Times article here and USA article here.
*UPDATE: As of Sunday morning prior to the speech, the argument is shifting to Education Secretary Arne Duncan's release of the lesson plans prior to the President's message. This shift has taken place because proponents have successfully pointed out that other Presidents have broadcast messages to students in the past; most notably Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush. What is not being pointed out is that Duncan is a former superintendent of a public school system, and understands the impact of integrative lesson plans and how combining the lesson with real world events can make learning more relevant and meaningful for students.
What Secretary Duncan was trying to do when he suggested the lesson plans was to say, “We have a message from the President, this is the gist of the message, and here are some good ideas for lessons for various ages and grades that would make it more meaningful for students”. What has happened is that some of the President’s opposition has short quoted a few parts of the memo released to principals and has taken a life of its own and stirred up this controversy. For example in one of the suggested lessons teachers could take students to the library and research other Presidents and President Obama. When this part referenced ‘research other Presidents’ is left out and changes the context of the message from the DOE, thus creating a different meaning to the message.
