Mitchell Superintendent: hard to say ‘work harder in school’ and then steal at least a half-hour of instructional time
From the Mitchell Daily Republic, the Superintendent of the Mitchell Schools had a a few choice words with regards to the Obama Speech on Education:
In Mitchell, 20 concerned parents either e-mailed, telephoned or made a personal visit, said Superintendent Joe Graves. Students were not given time out of the day to watch the speech.
Graves said he did not allow students to watch during class time because “we take the instructional day very seriously and do not allow interruptions to it except in some very extreme reasons” such as fire alarms, traditional holiday parties or historic events.
He said Obama’s speech was a “mistake” for several reasons, most notably because “the president doesn’t have a legitimate role in this. (Education) is a state and local function.” Also, Graves said, “it’s hard to say ‘work harder in school’ and then steal at least a half-hour of instructional time from kids.”
All of the calls that came from concerned parents were from those who requested that the president’s speech not be shown in school. Nobody called requesting that students be allowed to see it, Graves said.
But, he said, “before we got the first call, we knew what we were doing, which is that we don’t interrupt classroom time. So it was a moot point.”
Actually, I disagree to a point with Joe’s statement that “(Education) is a state and local function.”
The Federal government does play a role in education. What the federal government does is to propose mandates on state and local education, and then refuse to fund them, resulting in an increased tax burden on state and local taxpayers.
Otherwise, Way to go, Joe!
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
perhaps it was his intention to pinpoint a greater issue: federal intervention into education. as long as the federal government funds education, along with all that the federal dept of education does, then presidents do have a role.
Good call. The President should have made his speech at night and asked that parents and kids watch it together. It was all politically timed to soften up kids and parents to the health care issue. Otherwise it would have been done at a different time. Good call by the Mitchell superintendent IMO!
Those parents expected their kids to see the speech. Was it mandated through the teachers union? It’s sad to see headlines ‘Kids study in school, parents disturbed!’
What I liked best about the speech is that he gave it 20ft from any student on an elevated platform. I’m sure he wanted to be higher than the kids on the bleachers!
The next stunt will include Robert Gibbs under the podium during the speech!
Yes, the federal government passing a massive federal law on schools and then didn’t fund it – guess who did that, oh yeah, G.W. Bush and the Republicans!
I’m sorry, but too many schools waste A LOT of instructional time – homecoming week is usually filled with various activities that take away from instructional time. This was not a waste – to have the President of the United States encouraging kids to work hard and do well in school is not a waste and anyone who says it is clearly has an agenda against Obama.
“President Reagan did it, President H.W. Bush did it. If he could give a speech tomorrow night in the tone of his speech today to the students, this country would be much better off … It’s a good speech, I recommend it to everybody if you have any doubts.”
-Newt Gingrich
I’m sure the children at the Mitchell schools were so busy that they couldn’t take half an hour from reading “Little House on the Prairie” to hear a stay-in-school message from the most powerful person on Earth. This is so see-through that its hard to even laugh at. When I was in school, we took time out for Presidential PSA’s, Presidential addresses, etc., especially in government and civics classes. I remember watching President Bush’s address after 9/11. I remember watching a Bush “Don’t Do Drugs and Don’t Have Sex or You Will Die” PSA. You know why? Because when the President says something, it’s usually important. Yes, even more important than “Litte House on the Prairie.”
Mr. Graves wins the award for ‘most see-through partisan hack with the lamest explanation for his wingnuttery’ of the week. Congrats!
I agree that the speech as I heard it was pretty benign. But it wasn’t going to be until people complained. And the timing is such that in this partisan political time there is no doubt that Obama had another agenda in mind than simply telling kids to stay in school. I still say he could have done it at night and asked that kids and parents watch it together and tied together the responsibility of both in a good education.
SDEA is SD’s teacher union
NCLB was credited to Bush and Kennedy. The Democrats have been in control how long now? If you are so concerned with NCLB funding, then you better look to your own party.
So because schools already waste instructional time, we should waste more?
Personally I don’t have a problem with it but many Americans have a reason to be worried about Obama’s agenda.
A previous poster was right that Obama should have scheduled yet another prime time speech so that the children could watch with their parents. But I guess the government knows how to tell kids to work hard and stay in school better than parents because they are all too stupid which is Obama’s mentality–we need to be saved by the government!
Stats for SDEA.
2003 Tax Period
Total Assets: $ 655,432
Outstanding liabilities: $ 580,104
Total Income: $ 2,317,553
Dues: $ 1,579,255
Program services: $ 706,037
Fundraising: $ 0
Expenses: $ 2,097,155
Officer compensation: $ 90,993
I know of teachers who refuse to belong to the SDEA. Just what do they spend $2,097,155 on??? Maybe they could not collect the union dues from those poorly paid teachers and in essence give them a raise! Seriously, what do they do with all this money? Lobby for themselves??
Seriously Joe? You can’t take 30 minutes of “instructional time” away to let kids hear that if you stay in school and work hard you’ll better yourself? Pretty sure that’s instructional time right there. How many times have you gone to the kids and told them to stay in school? Gimme a break. This guy needs a lesson himself.
“The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president … [a]nd the president should be doing more about education than …saying, ‘Lights, camera, action.’” — said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader, in regard to Pres. George Bush’s 1991 speech to public schools.
“The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props.” — a Washington Post editorial in regard to Bush 41’s speech to students.
This is so stupid
1. Obama isn’t robbing our education with his short speech, your being ridiculous
2. As a student I know that large amounts of time are wasted however, the President addressing our nation would not be
3. If I remember correctly NCLB was a Republican mandate…you were the ones that dropped the ball there
4. “state and local issue” Obama wasn’t making sweeping socialist mandates he was encouraging students to stay in school.
Stop trying to point apart something that has nothing wrong with it.
This speech was a long pointless speech that had a ‘when I was a kid’ statement in every paragraph. It was no more than a political device to make him look better during his push for health care reform! It was boring and had basic principles already taught in school. The “Stay-in-School” speech is a lesson in irony. Kids being encouraged to stay in school by being forced to sit through a speech.
The only kids who liked the speech are the ones who were to be watched by the secret service. (Don’t you love how Obama always shows you the faces of his secret service by being all buddy-buddy with them!)
Anonymous 9:45, “South Dakota does not have a teachers’ union.” Your old Jedi mind tricks don’t work on me!
The speech reminds me of a lesson form my K-12 days – Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing. While it is unknown if the final remarks were the original or intended remarks, what Obama said to students really is much ado about nothing. The remarks are similar to the rhetoric often found in a mayor’s State of the City or a superintendent’s State of the Schools address. Stay in school. Work hard. Wash your hands. Eat your vegetables.
Frankly, I’m more intrigued and concerned by some of the other actions currently swirling in the edusphere – such as reform and reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, Merit Pay, reform of teacher prep programs, the movement to develop common standards/assessments, strategies for effective teaching, data systems to monitor student progress and teacher effectiveness, strategies to turn around low achieving schools and identify models that work, and the list could go on . . .
Springer,
“But it wasn’t going to be until people complained.”
Yeah, I’m sure you had an advance copy of the speech.
Idiot.
Well, anon,it takes one to know one as the old saying goes. Even the news channels said Obama revised his speech because of the complaints and did away with the “work sheets” that he was going to have completed in the classrooms after the speech. Maybe if you listened to the news you would have known this too.
I’m a little disappointed in my old friend Joe who’s obviously playing his own brand of politics by saying they just can’t afford to “waste” a half hour of classtime for anything short of a natural disaster. C’mon, I’m guessing sports, pep rallies, school fundraisers, and a dozen other things cut into your classes all the time. This is nothing more than taking pot shots at a popular president who just happens to be from the party you no longer belong to. The guy I remember with the big McGovern banner in his dorm room wouldn’t have played games like that, so say it ain’t so, Joe!
Wow a Superintendent with brains. We could use you up here in Aberdeen. Thank you for saying school is a local matter!