it seems to me that any president addressing school children directly to encourage them to take their education seriously is a good thing and indicates laudable priorities on the part of that administration.
interestingly, there is a "related" link at the bottom of the npr article to an article called "
Would you want your kid to watch or skip the president's address?" and one of the comments on that article says this (particularly relevant passage in bold, emphasis mine. sorry, the comment is rather long, but i thought it was interesting enough to post the whole thing) :
Quote:
K. Phelps (her) wrote:
This is the letter I sent last night to the Plano, TX ISD:
Yesterday I read a headline that some schools were debating whether or not to air President Obama's speech to students next Tuesday. Amused at the ridiculousness of the notion, I read on to learn that my own children's school district would not be airing the speech, instead choosing to make it available for viewing on the child's own time if they so choose. I moved to Plano three years ago so that my children could take advantage of the prestigious Plano Independent School District. Sadly, this decision does not offer evidence to support PISD's reputation.
As a child I recall seeing countless videos of Nancy Reagan, often with President Reagan beside her, encouraging us to just say no to drugs. An administration later, my classmates and I sat through videos of President George H. W. Bush encouraging us to engage in physical fitness. When a President wanted to reach out to the American children they addressed us in the classroom and we listened. Throughout the day I have asked friends in other generations if they recalled hearing the President's speeches while in school. Each friend recalled a different instance of this, many from as far back as speeches by President Kennedy via radios in the classroom. These opportunities, though few and far in between, provided us civic lessons that could not be attained from a book. They allowed us to feel like we were part of the bigger process of government. They made us feel like we mattered, and that our country's leader cared about us. They instilled in us a respect for the political process and more importantly, a respect for the Office of President of the United States. It taught us that when the President speaks, as citizens it is our duty to listen. Disagreeing about what was said comes later, if a parent feels it is necessary.
What concerns me most about this decision is that it politicizes our children. I do not doubt this decision was made in an effort to avoid that. However, that is precisely what it does. Certainly you realize there is controversy over saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, particularly two words which were added in the 1950's. Yet, as a society the decision was made that the act was important. The benefits of teaching children the Pledge and to respect and take pride in their country outweighed the opinion of some extremists who want it eliminated. And for those families who have religious or other valid reasons for their child to abstain from saying the Pledge, alternatives are made. That is cooperation. That is respecting the individual child's needs while also fulfilling the generalized needs of the majority of students. Despite the heated debates, that seems rather simple, doesn't it? Why did such a logical solution slip away this time?
Instead, the loud, irrational voices of extremism have concerned some parents. Instead of responding with reason and allowing the children of concerned parents to have an alternate activity available, the decision has been made to not air this speech in the classroom at all. Our children are made pawns in the extremists' game of hysteria and propaganda. (Ironic since that is what many extremists say this speech is about.) That is disgusting. Our children deserve better than this message they are being sent. The PISD is saying through this decision that it is better to placate the few than to take a stand for what is right. That cowardice is more important than listening to a speech. That the Office of President of the United States is not important, nor is any message he or she may want to convey. This is not about party politics. It has always been considered that our children are above party politics and that is how it should stay!
I am begging you to rethink this decision and the message that you are sending. I am begging you to think about the precedent it sets, particularly compared to the invaluable lessons which arose from previous administrations reaching out to the children of the United States. The consequences of this decision are far more reaching than President Obama's administration. If the decision still stands, I will have to consider having my children stay home on September 8th, so that I can provide what their schools cannot. Rest assured as well that if this decision stands I will do everything in my power to ensure that our children never again fall prey to such kowtowing. I will become even more involved in the system which I love, including looking into legal outlets and unseating board members during the next election cycle. Our children deserve better than this nonsense.
|