Hall Pass Denied: Why I Haven't Got a Problem with the Presidential Address on Sept 8

Here's the thing. I'm not going to talk about the 41st president, the first President Bush and his creepy scary address to school kids about guns and drugs in 1989. Nor am I going to mention his pitch for his education plan and where our educational system ought to be by 2000 (hahahahaha) in 1991 (but you can view it here. I'm not going to talk about the disturbing undertone of racism and the disgusting outright racism I've heard from people in this discussion about President Obama speaking to schoolchildren about education. I'm not going to express my disgust with the vitriol self-described conservatives are hurling right now -- seizing on every chance they have to be as nasty and vicious as they can be about our President and people with progressive beliefs and ideas. I will, however, note the distinction between debating IDEAS and attacking people and kindly request that those who believe themselves to be conservatives, Republicans, TCOT, neocons, etc sit down and contemplate that difference.

What I am going to address is the single coherent point I've heard from people I like and respect and who also happen to object to the president addressing kids.

I'll quote my good friend J, who I do so like and admire, and who brought up a relevant point of discussion, and my friend D, who brought up a similar point: these women, these mothers, feel uncomfortable with President Obama doing an end run around them (and presumably also around the schools and teachers since for many schools September 8 is the first day of school) and directly addressing their children.

As J sagely pointed out, it's irrelevant that nobody made an issue of it when it was done in the past. She wants honest and open discussion about the appropriateness of elected officials directly addressing children in schools.

What I hear J addressing is the larger issue of the communication breach between parents and schools. I'm on that topic like white on rice.

Schools claim an ownership of children once they reach school age. As soon as my first daughter entered kindergarten, we immediately began running into the Great Wall of Public Education. Time and again, I ran into the school's clear message that it didn't matter what I thought, or what my daughter needed: it is what it is at the school and we had to pretzel ourselves to accommodate them.

Family situation that necessitated travel and missing four days of school? I was required to present my case and seek the school district's permission to take my own child out of school. I had naively thought that simply sending in a note a week beforehand to explain we had a family situation so my daughter would be out of school for a few days and could I kindly work with the teacher to get the assignments for my kindergartner (5 years old) would be adequate, but it was not. The school made it plain that I had no rights to my child, period. It was...creepy.

The snowball picked up speed and size after that. Movies weekly, usually of a variety I had banned in my own home. Nutrition messages that seemed geared to create a nation of anorexic children who thought chicken nuggets with corn and gummie snacks were healthy meals. Constant pressure to consume, buy, and spend through what felt like monthly book fairs and fundraisers. Episodes of cartoons that were meant to count as music class. I'll stop there.

I quickly learned that the school decided what was best. No matter what. The end.

I expressed concern to other mothers with kids in the school. Most of them sympathized, and even a few were upset over some things such as the quantity of television watched in school, but all assured me this is just the way it is. In a way, I understood. The school was huge, even at the elementary level. Classes held at least 20 kids. There were over 800 in the school, I heard. That's bigger than my graduating class.

That's also a lot of parents.

I quickly came to understand why the parents mentality focused on the concept that to ensure your kid gets well-treated and a decent education, you had to participate heavily at the school and in the classroom.

Why not just homeschool in that case, I wondered?

I quickly came to understand why so many parents were helicopter parents; it was their way of remaining connected and a part of their child's educational experience, which was more and more indoctrinating all the way around, it seemed.

But public school has always been indoctrinating. We all must conform to basic ideals and standards to rub along in the schools, which themselves must conform to political standards and current modes of thinking. That explains why certain people always have free access to children in schools. Police, community members, professionals, medical personnel, other parents, authors, experts and so forth. People I didn't know regularly addressed my daughter in school -- sharing their particular message in their own way. Most of it was benign, much of it was interesting and meaningful. But not all. Some of it distressed me.

All of these events had one thing in common: the school never notified me in advance, never asked my permission, and never involved me.

I always learned about it from my daughter, who sometimes came home with worrisome ideas and misunderstood concepts.

