Parents and lawmakers speak out against Obama's speech to students
 

Some of the comments (from both sides) are really out there.


Link

I'm upset that he was giving another speech. Poor kids.

if kids do as most kids do, they will tune out any way.

Crazy kids with their video game systems, and their backwards hats, and their rock music...

*shakes fist at youth of America*

You forgot about the droopy pants.

I agree. I think the comments have been taken to a ridiculous/shameful level on both sides.

What's even worse, when reading some of the comments, it seems that some of the writers need to be in class with the kids.

lol yeah!

Yep. This has been bizarre. I think it needed to be planned and thought out a little better before it was introduced since there hasn't been one since 1991.

It seems to me that we're at an intensely polarized point politically, so it wouldn't have been asking too much for the Obama administration to have reflected on the idea of how it would be perceived before they unveiled the plan for the speech AND to have worked more closely with the lesson planners at the DOE so the first set of lesson plans that the talk radio and TV personalities latched onto didn't contain anything that could seem like indoctrination through the schools.

On the other hand, this has been one of the worst topics for misinformation I've ever seen from the usual right wing suspects. The topic of the speech isn't controversial. There is no honorable opposition to the idea that kids should set goals and value their educational opportunities. It shouldn't be fundamentally threatening for the President to address school kids.

On final note as a teacher: the administration really needed to get the word out much earlier than they did. Almost any teacher could have worked some aspect of the speech into his or her curriculum had the teacher been given advanced notice. If you just publicize something the week before though, most teachers will have lessons planned already. Unless they can really justify dropping the instruction planned, you aren't going to get the participation you hope for.

Similarly, noon on the east coast as the time makes it pretty hard logistically for all the kids at any east coast school to watch it since it's going to be right in the middle of lunch, probably. At a small school where everyone eats at the same time, it's easy to move things around or even to have the kids watch while they eat. But anyplace big enough that they have multiple lunch periods, this is going to be really hard.

(And if the solution is to Tivo or record for broadcast later, why did it need to be during the school day anyway? Obama could have sent out tapes or video streaming to make available for teachers to use at their discretion.)

Agreed.

Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance

As far as recording...who knows...sometimes you just cant beat live.

And in some places it's the first day of school so that in the middle of the rest of the pandemonium that goes along with it...hmmm..

I wonder what percentage of schools start the day after Labor Day?

We go back waaay earlier than that down here. Most Atlanta area schools will have been back for about a month. It never even occurred to me that it was deliberately on the first day; how funny is that? Noon is still kind of a bad time logistically, but it maybe the only time that works to get all the time zones in.

But yeah, I guess it would be great on the first day of school to start the year with an address like this. It's always the message schools are trying to send. And there's no real teaching to mess up.

knowing this takes the thread off course... but what causes one area/region/state to start school in early/mid August, late August, or early September? Are all school systems required to be in session 180 days? (aside from year-round schooling)

I can see in places where summer, weather-wise, can start in late April/early May, and school ending around Memorial day makes sense.

My brother is a junior in high school and they started this past week (the 31st of August). They have off Monday, and the speech is going to be on Tuesday (correct me if I'm wrong?). I was suprised to get a message from the school on our answering machine tonight informing parents of the speech, and stating that they could keep their kids home from school. They also mentioned they will be having a seperate classroom in the school where the speech won't be shown, and you can elect to have your kid go into that room.

Does that seem a LITTLE ridiculous or is it just me? It's a speech from the PRESIDENT of the United States. It's not like it's going to be some highly offensive speech or anything, right? You know, you can't hide your kids from EVERYTHING....I mean really, they are high school students. Just my opinion.

But going back to what I said about the speech not being offensive..I honestly don't really understand why people find this offensive. Am I missing something? Are there subliminal messages that I'm not picking up on?

I'm 99% sure this is correct - 180 days. As for the cause of schools starting at different times, I have no idea. My guess would be just different demographic? Tradition? I dunno.

Just found this gem of a comment:

school is to learn not to listen to the president give a speech. i belive that it is not appropriate for this to be shown in schools. my daughter will not be watching this video. i do not send my daughter to school to watch videos all day long I SEND MY DAUGHTER TO SCHOOL TO LEARN. i belive as some others have stated that pre-k-5th grades should carry on with learning and not this pointless video. it should be the parents encouraging there kids NOT THE PRESIDENT. as one other quoted he isnt payng child support for our kids.(:confused: no...but he runs your government....) i feel as though president obama should get a brain and quit trying to tell our kids what to do. LET OUR KIDS MAKE UP THERE MINDS. LEAVE THE PARENTING OF OUR KIDS TO US. PRESIDENT OBAMA NEEDS TO WORRY ABOUT HIS OWN DAUGHTERS EDUCATION. PRESIDENT OBAMA OUR KIDS ARE WHO THEY CHOOSE TO BE NOT WHAT YOU MAKE THEM!

So many things wrong with this..the spelling kills me, but has this idiot never heard of a comma or apostrophe? Apparently not, but she still thinks she's smarter than the President of USA. Hmph.

I think it would have been tough for the administration and DOE to really do any effective spin control prior to the speech, for some of the reasons you mentioned. Things are VERY polarized right now, and I think you would have heard many, if not most, of the same complaints no matter the amount of preperation.

The timing issue is a good point. In many schools you're going to miss at least 1/3 of the kids, and depending on the size of the school and the facilities, you might not even be able to get a television into the cafeteria. The smart thing would be to make free copies of the speech available on tape and DVD. They could even work it into some interactive research project on computers, depending on the actual text of the speech. I would hope the DOE and administration had planned for that.

I'll also agree that some of the comments from both sides have been pretty scary. The false information and stereotyping that has been coming from both parties is pretty crazy stuff. You see some of it here on Greekchat, I've seen a bunch on Facebook, and it just seems to blow up in places like the comments section of the cited story.

My old school district is not showing it at all, and that makes me very sad.

As far as I know, states still set the number of days required. Most places, I think it is 180. Georgia and New Mexico, that I know of without any research, allow systems to modify the number of days as long as the number of hours remains the same, meaning a system could go to a four day week if additional instructional time was added to those four days.

(In Georgia this is new and was a response, I think, to the most recent budget crisis. A lot of money can be saved in transportation and facilities cost by shifting things around. Personally, I doubt it's a good idea instructionally, but when the money's not there, you have to do something.)

I suspect, but I'm not 100% that the nature of Carnegie Units as kind of a national high school credits measure has the effect of nationally controlling "seat time." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegi...d_Student_Hour)

But it's based on 120 hours. If you think about the variety of 50 minute class periods through block scheduling, there's still a pretty big variety in number of instructional days, even for offering 120 hours of high school class. Again, I think each state outlines what they will fund.

I think that regional differences are just a reflection of local standards/ expectations, so the reasons would vary by community. Georgia seems to have shifted earlier once the colleges all went to the semester system from the quarter system in the 1990s. I can't remember ever starting after Labor day, but we did used to start in late August rather than early August.

It's odd to me because I think we could save more in heating and air by shifting to September to June, and if you really had to, you could shift in-state colleges too.

I am not an Obama fan by any stretch of the means and I criticize him/his administration frequently. However, if his speech is truly non-partisan/non-political, and is conveying a great positive message to kids about how important education is, then I see no problem.

I think people are up in arms because as stated before here, it was announced late/poor planning, and a lot of parents may not buy in to the non-partisan/non-political aspect of the speech. I would expect the same kind of uproar regardless of who was making the speech including but not limited to:
--any past US president (popular or unpopular)
--a highly respected religious figure such as the Pope
--some nut actor from Hollywood
--a republican/independent president/administration

I wasn't bothered by any errors in your comments, but when I quoted them to comment on your content, spell check sent a message about people in glass houses and stones.

I wasn't impressed by the intellectual nature of the comment you linked either, so I take your general point, but people, especially conservatives, being peculiar about what non-strictly academic stuff their kids are exposed to in school isn't really all that new or shocking to me.

I don't think the folks actually commenting negatively about Obama's speech reflect a big percentage of public school parents, even among GOP parents. I suspect that most parents regard the speech about on the level of anti-drug guest speakers or MADD assemblies before Prom: a nice idea but not likely to actually effect much change.

School districts can't win on this one unless they are profoundly red or blue. Remember that most districts rely on a lot of local support for funding and they don't need to alienate anyone, even for the high minded principle of allowing addresses from the President about the value of education.

Some parents don't automatically trust Obama delivering a message to their kids. Similarly, I suspect some parents would have objected to Bush delivering a message to their kids or their kids being required to watch one. Some who really value instructional time might even be in both groups.

The type of rhetoric about this has been creepy and appalling, but if you filter this by flipping the name of the President, you might find the possibility of objection for reasons other than complete political insanity more likely. The districts sort of have to live in that position.

ETA: I realized I wasn't really responding to you guys the whole way though my message, so if it seems like I'm accusing you of holding some belief you don't, please accept my apologizes for sloppy quoting.

It seems to me that the noon hour would be ideal for something like this because most of the kids are at lunch. Are cafeterias really not equipped for this type of thing? Isn't that where assemblies are always held? I've never been in a school where the cafeteria wasn't equipped for this. I have been in many that didn't have TVs in every classroom.

