By Mark
Let me be clear from the outset: I'm not here to argue about whether Obama's speech is good, bad, ugly; propaganda, motivation, or mind control. There are too many unproductive shouting matches going on about that elsewhere on the web. Missing from those shouting matches is reasoned discussion of what I think is a more important question with a much larger impact on what I do as a teacher.
The controversy about the broadcast of Obama's "work hard" speech has precipitated some interesting responses from school districts across the country, ranging from the superintendent of schools in Tempe saying all teachers shall show the address and parents are "not allowed" to opt out, to districts like mine who instructed teachers to get parent permission before showing the speech. These policies have an impact on classroom instruction–much more of an impact than the speech itself–because it brings up the question about how schools should handle politically charged and divisive content, and what the school's role is in mediating that content for students.
Many an educator who attempts to make content relevant will want to connect to current events. Whether its genetic engineering, military endeavors, alternative energies or health care, it is easy for a curriculum to turn into a volatile tinderbox, because these topics and others have clear political implications.
How should schools handle hot political topics?
In ‘The Assault on Reason’ by Al Gore, a speech by Senator Ed Muskie of Maine from 1970 is quoted:
“There are only two kinds of politics. They’re not radical and reactionary or conservative and liberal or even Democratic and Republican. There are only the politics of fear and the politics of trust. One says you are encircled by monstrous dangers. Give us power over your freedon so we may protect you. The other says the world is a baffling and hazardous place, but it can be shaped by the will of men. Cast your vote for trust in the ancient traditions of this home for freedom.”
I agree. I’m tired of the politics of fear. Let’s listen to our President.
What if we READ the text of the speech and don’t watch the video… would that change the game?
I’m stil trying to figure out what on Earth is so controversial about the President of the United States telling our nation’s children to work hard and stay in school. That is not a partisan message.
I’m bouncing between several conversations on this topic on various blogs, and the trend I’m seeing in some is that very idea of professional judgment.
The lesson plans distributed prior to this speech, to me, indicated poor judgment. This has become a rallying point. It has led people to return to the refrain that a teacher’s professional judgment is the advancement of a (typically labeled liberal) agenda or ideology, because since that judgment comes from the teacher, many assume that the teacher will be incapable of setting their own ideology (again, usually assumed to be liberal) aside.
Most teachers in the more civil conversations I’ve been having are exceedingly mindful about how to use this and other controversial topics in a way which honors divergent points of view and masks (or at least opens for scrutiny) their own personal points of view.
I think that too many folks out there think that teachers are incapable of separating their personal beliefs from their job, and while some teachers certainly struggle with this, I think there are more teachers out there than the public realize who actually think long and hard about how to avoid pushing a political perspective.
Great post – bravo. This is a speech given by the President of the United States to students and teachers and citizens of the United States regarding the benefits of staying in school, working hard to achieve a quality education. That is what we have been told thus far. So wouldn’t common sense suggest we respect the position, view the speech and then engage in critical thinking on the virtues, ideas, and thoughts surrounding the speech? What has happened to the art of debate? We need to be able to engage in intellectual conversations regarding the leaders of our schools, communities, and country. This is America, we do have freedom of speech, and we need to be aware of what our leaders are thinking and saying so we can engage in thoughtful, discussions towards proper courses of action should we have concerns about such. This is a “teachable moment” in the lives of our students. Shouldn’t teachers’ professional judgment be engaged to decide if the speech is appropriate for their particular students?
I will be watching this with my seniors (Regents English). I’m not sure if it will be worth showing it the next day to the rest of my (senior) classes. That remains to be seen. I am so discouraged that this is such a big deal. Anytime any President was/is going to speak (during school hours) it should be available to those who wish to hear it. What sad times we live in. Last fall, my seniors listened to and read all the convention speeches. We spent several days in close reading, discussion, and writing about these. It was a great teaching tool – and nobody gave me any hassles. Hope I can use this speech and say the same this year!
The connection to an education standard or benchmark is a good rooting point for taking on controversial topics…but there’s always more than one way to accomplish a standard, which is something which could always be used against a teacher. To teach rhetoric, persuasion, and logical fallacies (among other things), I chose to show campaign ads from Clinton, McCain, and Obama last fall. I tried hard to be as balanced as possible (for every negative Obama ad, I showed a negative McCain ad…same for positives…to try to show all angles and avoid accusations of “liberal indoctrination”). I could have taught rhetoric, persuasion, and logical fallacies with any number of texts, but I chose those texts (commercials, print, web, etc.). I don’t have data to prove it, but my observations indicated that my students were much more engaged in the analysis of campaign speeches than they would have been in examining some canonical text or handbook on persuasion.