I ranted annually about red ribbon week, for example. Let me quote myself from 2007:

"What are they for?" Patience asked [referring to the red ribbons covering the school], "I know! For Halloween!"

"Hmm," I said, carefully, "I don't think so. It's usually orange for Halloween," I added, "Red is more for Christmas. But they couldn't promote or celebrate that anyway. So I don't know. This must be some sort of..." I bit back "out of line dumb-assed political statement."

"Some sort of what, Mom?" Patience asked.

"Some sort of special event I wasn't notified about," I said, not a little sullenly.

. . .

"Hi honey," I said nonchalantly, ignoring the sulk, "Come on in, let's have a look at what the problem is."

"It's this bracelet! It hurts my arm," she said fiercely, running to me in relief, grateful to have a Way Out of the sulk without losing face. "But I'm not allowed to take it off all week! But it hurts! But if I take it off I'll be in trouble." Her lower lip quivered. She tucked it into her mouth to hide that weakness.

I lightly held her arm and squinted at the red bracelet tightly encircling her wrist. It's like a club bracelet, or a hospital ID bracelet: tough, red plastic, snapped and locked on. There are tiny black words on it. I squinted harder.

Ahhh. The red ribbons. The red bracelet. It's an anti-drug message.

I rolled back onto my heels boggled by the fury that flooded me, flushing my face.

"Mommy?" Patience inquired.

"It's the kind that locks on," I said, "Locks on! I can't figure out how to pop it and it's on so tight we can't get it over your hand." My anger is upsetting her again.

"It huuuurts," she cried, escalating agitation to near panic, "Get it off!"

Magic words.

"Wait here," I told Patience, and I strode to the office to get scissors. She looked calmed by my resolve.

As I moved away from her, I swallowed rapidly. My heart was racing. I was furious. I am furious. I wanted to strip off that tag the school locked onto my daughter without my permission. I wanted this bracelet---this crap bracelet, this ridiculous symbol representing the wasted effort in the war on drugs, and all that bothers me about this country right now---off my baby's arm.

(Read the whole post about the institution of public education and red ribbon week plus my opinion about it all here.)

As I wised up, I took it at face value that I was going to have to spend a lot of time discussing messages my daughter received at school -- both sanctioned and unsanctioned by the school, forget being sanctioned by me -- or else remove her from school.

That's public school.

That's also why I both understand that parents are upset that a major address is happening at school, circumventing them, and am totally not comprehending this sudden outrage.

That has been the sum total of our experience in public school: a person addressing kids directly, totally circumventing parents.

I'm also not comprehending why people are so outraged and concerned about the President addressing kids about committing to education. Of all the benign and potentially useful messages, this rates pretty high. I'm a lot less concerned about the possible messages here, than say the strange messages my kids have come home from school with about sex, drugs, music and religion (yes at public school). I'm also well-prepared to discuss this with them. I've read through the letter from the US Department of Education about this, and scanned the suggested classroom activities and discussion points.

For the first time, I've got a heads-up about a message being delivered to my kids as well as potential activities and discussions they'll have about it.

I feel more and better informed than EVER BEFORE. I feel more a part of this than EVER BEFORE.

But this is why I do not understand why people are so up in arms about the President's address to school children about the importance of education, his dreams for them for education, why he hopes they'll commit to working hard in school and graduating, and potentially a launch of his "I Am What I Learn" initiative.

It sounds like a good message, and even if there are parts I disagree with, I can discuss it with my kids. I'm well used to that, anyway.

I'm actually relieved that this time I'll simply have to discuss with my kids (again) why education and trying hard in school is important. I actually sort of want to say HALLELUJAH.

I've had to deal with truly negative and problematic messages from school before. This is positive, a cakewalk.

The irony is, my kids are now in private school and may not even see the Presidential address.

All this, though, goes to my friends, who I like and respect and who are simply being the conscientious parents I know them to be. J and D aren't being disingenuous. They are being sincere, with a valid point.

There are others not so respectful. There are others who are spouting messages that make me sick to hear them. others who plan to keep their kids home. Others who are pretending that President Obama is the first to ever speak to schoolchildren, that he is up to no good, that there has never been a messages put directly to kids without including parents, and far, far worse. These are people who are hanging their vitriol on any hook, taking any chance to derail this Administration and President. Their hatred and counter-productiveness is distressing, to say the least. Their clear racism even worse.

At the end of the day, here's what we have and I hope people think about this:

• We have an African-American president in office who is progressive
• He wants to improve education, and I believe he's going to really focus on improving it for minorities
• The majority of conservatives or conservative pundits who are vocal or visible (such as radio or TV) and widely-read or listened to is white. And male.
• They are asking their viewers -- also mostly white -- to ignore our African American President and his message of hope and education for minorities.

President Obama's ideas for educational reform are essential because:

• barely half of African American and Latino students graduate from high school
• In 2006, African American students represented 13.4% of graduating seniors in U.S. public schools, and represented only 7.9% of students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses
• In 1970, the United States had 30% of the world’s college graduates, now has only 15%
• By 4th grade, Black and Latino students are on average nearly 3 years behind their White and Asian counterparts
• One in nine black men between 20-34 are incarcerated; a black male is more likely to be in prison than to have a post-graduate degree.
• 90% of incoming freshman at the top 150 colleges come from families in the top half of U.S. annual income
• 20% of teachers in high poverty schools are inexperienced vs. 11% in low poverty schools, and 21% in high minority schools vs. 105 in low minority schools

Go read more statistics here: Education Equality Project Facts

I want to hear what the President has to say. I want to hear his plan. I do not find it odd in the least that he will speak directly to schoolchildren. He's not setting a precedent, and I suspect he has something valuable to say to them. I have thus far been impressed with his eloquence and intelligence.

If we want to battle something? Battle drop-out rates. Battle inequities in education. Battle the over-institutionalization of public schools.

But battling over a president addressing school children about education -- especially based on the large amount, the unprecedented amount, of information we have in advance does not make sense to me. All things considered.

Comments

[Maria]

Thank you.

[Maniacal Mom]

Excellent Address! I applaud your passion and your stand to do what is BEST for YOUR children...administrators be damned! Go MOM!

[Erin]

I second Maria. Thank you.

[J]

Thanks for this, Julie.

The problem as I also see it (and rather inarticulately stated in so many mini-messages) is not only that this is one in a long stream of plays to circumvent my wishes as a parent regarding what is taught to my kids, but that all this is coming at a highly emotional time for a lot of people I know. I do think that there are a lot of people feeling powerless for a lot of reasons, many and most based upon tenuous financial situations, and when people feel powerless, they grab onto whatever they can to assert themselves.

In a land of conservatives who are being actively and consistently appealed to by right wing political talking heads who are promising them some, any power in their lives, people are willing to latch onto that. That some of this at times seems to go against their logical best interests is moot. This is an emotional issue based upon very base survival fears, rooted in all sorts of isms that have offered solidarity in something, anything. And frankly, I think Obama understands this very, very well.

I just think the timing is bad. I think that people who already feel politically powerless and unheard now see this as an end run for their kids, and nothing strikes up mama bear feeling more than our children.

I think that releasing the exact transcript on the day the speech was announced would have been a good move. It's absolutely unfair that Obama should need to do this Presidential Speech To Kids things differently than others, but he's well aware that his presidency is already confronting people with their own fears and asking them to live outside their comfort zone; I think it would only get that many more kids into the classroom that day to run the exact "curriculum" by the parents.

And also, my concern is that there are children in school who don't have parents who help debrief them on all the messages they get in school. It's okay for my kids, for your kids. But I know through personal experience that there are many kids who swallow whatever is said to them hook line and sinker; I would feel much better if there were more higher level critical thinking skills skills encouraged in the classroom activity pack provided.

