I would hope he wouldn't speak about cap and trade and/or global warming because most of the students wouldn't have a clue what he's talking about. Of course based on the discussion on this site and on talk radio, it would likely do a lot of good for many adults to hear that speech. Because many feel very comfortable arguing and complaining, although few have a clue what's even been discussed.

 

I would imagine this speech will be encouraging the kids to stay in school. He will talk about the benefits a degree will hold for them and how they can help the country by working rather than dropping out.

 

You mention Bush; how many times did he speak that he didn't mention terrorism? If he spoke at my school I would imagine that he would mention it. And that would be fine. I honestly wouldn't care if he spoke about abortion or family values either. He's the president - talk on! That doesn't mean I have to agree.

 

But it seems that everyone believes that whenever the president talks everyone will immediately stop, listen, and change their opinion right there on the spot. Unfortunately, both the far left and far right believe that any inch given is an inch that can't be got back. And a talking, liberal president guarantees listening, liberal students. That's a monster leap if you ask me. Most people listen to both sides and make an informed decision based upon the facts at hand. Not all are sheep who blindly follow everything Rush, Sean, Keith, and Rachel tell them.

Cap and Trade can be brought down to a grade school level and kids aren't as dumb as people think. Somehow I doubt what you posted is all he's going to talk about.

A few facts, as you mention is all I think anyone wants. You see a problem with that?

As to Bush, you are rare indeed then. The hatred towards Bush over the last few years was very extreme, so I commend you. Personally, I wouldn't have wanted Bush to speak to my kids in school either.

While a teacher is certainly an authority figure whose words are imbued with some sense of power to a child, that power can be curtailed and even eliminated by the same authority and power held by a parent. In other words, when a teacher says, in class, "we are destroying our environment," or "our military is an oppressive occupier," that statment can be assuaged by the parent AND I can go address that teacher directly.

 

However, when the PRESIDENT says something addressed to a child, usually through an event for which there is going to be a special "day" or celebration at school, the President's words carry tremendous impact and weight of authority that is unchecked by anything in the household.

 

Therefore, my "fear" is that here we have an attempt, by THIS President to:

 

1. Address my child through a medium that I have no opportunity to address him back;

 

2. Do so at a venue that, other than holding my child home from school, I have no choice to object to;

 

3. Filtered through an educational establishment where it is beyond cavil that subsequent discussion will be to affirm the words of the President.

 

This is WHY public school teachers generally avoid political stances on most subjects, at least below the high school level. I can go and CONFRONT a teacher that is making certain statements to my child; I cannot CONFRONT the President.

 

What statements are we talking about?

 

How about if the President took the opportunity on September 8th to repeat, over and over, that affordable health care is a "right" for all citizens? I wholeheartedly disagree with that mantra and don't want it taught to my child.

 

How about if he took the opportunity to connect taxation to the cleanup of the environment that is "being destroyed by man." I also disagree with both of those concepts, and don't want them taught to my child.

 

How about if he simply repeated the mantra, over and over that the current stimulus packages "have created more jobs and will create more and give us a brighter future." I don't want my child coming home repeating that drivel.

 

So, yes, it is fear of the unknown as to what he might say, but your head is in the sand if you don't think words mean something, and we can, using past experience as our guide, make a fair estimation of the types of mantras he might say.

 

The damage is lessened at the higher grade levels because they (supposedly) have been taught critical thinking, but it absolutely inappropriate and unacceptable at the younger grade levels.

 

A sidebar to all of this is the suggestion that a President's curriculum should be substituted for that day. The supreme arrogance of belief that a national Presidential address somehow is more important or should be injected as precedent to the weekly workload students already have galls me.

 

I have actually played a civic role in all of this, in that as a site-based council member I have successfully persuaded my fellow council members that we will be opting-out of the September 8th material, and will have business as susual. No Obamawashing at Bardstown Primary School next Tuesday.

Ahold of our history books? Getting away from the founding fathers? This is comical. :lol:

 

Many of the founding fathers were deists and slaveholders. We teach that now because it's true. It always was true, but that colored the myth of American foundation; the one of how they all worshipped in church every time the doors were open and their slaves were happy to have a job on such a nice farm.

 

I'm glad its comical to you, they are getting away from calling them the founding fathers. If they teach the truth thats fine, include they were slave owners, cheated on their wives, whatever, but they were the Founding Fathers of this country.

While a teacher is certainly an authority figure whose words are imbued with some sense of power to a child, that power can be curtailed and even eliminated by the same authority and power held by a parent. In other words, when a teacher says, in class, "we are destroying our environment," or "our military is an oppressive occupier," that statment can be assuaged by the parent AND I can go address that teacher directly.

 

However, when the PRESIDENT says something addressed to a child, usually through an event for which there is going to be a special "day" or celebration at school, the President's words carry tremendous impact and weight of authority that is unchecked by anything in the household.

 

Therefore, my "fear" is that here we have an attempt, by THIS President to:

 

1. Address my child through a medium that I have no opportunity to address him back;

 

2. Do so at a venue that, other than holding my child home from school, I have no choice to object to;

 

3. Filtered through an educational establishment where it is beyond cavil that subsequent discussion will be to affirm the words of the President.

 

This is WHY public school teachers generally avoid political stances on most subjects, at least below the high school level. I can go and CONFRONT a teacher that is making certain statements to my child; I cannot CONFRONT the President.

 

What statements are we talking about?

 

How about if the President took the opportunity on September 8th to repeat, over and over, that affordable health care is a "right" for all citizens? I wholeheartedly disagree with that mantra and don't want it taught to my child.

 

How about if he took the opportunity to connect taxation to the cleanup of the environment that is "being destroyed by man." I also disagree with both of those concepts, and don't want them taught to my child.

 

How about if he simply repeated the mantra, over and over that the current stimulus packages "have created more jobs and will create more and give us a brighter future." I don't want my child coming home repeating that drivel.

So, yes, it is fear of the unknown as to what he might say, but your head is in the sand if you don't think words mean something, and we can, using past experience as our guide, make a fair estimation of the types of mantras he might say.

 

The damage is lessened at the higher grade levels because they (supposedly) have been taught critical thinking, but it absolutely inappropriate and unacceptable at the younger grade levels.

 

A sidebar to all of this is the suggestion that a President's curriculum should be substituted for that day. The supreme arrogance of belief that a national Presidential address somehow is more important or should be injected as precedent to the weekly workload students already have galls me.

 

I have actually played a civic role in all of this, in that as a site-based council member I have successfully persuaded my fellow council members that we will be opting-out of the September 8th material, and will have business as susual. No Obamawashing at Bardstown Primary School next Tuesday.

 

 

And you are the other guy I hate debating with.....:lol:

 

You just put into words what I wanted to and I agree with everything you have said.

 

 

I can't wait for the supporters to answer what happens if he does the bolded....I bet they don't or defend it by saying its fair game because its in the news........

I'm glad its comical to you, they are getting away from calling them the founding fathers. If they teach the truth thats fine, include they were slave owners, cheated on their wives, whatever, but they were the Founding Fathers of this country.

 

I think it's comical that people throw out these claims of Democrats getting ahold of this or that. When our school adopts textbooks, we have about seven to pick from. We choose the one that offers the best text, materials, videos, etc. It doesn't matter who writes the book. I've never once looked into the political leanings of the publisher/editor/writer.

 

I didn't mean to imply they weren't founding fathers. I'm simply saying that not everything that the founding fathers did was perfect, which is what many want their children to be taught in school. I have kids that are floored when I tell them Jefferson, etc. owned slaves. Who are we doing a favor for if we don't teach the truth?

While a teacher is certainly an authority figure whose words are imbued with some sense of power to a child, that power can be curtailed and even eliminated by the same authority and power held by a parent. In other words, when a teacher says, in class, "we are destroying our environment," or "our military is an oppressive occupier," that statment can be assuaged by the parent AND I can go address that teacher directly.

 

However, when the PRESIDENT says something addressed to a child, usually through an event for which there is going to be a special "day" or celebration at school, the President's words carry tremendous impact and weight of authority that is unchecked by anything in the household.

 

Therefore, my "fear" is that here we have an attempt, by THIS President to:

 

1. Address my child through a medium that I have no opportunity to address him back;

 

2. Do so at a venue that, other than holding my child home from school, I have no choice to object to;

 

3. Filtered through an educational establishment where it is beyond cavil that subsequent discussion will be to affirm the words of the President.

 

This is WHY public school teachers generally avoid political stances on most subjects, at least below the high school level. I can go and CONFRONT a teacher that is making certain statements to my child; I cannot CONFRONT the President.

 

What statements are we talking about?

 

How about if the President took the opportunity on September 8th to repeat, over and over, that affordable health care is a "right" for all citizens? I wholeheartedly disagree with that mantra and don't want it taught to my child.

 

How about if he took the opportunity to connect taxation to the cleanup of the environment that is "being destroyed by man." I also disagree with both of those concepts, and don't want them taught to my child.

 

How about if he simply repeated the mantra, over and over that the current stimulus packages "have created more jobs and will create more and give us a brighter future." I don't want my child coming home repeating that drivel.

 

So, yes, it is fear of the unknown as to what he might say, but your head is in the sand if you don't think words mean something, and we can, using past experience as our guide, make a fair estimation of the types of mantras he might say.

 

The damage is lessened at the higher grade levels because they (supposedly) have been taught critical thinking, but it absolutely inappropriate and unacceptable at the younger grade levels.

 

A sidebar to all of this is the suggestion that a President's curriculum should be substituted for that day. The supreme arrogance of belief that a national Presidential address somehow is more important or should be injected as precedent to the weekly workload students already have galls me.

 

I have actually played a civic role in all of this, in that as a site-based council member I have successfully persuaded my fellow council members that we will be opting-out of the September 8th material, and will have business as susual. No Obamawashing at Bardstown Primary School next Tuesday.

Oh man! Very, very well said!!! :thumb:

I'm not buying all the hype on this, is this really even required for teachers to show? If not and it's just an option why all the big fuss. It's actually a good idea to get kids involved in the political process. Too many American are just apathetic to the whole process and if we can get them active a a young age maybe it will carry over.

I think it's comical that people throw out these claims of Democrats getting ahold of this or that. When our school adopts textbooks, we have about seven to pick from. We choose the one that offers the best text, materials, videos, etc. It doesn't matter who writes the book. I've never once looked into the political leanings of the publisher/editor/writer.

I didn't mean to imply they weren't founding fathers. I'm simply saying that not everything that the founding fathers did was perfect, which is what many want their children to be taught in school. I have kids that are floored when I tell them Jefferson, etc. owned slaves. Who are we doing a favor for if we don't teach the truth?

 

 

I agree we must tech the good as well as the bad.:thumb:

 

 

You don't but many do. Remember every state isn't like ours and politicians pick books in some.

I agree history is written by those who win wars.....

 

 

That is another problem I have Democrats have gotten to a hold of our history books, someone on here had the article of how we are getting away from the founding fathers etc.........

 

One question Obama wants the kids to right down is "What does he want you to do?" or something similar...........vote liberal is the answer............

 

Maybe he wants them to stay in school. Maybe he wants them to work hard. Maybe he wants them to participate in extracurricular activities.

In a nutshell, every single argument AGAINST wanting Obama to speak to school children has to do with the fact that it is THIS president. Look at the reasons:

 

• Pushing Healthcare reforme
  
• Cap & Trade
  
• Indoctrination
  

And yet, each of you has ignored what bugatti posted...

 

Each of you has taken the "protect the children" approach. Interesting. Had Bush wanted to address school children in the classrooms about the importance of staying in school, how many would be freaked out?

 

Schools allow speakers to come into the classrooms to speak on a variety of subjects, sometimes to speak to a general assembly of the students. DARE is allowed in schools. Yet we don't want our President to address our students.

 

The argument that parents should be aware could be very simply solved and still have the Presidential address broadcast. Send a letter and permission slip home for the parents to read and sign.

 

Frankly, I think it would be great for any President to address and engage our youth. They ARE the future.

While a teacher is certainly an authority figure whose words are imbued with some sense of power to a child, that power can be curtailed and even eliminated by the same authority and power held by a parent. In other words, when a teacher says, in class, "we are destroying our environment," or "our military is an oppressive occupier," that statment can be assuaged by the parent AND I can go address that teacher directly.

 

However, when the PRESIDENT says something addressed to a child, usually through an event for which there is going to be a special "day" or celebration at school, the President's words carry tremendous impact and weight of authority that is unchecked by anything in the household.

