The Mt. Lebanon School District put out the word that President Obama's recent speech to schoolchildren should not be shown live in District classrooms. The original message to District staff was that broadcasting the speech would be a teacher-by-teacher decision, and that the District expected that "very few" teachers would show the speech.
That decision drew some intense fire in progressive quarters, which I reported earlier.
Some Mt. Lebanon parents are still very unhappy about the District's decision and are pressing the Superintendent and School Board to do something about it. My best guess is that nothing will be done; the controversy will die down pretty quickly. Whether or not the controversy *should* die down is something for another day.
I'm posting on the topic again because I've collected a little bit of evidence regarding the *reasons* why the President's speech wasn't shown, and the evidence is disturbing. It's disturbing because of the lack of leadership displayed by our local educational leaders.
The following are excerpts of messages to local residents explaining the District's position:
From Superintendent Dr. Tim Steinhauer: "For elementary students, the speech occurred during their lunch period. For our secondary students, teachers were given the opportunity to view the speech live if they believed it was connected to the curricular objective of the day."
From Markham principal Robert Mallery: "[I]n Mt. Lebanon we are blessed to have a community where our children hear this same message almost every morning from their parents. Unfortunately, there are many schools in the country where this is not at all the case and where the President’s message would have been more critical."
From School Director Josephine Posti: "the reason it won't be shown at the elementary level is that it's lunchtime and not logistically possible." [Updated: I changed this quotation to include the complete original sentence.
The sources are noted only to show examples. It is fair to assume that the range of responses consists of a coordinated effort by the District to explain itself, rather than ideas that happened to pop into the minds of individual administrators or Board members.
Let us translate these messages into English:
The "lunchtime" excuse I understand the response to mean this: At the elementary schools, because the speech was delivered at lunchtime, it would *not* disrupt instruction. Instead, it would disrupt students' sitting, eating, socializing, and playing. [Many children leave school at lunchtime, to eat at home or eat at local restaurants with family and friends.] It would disrupt the lunchtime break that some teachers enjoy during the middle of the day. [I don't mean to criticize the teachers, at least some of whom -- I hope -- were disappointed in the edict not to show the speech to their children.] The bottom line: Whatever the President of the United States said, it couldn't have been so important that we should deviate from the routine that we follow every day of the school year.
The "curricular objective" excuse. I understand the response to mean this: What the President of the United States was saying -- work hard, study, stay in school -- was of potential value only to a limited number of teachers and students who were studying topics *that day* to which the speech and its themes were relevant, and those teachers had the discretion regarding whether or not to show the speech. So, if a Social Studies course were studying "the history of public education in America" on Monday, but the speech was broadcast on Tuesday (as it was), then the speech would not be relevant; the teacher should not show the speech. In the high schools and middle schools, in other words, the speech *would* disrupt instruction. The bottom line: The excuse is crafted extremely carefully and narrowly so that it's just about impossible to imagine a scenario where the door was held wide open to show the speech. The excuse puts the burden and blame on individual teachers, but in a way that leaves teachers just about no option except not to show the speech. So long as the President's message consisted of "study hard, stay in school, do well," is there any curricular objective to which that is *not* relevant?
The "Mt. Lebanon students didn't need to hear the message" excuse. I understand the response to mean this: Mt. Lebanon students and their families already know and understand the value of working hard, studying hard, and staying in school. Families in less "fortunate" communities -- I understand the concept here to mean "poor people" -- don't know or understand that. The President wasn't going to say anything that Mt. Lebanon doesn't already know. In a phrase, Mt. Lebanon may not be better than he is, but Mt. Lebanon is better than its poor cousins.
Personally, I believe that this excuse is at the heart of the decisionmaking here. I don't share the view that there was some illegal censorship of the speech or that a right-wing fringe conspired to usurp the students' right to see the speech live. I think that this was old-fashioned Mt. Lebanon elitism at work -- or "exceptionalism," to use a little bit of fancier jargon. In fact, it's pretty easy to take all three of these excuses and wrap them into a single story that leads to a "no showing the speech" policy: Mt. Lebanon is smart and wealthy enough to get the message with the President's help; the message can't possibly be specifically relevant to any needs of our children and teachers; so we can't be bothered to arrange our schedules to show the speech. In the words of Saturday Night Live's The Church Lady, isn't Mt. Lebanon "special"?
Here's the thing: That logic is entirely rational, and it's entirely consistent both with one version of Mt. Lebanon's image of itself and with one version of the rest of Pittsburgh's "Caketown" image of Mt. Lebanon. There is a history here and a part of the community here that *does* view Mt. Lebanon as smarter and better and wealthier than the rest of Pittsburgh. (The "wealthier" part is true, of course, but not for all of Mt. Lebanon.)
That logic is entirely wrong, and indulging it shows a clear failure of leadership in the School District.
How do I get to that conclusion?
Let's make the assumption that Mt. Lebanon's public education system really is among the very best in America, not just in Pennsylvania or Western Pennsylvania, and let's make the assumption that Mt. Lebanon's educational leadership and many of its citizens want to preserve its high-level position.
If Mt. Lebanon really is the best of the best of the best, then it should lead by example. We *want* the rest of the country, the rest of Pennsylvania, and the rest of Western Pennsylvania to do what Mt. Lebanon does. As Mt. Lebanon goes, so goes the world. Remember the assumptions that I'm starting with, which focus on Mt. Lebanon really being the best to start with. I don't believe that's true. But if you're an educational leader and citizen here, would you be better off starting with the assumption that "we are and want to be the best," or would you prefer to work from the assumption that "we're mediocre and going to stay that way"? I'll take the first version, not the second.
Lead by example. That's what Mt. Lebanon should do. Is that what it did in this case? "Our children already get great support at home." That's good. I wish that were more true than it is, but it's a good start. "So we can't be bothered to reinforce that message at school." How does that second statement follow from the first? How is that leading by example? How does that sending a message to other schools, to parents, and to children that schools themselves value messages about the value of education? It doesn't. The School District had an opportunity to lead here, and it dropped the ball.
The Mt. Lebanon School District did not need to require that the speech be shown by every teacher; it did not need to require that every student watch the speech. The Mt. Lebanon School District could and should have sent out a memo to its staff that said, in effect, that showing the speech to students was a decision to be left in the hands of each classroom teacher, and that the District would make every effort to accommodate teachers and unit principals in their efforts to provide space and technical support that enabled the showing and viewing of the speech. The District could and should have emphasized that this speech represents an unusual and rare opportunity for students and teachers to discuss and apply critical thinking skills to a questions of obvious and unquestioned importance in the 21st century: The role of education, and the role of government leaders in encouraging and supporting education. The President's speech was simple and direct. Even young elementary school students could have benefited from a lesson that discussed its meaning, even a brief lesson.
Leadership is the issue here. Not censorship. If the Mt. Lebanon School District really is all that it thinks that it is, then it should have supported efforts to show the speech in school.