My worry is that districts, as result of this Obama speech mess, are going to clamp down on teachers’ freedom to use those kinds of “current” and potentially divisive texts…and in doing so, stir up more controversy than is really necessary. I think that in using campaign materials to discuss my ELA topics, my students also became slightly more aware of the political conversation going on around them.
You make sense, Mark. Here’s another thought.
I’m not, but have heard lawyers talk this way about school practices whether or not controversial. They get to the (a?) legal core of why public schools exist. I expect experienced teachers consider these questions up front rather than after someone files a complaint, yes, as you are doing now?
Where in minimum state academic standards does this speech fit? Teachin’ will use it to observe oratory. Sounds good, and makes sense sans content, but to what end that operationalizes which standard? Talk about talking?
Where does that fit into the approved school curriculum and teaching contract?
To me, this is just business as usual in public service, nothing new, no benchmarking, and nothing to fear. I think most teachers see it this way also, but have not seen any opinion polls (perhaps should poles 🙂 on the general topic recently.
My district has a controversial issues policy which states that for any controversial issues, we must send home a permission slip explaining what the topic is and how it relates to our curriculum, and provide an alternate activity for any student whose parents refuse to give permission. They’ve decided to treat this speech as a controversial issue, and so we’re not allowed to show it without following that policy (after the speech has aired – we have to watch it first). I told my kids this, and they were stunned, but I also told them that we WILL be watching it, just with the caveats.
Two options. A – I teach Language Arts and we’ll use it for an example of oratory. B – we are a PBS school (Positive Behavior Support) and this should fit. Since it’s apparently about staying in school, working hard, and taking personal responsibility, that’s some pretty positive behavior support, so we could do something with that.
I don’t like that I have to get permission for this, but I’m not willing to let my students miss out on this opportunity just because my district is being all wussy. So I’ll jump through the needed hoops, while explaining them to my kids so they understand just how hard people will try to keep minds closed.
Since many districts are requiring teachers to get parent permission for their student to watch the presentation…will we have to get permission to talk about the health care debate, too? What about global climate change or alternative energy? That’s the “slippery slope” I’m worried about. I worry that this brouhaha will result in stricter policies (in some districts) about use of politically catalytic content. Is that a good thing?
This is the big question: are teachers supposed to filter the wide world for their students? At what age do we open it all up?
I would show the speech in my middle school classroom (my current position is not in a classroom). But I learned the hard way to start out the year with a parent meeting so they knew me as a professional, trusted me with their child, and felt comfortable talking to me if they had a concern. However, communities vary so every teacher has to make the choice based on their specific teaching situation and clientele.
What worries me is when fear insists on silencing opposing opinion. As educators I don’t see how we can support groups – whether they be political, parental, or religious – who attempt to silence something that might oppose their concept of what’s right and what’s wrong.
On the other hand, this has always been an issue in the classroom – think of the Scopes Monkey Trial – so I wonder if teachers are simply put, once again, in the position of fighting the system or ignoring it behind closed doors?
Good question, Bob, and my uncertainty about that is partly what prompted this post. I’m still early in my career, so too often I’ve gone like a bull in a china shop, plowing forward into touchy territory and getting bitten for it…and those have been less incendiary issues like letting a kid choose a research topic such as “sex ed in public schools” or “global warming” for their capstone research/debate in my English class. At absolute minimum we’ll discuss the speech (and also the furious debate around it), but I’m still up in the air about showing it…when deep down I know I shouldn’t be so uncertain.
On one hand, I believe that political views should begin to form at home, and my job is to arm kids with critical thinking and inquiry skills. On the other hand, we can’t bring these topics in and just disacknowledge the political nature of them–and I believe we cannot simply ignore the topics.
Luann’s prediction and question, though, are really what I’m wondering about. Now that it seems that districts are mobilizing to establish policies, where will it end? Will the civics teacher have to get permission to discuss the Vietnam or Iraq conflicts, since those are highly divisive? Will a science teacher have to get parent permission before discussing wind energy to teach about power production, since that might be viewed as mounting and disseminating too “green” a platform?
What worries me is the precedent policies might be setting about how to use tough topics to teach real thinking.
Some districts have prohibited showing the speech at all on Tuesday, asking teachers to record it and make a case later if they want to use the speech. I personally found the accompanying materials insulting and would hope that teachers would be able to find an appropriate way for using the broadcast with their students without resorting to the published drivel. (Did Arne write it? Should use our we assessment of the children’s responses evaluate Arne’s job performance and adjust his salary accordingly?)
My prediction: complex policies will now emerge for handling such broadcasts, just as many schools have for sex ed curriculum. Where will it end?
Dear Parent: Your child is going to encounter controversial issues for the rest of his or her life. Teach your children critical thinking skills. We’ll support that.
How will you handle the speech?