Print
E-mail
White House Drops Plea For Students To Help Obama
Firestorm Erupted As Critics Charge White House With Indoctrination
By JOE MURRAY, The Bulletin
A presidential video address to the nation’s school children erupted into a firestorm of controversy after the White House disseminated an activities list which, among other things, called for grade students to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”
The president is poised to deliver an address to the nation’s students on September 8th. According to a press release issued by the White House on Wednesday, the speech stresses the “importance of taking responsibility for [students] success in school.”
But, in preparing for the academic video address, the Department of Education promulgated a list of “suggested activities” for K-6 students that had a number of critics crying foul.
Prior to Mr. Obama’s video address, the DOE had asked teachers to “build background knowledge” about Mr. Obama by having students read “books about presidents and Barack Obama.” Teachers were told to ask students why it was important that people listen to the president and other elected officials.
During the video address, teachers were told that students should be thinking about “what the president is trying to tell me” and “what the president wants me to do.” Students were encouraged to record parts of the speech where Mr. Obama gives them an order so they do not forget it.
After the video address, the DOE suggested students “write letters to themselves about what they could do to help the president.”
In response to the controversy, the White House announced Thursday it was changing some of the language in the curriculum guides.
Regarding the suggestion that students write how they could help the president, the language was changed to read: “Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.”
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor stressed the language change was done to make the guides clearer and was adamant that the president’s speech is one to encourage students and is not about policy. Some, however, claim the president with using children as political pawns in trying to change the social fabric of the country.
“While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda,” Jim Greer, chairman of the Florida GOP, said.
“The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President’s agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.”
Mr. Greer charged it was hypocritical that “school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President,” while “public schools can’t teach children to speak out in support of the sanctity of human life or traditional marriage.”
Conservatives also point to an “I Pledge” video recently shown to Utah students; a move that caused the principal to apologize. The video asked students to make a pledge to help the president.
The Obama administration is defusing the controversy by claiming the president’s critics are creating controversy when there should be none.
Mr. Vietor stressed the speech is “about the value of education and the importance of staying in school as part of his effort to dramatically cut the dropout rate.”
But, is the controversy a political maneuver to ambush the president or has the White House overstepped a boundary leading to indoctrination?
“There is a trend with this administration,” said Neil McCluskey, associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. “They don’t realize how regular Americans are going to interpret the words they choose and use.”
Mr. McCluskey pointed to the health care debate and the Henry Lewis Gates controversy as evidence the Obama administration has trouble communicating with Americans. But, unlike the Gates incident which constituted remarks made off the cuff, Mr. McCluskey argued the curriculum guides were different.
“These guides were drafted, reviewed and double checked,” Mr. McCluskey said. “And whether intentional or not, these guides could be easily constructed as encouraging teachers to teach students about Obama and how Obama inspires them.”
Mr. McCluskey noted that this is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but one that calls for the de-federalization of education.
“Politicians will use education for their own ends and that is not what education is supposed to be,” the education expert said.
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
The president is poised to deliver an address to the nation’s students on September 8th. According to a press release issued by the White House on Wednesday, the speech stresses the “importance of taking responsibility for [students] success in school.”
But, in preparing for the academic video address, the Department of Education promulgated a list of “suggested activities” for K-6 students that had a number of critics crying foul.
Prior to Mr. Obama’s video address, the DOE had asked teachers to “build background knowledge” about Mr. Obama by having students read “books about presidents and Barack Obama.” Teachers were told to ask students why it was important that people listen to the president and other elected officials.
During the video address, teachers were told that students should be thinking about “what the president is trying to tell me” and “what the president wants me to do.” Students were encouraged to record parts of the speech where Mr. Obama gives them an order so they do not forget it.
After the video address, the DOE suggested students “write letters to themselves about what they could do to help the president.”
In response to the controversy, the White House announced Thursday it was changing some of the language in the curriculum guides.
Regarding the suggestion that students write how they could help the president, the language was changed to read: “Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.”
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor stressed the language change was done to make the guides clearer and was adamant that the president’s speech is one to encourage students and is not about policy. Some, however, claim the president with using children as political pawns in trying to change the social fabric of the country.
“While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda,” Jim Greer, chairman of the Florida GOP, said.
“The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President’s agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.”
Mr. Greer charged it was hypocritical that “school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President,” while “public schools can’t teach children to speak out in support of the sanctity of human life or traditional marriage.”
Conservatives also point to an “I Pledge” video recently shown to Utah students; a move that caused the principal to apologize. The video asked students to make a pledge to help the president.
The Obama administration is defusing the controversy by claiming the president’s critics are creating controversy when there should be none.
Mr. Vietor stressed the speech is “about the value of education and the importance of staying in school as part of his effort to dramatically cut the dropout rate.”
But, is the controversy a political maneuver to ambush the president or has the White House overstepped a boundary leading to indoctrination?
“There is a trend with this administration,” said Neil McCluskey, associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. “They don’t realize how regular Americans are going to interpret the words they choose and use.”
Mr. McCluskey pointed to the health care debate and the Henry Lewis Gates controversy as evidence the Obama administration has trouble communicating with Americans. But, unlike the Gates incident which constituted remarks made off the cuff, Mr. McCluskey argued the curriculum guides were different.
“These guides were drafted, reviewed and double checked,” Mr. McCluskey said. “And whether intentional or not, these guides could be easily constructed as encouraging teachers to teach students about Obama and how Obama inspires them.”
Mr. McCluskey noted that this is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but one that calls for the de-federalization of education.
“Politicians will use education for their own ends and that is not what education is supposed to be,” the education expert said.
Joe Murray can be reached at jmurray@thebulletin.us
 |
 |
|
| Supreme Court Justice Stevens Retiring? | Civil Rights Commission Demands Voter Intimidation Answers |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
John Law wrote on Sep 6, 2009 1:46 PM: