Reagan Rebuts the Obama School Talk
The day is therefore fast approaching when the schools will be acknowledged for what they are becoming: society’s agreed upon vehicle for institutionalizing social change. … Curriculum and programs in schools will come more and more to reflect long range planning goals. … There appears to be no alternative to acknowledging that we have created a way of living in which public employees will perform a significant fraction of functions traditionally left to families.
— John Boyles, editor of Educator’s Newsletter, quoted by Russell Kirk in “The NEA Plans Our Future,” National Review, Nov. 11, 1977.
In his radio address of November 29, 1977, Ronald Reagan referred to the above quotation. Keep in mind that when Reagan, Boyles, and Kirk wrote, the cabinet-level Department of Education did not yet exist, but Congress was working on it. Jimmy Carter signed it into law on October 17, 1979.
Just six months earlier on April 16, Reagan warned his radio audience:
If you believe your local school district is better qualified to run your schools than is the federal government you’d better get ready to do battle. … [The proposed education department would] create a bureaucracy of gigantic size to oversee thousands and thousands of public schools now administered by local school districts.
Reagan noted the skyrocketing cost of public education and the measurable decline in student learning during the preceding two decades. He attributed both to the expanded federal government role in local schools. He blamed “educationists” in Washington, who had tried to “create a brave new world” by tossing out “tried and true fundamentals” in order “to mold the ‘now’ generation into world citizens free of prejudice, hostility, or even a competitive instinct (from Reagan’s Sept. 21, 1976, radio address).”
Fast forward 33 years. According to the department’s website, President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget requests “$46.7 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education, an increase of $1.3 billion over the comparable discretionary total provided in the regular 2009 appropriations act.” This is in addition to the $98.2 billion that the Education Department receives from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus), which the president signed into law on February 17, 2009.
On September 8, President Barack Obama, whose education experience includes working with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers to reform teaching, will address the most pliable citizens of his public school empire with a live cable-cast speech on values and education. This unusual effort of a president to bypass parental discretion and go directly to our children has set off alarm bells among parents.
If the president really wanted to make an impression on America’s children, why not go on TV in prime time or on the internet? So parents and children could voluntarily watch together and then discuss the president’s ideas at home?
Instead, the Education Department released a curriculum guide for members of the NEA (a crucial field force in the “Obama for America” election effort) to instruct children to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.”
The letters were to be collected by the union members and redistributed at a later date to “make students accountable” to their goals as President Obama’s loyal helpers. After a public outcry, the White House amended the line, removing the reference to the president.
Imagine, for a moment, if our open-minded public schools were to permit an opposition response to the Obama school talk and that we could enlist former President Ronald Reagan to deliver the rebuttal.
This single paragraph, from Reagan’s letter to the editor of his alma mater’s school paper, might do nicely:
Personally, I believe in academic freedom but oppose limiting it to any one segment of academe. The teacher who interprets it as covering only the teacher’s right to teach is ignoring the student’s academic freedom and the right of parents to have some say as to what their children are learning. Then there is the academic freedom of those who finance the whole operation and have some beliefs about the kind of schooling they wish to make available with their contributions — all these are entitled to some share of academic freedom (letter to the editor of PEGASUS, Eureka, Illinois, March 31, 1971).
Go Ronny. I never agreed with the federal government getting involved in local education. However, when it comes to veterans programs and infrastructure, there is a role to play there. I am grateful for the college education that my service in the army provided me. However, when it comes to policy and “direction” Mr. Reagan was spot on. Thanks.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’,” too.
No matter what the non-conservatives do or say, the people-haters will always oppose it.
Their selfishness is unlimited.
“The letters were to be collected by the union members and redistributed at a later date to “make students accountable” to their goals as President Obama’s loyal helpers” Is he truly looking to make a “Obama Youth” corpe? Hitler made the military and the country swear allegence to him and not Germany. The cult of personality is a road well maped in history.
Is Obama truly thinking Americans will skip down that same path?
Hmmm, lets see. The most polarizing partisan President ever has his Secretary of Education send a letter to school principals across the nation telling them POTUS will address the nation’s “schoochildren” and they should refer to the accompanying lesson plans whilst participating in this unprecedented event. And you have no issue with that because you just love the guy. Fine. That is your prerogative, just as it is mine to protest the participation of my child my private parochial school. (My school is not participating by the way. Responsible parents FTW.) Parents are the decision makers, followed by elected school boards and superintendents. The Secretary and the Prez attempted a complete usurpation of the power of parents across the nation and all the MSM and Libs can whine about is that we don’t want our children “indoctrinated”. Nice dodge but those of us who are paying attention fully understand that it is that usurpation of power and the ridiculous lesson plans that are the issue here. This is the missing link. No other President who has addressed the nation’s children – voluntarily, I might add – has had the arrogance and stupidity to provide a read about my magnificent but still unverified life story”and/or write about how you can help POTUS instruction.
Obama and his cronies completely overstepped on this one and they are the ones who should be lambasted for their mistake. You know full well that if W had made such a poor move, heads on the Left would have exploded. Anyone with any intellectual honesty would recognize this.
From Gateway Pundit here is black liberationist Michelle Obama on Van Jones:
“At a commencement address in the spring, first lady Michelle Obama held Jones up as an example to students of people who are doing interesting and innovative work.
“And then there’s Van Jones, who recently joined the Obama administration, a special adviser to the president on green jobs. Van started out as a grassroots organizer and became an advocate and a creator of ‘green collar’ jobs –- jobs that are not only good for the environment, but also provide good wages and career advancement for both skilled and unskilled workers,” she said…..”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Good green jobs so long as you are not white. I believe that these “green” jobs were going to be nothing more than brownshirted thugs attacking private business and citizens for the Obama’s.
From Gateway Pundit here is black liberationist Michelle Obama speaking to students about Van Jones:
“At a commencement address in the spring, first lady Michelle Obama held Jones up as an example to students of people who are doing interesting and innovative work.
“And then there’s Van Jones, who recently joined the Obama administration, a special adviser to the president on green jobs. Van started out as a grassroots organizer and became an advocate and a creator of ‘green collar’ jobs –- jobs that are not only good for the environment, but also provide good wages and career advancement for both skilled and unskilled workers,” she said……”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
Good green jobs so long as you are not white. I believe that these “green” jobs were going to be nothing more than brownshirted thugs attacking private business and citizens for the Obama’s.
You don’t want these people near your kids.
gopmom,
Exactly. He destroyed trust with those revolting, Obama-centric lessons plans. Moreover, he is actively sowing distrust by talking over our heads to his leftist supporters in the education establishment.
His speech to our children was just posted on Drudge.
It appears he had to back off his initials plans that the DOE posted last week about “How can I help the president?” and “Why should we listen to the president, governors etc.?”
Don’t apologize when he doesn’t do what he planned to do because WE forced him to back off. Sunshine is a great disinfectant.
He’s coming back at us Wednesday. Keep fighting.
It’s sad but seemingly true that some big changes can only be brought about by purported enemies of that change (e.g., Nixon to China, Clinton with welfare reform). So, we now have a president actively supported by the teachers unions who is willing to promote evaluation of teachers based on student test scores and expansion of charter schools. well, it’s not everything you might want in the way of reform but it’s something.
I keep trying to imagine what the left would be saying if this were 1969 and Richard Nixon wanted to give a national speech to schoolchildren along with the a lesson plan like the one that White House originally sent out. It certainly is a fun little thought experiment.
When, if ever, will the WH presscorp grow a pair and start hammering Gibbs?
If anything from the Reagan legacy has had an indelible impact on your movement, its been the last years of his dementia-addled presidency. Seriously, he had alzheimers; with you people, there’s no excuse.
“vivo: Their selfishness is unlimited.”
I’ll take their selfishness to your narcissism any day of the week.
Conservatives should use Obama’s speech as a teachable moment about dissent, patriotism and the role of the federal government…
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-is-becoming-easy-target-for.html
The following is straight from ObamaSpeak, to be dished up to your kids, September 8, 2009.
The President:
If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.
Rachel:
Let me translate.
What Obama is doing is spouting post modern relativist pap.
If you get in trouble in school, it very well may mean you’re a troublemaker.
For if Obama is correct in saying, “getting in trouble in school doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, then it logically follows that:
If you commit a crime, it doesn’t mean you’re a criminal, it means you have to try harder not to be caught.
If you’re arrested for terrorism, it doesn’t mean you’re a terrorist, it means your plans have to allow for all contingencies.
If you run a red light and kill somebody, it doesn’t mean you intended to break any laws, it just means you have to be more careful.
What this boils down to is that Obama can’t get his causes and effects straight in his own mind.
To finish off Obama’s thought process, if Obama says his administration will have no earmarks in its bills, and then he signs a bill stuffed with 9,000 earmarks, it doesn’t mean Obama’s a liar, it means Obama has to be more careful about the promises he makes.
If you want your kids to listen to nonsense tomorrow from a President who has no idea what he’s talking about, it doesn’t mean you’re a bad parent, it just means somebody voted for a bad President.
Maybe if Obama took a course in Logic 101, he wouldn’t have had to spend the last eight months walking with a limp because he keeps on shooting himself in the foot.
There should be a law that President Barack Obama can’t come within 500 feet of a school. To me, that makes perfect sense.
From Obama’s preview speech:
“The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.”
I wonder what Sarah Palin thinks of that idea.
Green collar jobs are a great idea as long as they’re in the nuclear industry. Otherwise, they by and large cost more than they’re worth.
The sad thing is that President Reagan was not as sharp the last couple of years as president. The sadder part is that he was still a far better president during that time than any Democrat since President Truman.
As far as most of President Obama’s ideas, they smell much better after a good deal of light has been focused on them and they have their demagogic content evaporate.
Tomorrow would be a great day for Obama to release his school records – the courses he took, the grades he got and papers he wrote. Why not?
I’m somewhat torn concerning this speech. There’s no question, many students need to have their heads “re-adjusted” and get into school. Yet, will this speech from Prez Obama have that effect? I seriously doubt it. This just didn’t “sound” like Obama. It’s kind of like, you hear a somewhat good speech but, leaves you with the question, where’s the punch line??? What now?
I do wonder what the President would say is a child asked, “but Mr Prez, you said you were raised by your GrandMa?????
14. John the Libertarian:
‘Their selfishness is unlimited.’
“I’ll take their selfishness to your narcissism any day of the week.”
Narcissism wouldn’t hurt others, selfishness will.
Your priorities are upside down.
Apparently Vivo has never had to endure the misfortune of having to work for a narcissist. Likewise, Vivo must have no idea the sort of havoc many narcissists have wrought throughout history when they come to power.
The author of this column appeared on CNN.com LIVE today to discuss the president’s speech to the nation’s public school children. You can watch the video here:
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=4155
Forever political, even in the school house, for Obama. As Mark Knoller of CBS TV observed after the speech and question session:
“Last question to Obama sounded like a plant: “Why can’t the United States have universal health coverage?”
No surprise there.
Education is highly important. Americans care nothing of education. Americans thrive on money and nothing else. Fast cars, Fast Girls.. Half Americans cannot identify states on a map or know capitals… Americans know nothing of history.. Who is the 3rd president? Who did the first open heart surgery? What is socialism? Many people say things and know nothing of what they speak.. People called Obama a socialist, but these people only say that because they hear someone else say it, “ban wagon”, but do you even know what a socialist is or a Marxist, What is a Marxist theory? One is the Conflict Theory and that Theory summarizes the world and why the classes are established.. So for a president who wants to push education and students to learn is a PLUS ++++ not a Negative —–… Half you people making comments know nothing about nothing, which makes your comments ignorant. Tell me something educational and enlightening, not something that attacks another person, but factual basis to support your thesis or hypothesis (educated guess)…
It looks like Vasio, the great intellectual, has dropped by to grace our presence with a bunch of generalizations barely worthy of an essay for a introductory composition class.
