I've read over a transcript of President Obama's speech to public schoolers. I do think it is appropriate that a political leader should address groups of the people. Just as it would rarely be controversial for a mayor to address the students in a school or throughout a city, there really shouldn't be anything so controversial about a president finding a way to address students in schools throughout the country.
When addressing a "captive audience" (school as captivity, that's an interesting thought) it is important to speak clearly and accurately. These students have few ways of making meaningful responses. They are, by and large, not of voting age yet either. Let's look at some of the important philosophical elements of Mr. Obama's speech.
In the introduction, he says, "I've talked a lot about your government's responsibility for setting high standards, and supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren't working, where students aren't getting the opportunities that they deserve." This assumes that the government has primary responsibility for education. This has become a cultural assumption which our president has reinforced in this speech. Unfortunately, feeding more of this assumption to children, reinforcing the efforts of teachers to promote the supremacy of government in educating and shaping culture, is something we have come to expect of our governmental leaders, despite all the evidence that government leadership in education is one of the worst things that has ever happened to any culture.
President Obama then turns to the responsibility of students to be good and diligent students. One wonders, of course, what makes for a good student. Maybe he'll tell us. It appears as I read on that the good student will become a successful person in society. Score one! I freely grant that you are more likely to achieve worthwhile goals if you work diligently and don't give up. I do observe that all the emphasis is on what you do at school, but that seems appropriate for a speech given in a school intended to motivate students in their school life. I do find it interesting, though, that the arbiter of success in life seems to be achievement in school subjects. He also depicts the worst outcome of dropping out of school - you then give up on your country. You may become a second class citizen. What of people whose vocations don't require a strong academic orientation? Well, like Mrs. Obama's parents, maybe by hard work they can manage to send their children to the best schools so their children can become success stories. I sure hope Mrs. Obama's parents themselves are a success story. I don't know, but it appears they got at least some things right. Maybe they were successful even though they didn't attend much school?
As we approach the end of the speech, it appears more and more that the job of students is to become good citizens through their hard work. We do school work for our country. We try to learn so we can be loyal and patriotic. We find our greatest love in love for our country. This theme of service to your country was quite troublesome to me. Especially when the speech was accompanied by the proposed study guide which apparently led students to make conclusions and assertions about how they can essentially devote their lives to their country, I find the whole affair quite distasteful.
I guess I should let this serve as a reminder that the schools are really government schools. They are public in that they are funded from public funds (i.e., taxes), that they exist to further the values and commitments of our government, that they have never been about academics or honesty, but always about forming compliant citizens. So this is exactly the kind of emphasis we should expect in a speech from a high governmental official addressing his school students. How can you be all you can be? By giving your life and devotion to your government's ideals.
There are times I'm really glad to be a Christian homeschooler. I get to bring my children up and point them toward different ideals, first as a Christian family, then as a family with a vital life centered around home, rather than around government.
