With the fervor over President Obama's presidential address to public school students making the front page of today's Telegram and Gazette (as well, incidentally, of the New York Times, which wrote the article), wouldn't it have been good for the T&G to have sent a reporter to last night's School Committee meeting?
If they had, they might have discovered that they could add some local relevance to the article. In a marked remove from general practice, Mayor Lukes called for a suspension of rules and took an item not on the agenda (this was at the end of the meeting, and, regrettably, after my netbook's battery had died). It seems she, too, has been getting calls regarding the President's address. While she went on at some length regarding politicians taking advantage of schools to politic, what she was calling for was less controversial: she wants the administration to recommend a policy regarding politicians addressing schools.
May I also add that if you have an opinion on the Presidential address, you pass it on to the Mayor? It appears that all comments she's gotten have been remarkably one-sided.
I do have to say that this is rather an over-reaction to an American president addressing American children in the American public school system. One imagines that once in awhile someone might possibly say something with which parents don't agree in school; if you have a problem with that, you probably ought to be doing all of the education yourself. As the President's message is work hard, stay in school, and take responsibility for your education, this is hardly a controversial message.
2 comments:
The parents in question don't actually fear the President speaking to their children, they fear their children hearing something which might cause them to question a lifetime of their parents BS.
I can imagine Konnie holds the same fears.
If public schools are still about education (jury is still out it seems), then obviously all ideologies must be welcome for debate. Seems as though it's always the folks whose ideologies rest on shaky foundations who disagree.
Politicians deciding through a political process what politics are suitable for education settings. If there's one thing worcester can always count on it's pols who can't see the forest through the irony.
I find the whole debate ridiculous. I have supported the right of the United States President to address the citizens of the United States for my entire adult life. Twenty years ago when I was in school this would have been considered a civics lesson. This is not a candidate for president. This is the duly elected Presdient of the United States. You don't have to agree with policy and you don't have to agree with the politics of the President. You do not have to respect the man, but you do have to respect the office. The Pledge of Allegiance does not have exceptions for political party. It would be ridiculous to say we should stop having children recite the Pledge of Allegiance or study the US Constitution, and this debate remains equally ridiculous.
Post a Comment