It is state law in Michigan that public schools cannot start school prior to Labor Day. Historically, the only reason that kids have summer off was to work on their farms, so it makes sense that the primary "growing season" would be different regionally. Additionally, most of our schools do not have air conditioning, so starting in August would just be ridiculous most years. We generally don't need air between September and mid-June, so schools weren't equipped with it. When schools started installing A/C, some of them then started school prior to Labor Day, which put a HUGE dent in our tourism industry. So, our previous governor proposed the law that schools cannot start until after Labor Day. It will be the first day of school for all the kids in Michigan. I see this as a pro for timing as well. They don't do anything the first day anyway.. they usually don't even get their books the first day. I imagine, as a teacher, I'd be happy that there was something to fill up the time on that first day because it only takes so long to go over a syllabus and classroom expectations.

I don't see how the President speaking directly, motivating and encouraging kids to stay in school, is all that different from the children watching Channel One every morning. As much as I disliked Bush, I never objected to news stories on Channel One about things that he said or did. I only jokingly objected when my son, in second grade, had to do an oral presentation on a President and happened to randomly be assigned W and was supposed to give the speech as though he WAS George W., like an autobiography.

One of my first thoughts was, I wonder if every child that Bush was reading to on the morning of 9/11 had permission from their parents to be in the room when the President was there. I can't even imagine. I know for sure I didn't have to get permission to see Mondale speak when he came to my high school.

This man IS the President of the United States. Agree or disagree with his policies, he is our President. I really disliked W strongly, to the point that I couldn't even look at him anymore by the end of his Presidency, but I would never object to my children hearing him speak in school. It *is* educational to learn about our government, to learn how to discuss politics in an intelligent way and to discuss our freedoms as citizens of the United States. I can't imagine wanting to squash that. We see some insane statistics about how many Americans can't name the Vice President or the Speaker of the House, etc... and we wonder why???

Every school I attended had an auditorium...it was usually an auditorium on its own, or a combination auditorium/gym.


I don't agree with the people who are objecting to President Obama's speech; I think people need to just calm down about the whole thing. I also don't get the idea of why they even need permission slips for this speech.

However, there's a difference between Bush's speech on 9/11 and this pre-planned speech. Plus they couldn't have gotten permission slips in the hour or two before the speech.

Part of the objective could be from those who believe the federal government should stay away from anything related to education, as it is considered a state's right.

I was referring to the kids he was reading to as the attacks were happening. He was in a school, reading a book to kids at the time, hence the delay in notifying him about the attacks on the WTC. That had to be pre-planned.

We have combo gym/auditorium/cafeteria in the elementary schools. While we have separate facilities in the middle schools/high schools, there are stages and multimedia equipment in the cafeterias as well. But, our schools now have air conditioning too...so we're considered a "rich" district now. (And we get the lowest funding of any district in the state)

Double posting, because we were posting at the same time. That would be an interesting reason to object considering the No Child Left Behind act instituted by our previous administration!

Ah ok. I'm not sure if they required a permission slip. As I said, I think the whole idea of permission slips to listen to political leaders (the President and other elected officials) is pretty ridiculous.

Don't even get me started on NCLB. I know many people, on both sides of the aisle, who hate that act, though obviously for various reasons. Some of them object for that reason though, and hated push for supporting it.

My guess is that the school informed parents that President Bush would be visiting. I would have expected they inform parents more to explain the heightened security at the school because parents might have gotten really worried in a post-Columbine world when they saw the school blocked off, etc.

Obama and Mrs. Obama have both made similar trips to schools in DC, I think. It may have been only Mrs. Obama. I think Presidents visiting schools is actually pretty common, but a TV broadcast to every school hasn't ever happened while anyone in school now was in school.

The cafeterias of the schools I've been in in recent memory wouldn't be conducive to having the kids watch the speech there, but they are all pretty big schools. I would even say that many high schools can't get the entire student body in the auditorium at the same time.

I also doubt that, if you really want the kids to watch, that putting them all together in a large room and then showing the speech is the way to do it. It might work someplace where the majority of kids love Obama and there's positive peer pressure to be quiet and listen, but many kids would much rather try to figure out a way to attract the attention of the hot member of the opposite sex three rows away than watch a televised speech from anyone. But of course I'm thinking about high school behavior. Little kids might be better.

AGDee, I'm sort of amazed that kids anyplace would be well-behaved and quiet enough at lunch that their watching anything on TV at lunch seems like a realistic possibility. When you've been at school for lunch, what was it like? Was there a special event going on? Our cafeteria is reasonably tame in that kids are just sitting around eating and talking, but it's kind of a dull roar. They probably wouldn't shut up and listen to the speech.