#27
Kurt, you didn’t inform me of anything, you only attacked what I said. I made no generalizations or attacks.. I stated all facts. The education system here (America) is filthy and it’s based on scores, drop-out rate and poverty. You only shed light to my comment. I asked could someone enlighten me or educate me, but you didn’t, you simply attacked my statement.
So anything to get children to take education serious and look at the potential value a education would give is a positive. So what’s the problem??? Kurt.. You have in Secondary education? Besides high school?
Education isn’t a point of getting a good job. If that stigma is removed and just base it on education develops you and shapes you. It gives you tools to handle any to all situations. It enhances skills without you even knowing.
So Kurt, I have to put you up to the challenge, please enlighten me and educate me on this ???
It Says in this article:
{Personally, I believe in academic freedom but {oppose limiting it to any one segment of {academe. The teacher who interprets it as {covering only the teacher’s right to teach is {ignoring the student’s academic freedom and {the right of parents to have some say as to {what their children are learning. Then there {is the academic freedom of those who finance {the whole operation and have some beliefs {about the kind of schooling they wish to make {available with their contributions — all these {are entitled to some share of academic freedom {letter to the editor of PEGASUS, Eureka, {Illinois, March 31, 1971).
________________________________________________
My Disection of the letter:
There is no academic freedom in grade school or highschool, or any school. There is a syllabus/curriculum. Children are taught what the district wants them to learn. I went to a college-prep, high school.. The things I learned there, friends who went to other schools at my same grade level were not even covering the same syllabus. So different areas of the America have different curriculum.. Seems that those in middle class areas have an advantage to those students in low class areas?
Why do you think that schools have districts meaning that if you don’t live in a particular area you can’t go to a particular school.
If parents are to have power over their kids education, a parent should be able to decide what school their child will attend regardless of district and their physical address.
Therefore to give government funds to envoke a curriculum that will prepare all students for college/success regardless their location is a positive. You will always have kids who care not to learn, but there are many who want to learn, but aren’t afforded the opportunity or even the supplies or conditions to do so…
SO again as with everything else it comes down to the money. As always you cannot solve capitalistic problems with democratic priciples. So Americas capitalistic problems cannot be solved by quoting the bill of rights and democratic principles, it has to be solved with capitalistic principles.
You made no generalizations or attacks? Funny, but, the last time I checked, statements such as “Half you people making comments know nothing about nothing, which makes your comments ignorant” is a generalization so big that someone could drive a truck through it. It also sure looks like an attack to me. I don’t see any facts backing it up. Opinions, perhaps, but opinions are not facts. Or else there are these gems: “Americans care nothing of education. Americans thrive on money and nothing else. Fast cars, Fast Girls..” or how about “Americans know nothing of history..” I could go on, but I’ve illustrated my point. I also have no interest in feeding a troll. Feel free to keep babbling on, though, if it makes you feel better.
Kurt, I feel nothing because I have concrete evidence to know who I am, where I’ve been and where I am going. I have stated facts, but if you would like the percentages, I’d be happy to provide; for Americans care nothing for Education, Americans thrive on money, there is proof in the history, but nevertheless. It is not my place to enlighten you on things that you choose not to see or views you have adapted to.
In your comment #27 you addressed me personally and attacked me, so I responded, as any red blooded American would (lol)… but I asked you to enlighten me show me that my views are wrong in #28 this is what I asked. Trying to understand the lack and the failure of pursuit of a quality education by Americans if baffling. Though who cares anyway, right Kurt? You didn’t tell me how a president discussing education or getting involved in children education is wrong? Somebody tell me? I am no part to any political side, I view whats right is right and what’s wrong is wrong..
Well, let’s see. In #27, I said you came by and made a bunch of ridiculous generalizations. And in #30 I illustrated some of what I was referring to. QED.
#32 Kurt my friend.. Take some time and show me that I am wrong? Please! You call what I see here in America ridiculous generalizations and your illustrations in #30 tell me how I said something wrong?
“Americans care nothing of education. Americans thrive on money and nothing else. Fast cars, Fast Girls..” or how about “Americans know nothing of history..
Tell me how these are wrong???