 

Therefore, my "fear" is that here we have an attempt, by THIS President to:

 

1. Address my child through a medium that I have no opportunity to address him back;

 

2. Do so at a venue that, other than holding my child home from school, I have no choice to object to;

 

3. Filtered through an educational establishment where it is beyond cavil that subsequent discussion will be to affirm the words of the President.

 

This is WHY public school teachers generally avoid political stances on most subjects, at least below the high school level. I can go and CONFRONT a teacher that is making certain statements to my child; I cannot CONFRONT the President.

 

What statements are we talking about?

 

How about if the President took the opportunity on September 8th to repeat, over and over, that affordable health care is a "right" for all citizens? I wholeheartedly disagree with that mantra and don't want it taught to my child.

 

How about if he took the opportunity to connect taxation to the cleanup of the environment that is "being destroyed by man." I also disagree with both of those concepts, and don't want them taught to my child.

 

How about if he simply repeated the mantra, over and over that the current stimulus packages "have created more jobs and will create more and give us a brighter future." I don't want my child coming home repeating that drivel.

 

So, yes, it is fear of the unknown as to what he might say, but your head is in the sand if you don't think words mean something, and we can, using past experience as our guide, make a fair estimation of the types of mantras he might say.

 

The damage is lessened at the higher grade levels because they (supposedly) have been taught critical thinking, but it absolutely inappropriate and unacceptable at the younger grade levels.

 

A sidebar to all of this is the suggestion that a President's curriculum should be substituted for that day. The supreme arrogance of belief that a national Presidential address somehow is more important or should be injected as precedent to the weekly workload students already have galls me.

 

I have actually played a civic role in all of this, in that as a site-based council member I have successfully persuaded my fellow council members that we will be opting-out of the September 8th material, and will have business as susual. No Obamawashing at Bardstown Primary School next Tuesday.

 

You certainly wouldn't want your kids to be in my classroom then. Whether it be extraterrestrial life, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan or global warming, I don't tell my students what to believe one way or the other. I don't even tell them my beliefs. We examine controversial issues from multiple sides and use multiple information sources and I ask THEM to arrive at a logical conclusion. I have truly educated my students if they seek the truth, not regurgitate what was told to them, no matter what the information or who presented it to them.

I find it comical that posters on here as well as talk radio are upset that the POTUS is taking away valuable class time yet no one ever calls the school to complain about all of the time students are out for various activities/speeches/MADD/etc.

 

Smells funny to me.

What would your reaction be if President Obama wanted to have this speech to talk about the importance of avoiding drugs?

In a nutshell, every single argument AGAINST wanting Obama to speak to school children has to do with the fact that it is THIS president. Look at the reasons:

 

• Pushing Healthcare reforme
  
• Cap & Trade
  
• Indoctrination
  

And yet, each of you has ignored what bugatti posted...

 

Each of you has taken the "protect the children" approach. Interesting. Had Bush wanted to address school children in the classrooms about the importance of staying in school, how many would be freaked out?

 

Schools allow speakers to come into the classrooms to speak on a variety of subjects, sometimes to speak to a general assembly of the students. DARE is allowed in schools. Yet we don't want our President to address our students.

 

The argument that parents should be aware could be very simply solved and still have the Presidential address broadcast. Send a letter and permission slip home for the parents to read and sign.

 

Frankly, I think it would be great for any President to address and engage our youth. They ARE the future.

 

You are ignoring what has been posted.

 

Several of us, RTS did it outright, have said we don't want ANY President addressing schoolchildren.

 

It is not a "protect the children" approach, it is the "protect MY children" approach. I have a say in what they see, hear, eat, drink, write, read, and whom they associate with. And I'll defend (with RTS's weapons) the right I have to do that.

I find it comical that posters on here as well as talk radio are upset that the POTUS is taking away valuable class time yet no one ever calls the school to complain about all of the time students are out for various activities/speeches/MADD/etc.

 

Smells funny to me.

 

There are things that are OK to take away class time and things that aren't. When they aren't, I complain. I felt strong enough about some of it to get on the SBDM. If the Larue County jumprope team wants to come to an assembly, I'm good with it because it is an inventive way of looking at athletics. I was not OK with them taking an entire day of school away for inauguration speeches, either for Bush or Obama. Those are dog and pony shows now and of no educational value.