For example, questions for pre-speech activities for middle and high school students such as

Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us?
How will he challenge us?
What might he say?
Do you remember any other historic moments when the president spoke to the nation?
What was the impact?

are somewhat leading and aren't really allowing much room for critical thought of a higher order. Before even hearing the speech, children are being directed to think of the speech as inspirational and a historic moment in line with other Presidential speeches, as if just the mere fact of any President speaking to us is "historical" (definition and determining factors wide open.) Already, the discussion is being directed, as is the experience of the child. I'd feel much more comfortable - especially at a high school level - if there were pre-speech questions which didn't assume the merits and personal outcomes of the speech before the kids got to hear it, as well as more questions that critically dissected the uses of media in the classroom, the use of classrooms by politicians, as well as any ethical questions concerned with each.

For the Pre-K - grade 6, one pre speech question is

"Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor?"

I'd much prefer

"Is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor?" And then ask probing questions to uncover reasoning and emotion attached to the answer. Also, I know my kids would want to know the definition of "listen to". As in hear? Or obey? The implication is a bit different, but again, most kids would hear "listen to" as in "obey" as in "I'm the parent, because I said so." I know that that alone is going to spark a discussion in our home; however, we are the original Question Authority types in positive ways that I think other children just don't get an opportunity to do.

My kids will get this stuff at home; many will not. And that this time the politician speaking is approved by any of us personally, or that this time we agree with the message is, again, moot. If all the children aren't being taught to truly think critically about this, then on each graduation day, we're right back where we started.

Again, all this a general complaint with public schools. However, in the current tinder box atmosphere, I would personally like the party of enlightenment to put themselves to the task of really trying to understand the source of the opposition's complaints and actively listen (full on "I hear you saying..." psychology) - no matter how crudely voiced, all negative behavior/speech comes from a positive needs - and in reaching out to all our children, go above and beyond in being as transparent as possible (release the transcript pronto) as well as sincerely encourage an active Question Authority atmosphere.

If the message is good; if the speech truly is inspirational, it will come through the questioning process unscathed and worth more than cluing in kids that they are about to be inspired and that they are taking part in an historical (...?) event. Let them decide that on their own. I think with that attitude, you'd cast a wider net and even get a few of my very right-leaning friends to perk up and get beyond their own party's rhetoric.

Anyway, love ya Julie. Now my head hurts.

[Corina]

As a former teacher of inner city kids, I tell you right now, the message is needed. The message of rise up in spite of your surroundings and make something of yourself. Needed. Timing has nothing to do with it. It is timed at the beginning of a school year. EACH school year is important. We need educational leadership. He wants to provide it.

[J]

As a child, I looked to my very capable teachers to give me the message of "rise up in spite of my surroundings"; they were living examples who were bonded to me in very real ways. The President might as well have been a fantasy character.

And the timing has everything to do with it. It's not so simple as "this is the way we always do it" and tradition is never a good excuse to maintain any tradition. Where I live now, this is not a good idea in the current climate and was handled poorly by people who seem to want to start a firestorm for whatever reason. Some school sessions only started this week and only now are parents finding out about it. It's coming across as sneaky, and evidently that message is being heard loud and clear and agreed with by the Obama administration as they are changing the teaching materials daily, it seems.

What is this costing to produce? How many books could that money have bought? How many pencils? How many educational trips?

The best educational leadership is the person standing in the classroom every day with a child. If that person isn't a person of quality, then God himself could come down and preach 20 minutes of "be better and try harder" and it wouldn't matter the next day. Get good teachers in my classrooms; or else give all teacher's a presidential wage raise - I can guarantee that even the worst teacher has a greater positive impact on a child just by being there than a celebrity 20 minute pep talk.

[cynematic]

I don't know what a live-stream on the web and C-Span broadcast of President Obama's speech costs. I suspect very little, when you look at the logistics of tv broadcasts on C-Span vs commercial tv.

But I do know in a California school of 600, if 100 students stay at home out of "protest" over Obama's speech, that would cost the school $4,700 for one day of those students' absences.

Think of the ire of the parents of the other 500 students who did go to school--those are also "mama bears". Are the opt-out parents going to make up the missing $4700 they cost the school and all 600 students?