That's a good point, but truly.. are most kids going to be really watching it anyway? Maybe the ones who are really into politics or whatever, but I would think most kids are going to be doodling, whispering with their friends, etc. anyway..lol. I was surprised that lunch was actually much calmer at the middle school than in elementary school, but I attribute that to the seating arrangements. In our middle school and high school, they sit 7 kids per table. In elementary, the whole class is at one big picnic table type table. It's definitely a dull roar.

I guess, I'm thinking.. you can put it on, but you're not going to force them to pay attention no matter what the setting. A pre-recorded thing is probably a better idea, or something broadcast on Channel One. Distributing that would probably be more costly though. I guess there's no good solution for all schools.

Yeah, I'm not angry about it or anything, but I think the whole thing is kind of a pointless gesture.

But maybe he will be able to reach a few kids who identify more with his story than they did with previous administrations'. It's certainly not going to hurt.

I agree! I dont see its point.

yup, she should be sitting in the class with her kids, because someone failed her dumb behind! It could be worse...she could have committed horrible apostrophe abuse--you know, thinking the apostrophe makes stuff plural.

I agree that there is nothing fundamentally threatening about the topic of the President's speech. However I disagree about teachers needing that much advance notice. Part of being a good teacher is being flexible. There may be days when your lesson plan won't go according to "plan." A teacher should always be prepared for that. Furthermore, with the way things happen in schools nowadays teachers should be prepared for unannounced interruptions (fire drills, bomb drills, sudden visits from dignitaries). When Chief Justice Roberts interrupted my Torts class the professor was mildly taken aback but he wasn't going to tell Roberts he couldn't come in because he didn't have time to incorporate it into the lesson plan. And besides, based on the topic of the speech, what would be so difficult about incorporating it into a lesson plan?

lmao :D

The difference is that Obama could have easily given more advance notice. It didn't need to sprung on people the week before.

And I don't know what your education was like, but a generic "stay in school, kids" wasn't part of my lessons very frequently.

There are a lot of ways the logistics could have been a lot better to get closer to 100% participation.

Think about it: if this had been well-planned and the specific content explained by the White House or DOE a month or two ago, there'd be pressure on districts to figure out how to show it. Instead, I suspect that the participation rate for any state that this isn't the first day of school will be far from 100%.

If this is the first day for a district, they had all last week to work out how and where they would show it. If it wasn't the first week, they were actually teaching, planning, grading, dealing with discipline, and probably didn't have as much time to devote to this. I know my district didn't. I think most of the districts around Atlanta figured out how to handle it in a way that didn't make parents mad; permission slip etc, but didn't send out any information about how to make it work with the lunch schedule or any of the practical concerns if a teacher wanted to show it. That will leave many teachers with the impression that it's much easier just not to fool with showing it.

No, most teachers won't have a generic "stay in school" segment on their lesson plan. That still doesn't mean that it isn't relevant, and that it should not be addressed. I'm not sure why these districts are acting as though this is rocket science. When things came up like this in my district, it was never that difficult to plan it out. The lunch schedules were altered, and if necessary, there was extended homeroom. It is the POTUS giving an encouraging message for goodness sake! Seems to me like people would WANT kids to see that. All that other stuff about schedules and logistics? Just plain old excuses...and we all know what excuses are.

WELL said. And I thought about Channel One as well when I first head this. We never had to get permission to watch Channel One and it definitely took up instructional time. However, the sentiment was that watching Channel One was educational. I fail to see why this would not also be perceived as being an educational moment that could take up some instructional time. it is only ONE day out of the entire school year.

Taking off Obama-talks-too-damn-much hat/

It's just bad timing. His approval ratings have declined and clueless people are fighting at townhall meetings over healthcare reform that they haven't researched.

People are afraid that we've elected a socialist (we may have, time will tell) and that he is going to send some George Orwell vibes to the kids. "Stay in school so that you can pay for the healthcare of nonfamily members...and then we'll put a number on the back of your head."

The fear does not have to be well-founded or accurate. Fear usually isn't. But, I liken it to Bush giving a speech to the kids after America transitioned from thanking Bush for conquering terrorists to being pissed about the Iraq war. Did he give a speech then? I wouldn't know.

ETA: After all of this muchtadoboutnuthin, I hope his speech goes well and is well received, as other POTUS' kiddie speeches have been.

/putting on Obama-talks-too-damn-much hat

If you have a room of 100 and you reach 10 or 1. You have done your job.

Oh that crazy Obama...trying to fill our kids heads with socialism! (duck to avoid sarcasm)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResou...SchoolRemarks/

I like the message. Go Mr. President!