posted by Mike Madison at 3:56 PM /
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.
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.
13 Comments:
I asked my HS junior daughter if her AP US History class was going to watch or discuss the speech. Her answer was "We don't discuss current events." I suppose this is true and maybe even appropriate for a history class. Maybe. But it made me think that another missed opportunity was not just the content of the speech, but the event itself, and the debate around it. Am I naive to think that that's not instructional at some level? I'd think Lebo would be 'special' enough to handle it, in some form that wouldn't bring out the torches and pitchforks from both ends of the political spectrum. Nah, who am I kiddin.
Mike, I think you're overthinking this one. If Lebo's decision was unique, I think it might be worthy of deeper analysis. However, we know that nearly EVERY local school district made the same decision. (For heaven's sake, the Pittsburgh Public Schools turned it down. Surely, there's no greater concentration of Obama supporters in our region than in the City schools)
In fact, Lebo's decision was far LESS restrictive than most school districts. The speech was not "banned" in Lebo as many have suggested. In fact, my daughter saw it at Jefferson Middle School in her History class.
Mike, you and I have both argued here that the schools shouldn't be about Rs and Ds. They should be about education. Like seemingly everything else in our society these days, the speech was politicized right after it was announced. Given that public response, I think most school districts - Lebo included - elected to remove themselves from the political debate.
I'm not suggesting that this decision was right or wrong, but I don't think there was as much evil intent as you have implied here.
Dave, I agree that there wasn't a political agenda here; that's my point is saying that I think that it wasn't about "censorship" at all. But I also think that it's not correct to argue that because lots of districts decided not to show the speech, then all districts relied on the same thinking. The Pittsburgh School had their reasons; Mt. Lebanon had its reasons. The reasons show up in the public justifications. I take the District's leadership at its collective word, rather than attributing evil motives to them.
In other words, it's possible that the District's public justifications for discouraging showing the speech were a smokescreen for political activism. In that case, we should ignore what was said and focus on what was happening behind the scenes. I don't think that's a productive approach; I don't think that this would turn up anything interesting.
Or, it's possible that the District's public justifications for discouraging showing the speech were really the justifications for not showing the speech. That's my belief. And if that's true, then the justifications reflect a pattern of self-satisfied thinking about the role of Mt. Lebanon schools that I don't like at all.
I really don't care all that much about the speech itself. It's a little weird that anyone should be all that invested in the idea that only THE SCHOOL SYSTEM is a place to ensure that all kids see something. If you want to ensure that all kids see something, put it on YouTube and link to it on Facebook.
Instead, I care much more about the attitudes of the folks who run the District.
Hasn't anyone ever heard of TiVo? YouTube? As far as I can figure out there is nothing to preclude a teacher showing his speech from now until eternity. (Or 2012, which is eternity to me.)
I don't think anything the man does is done with America's best interests in mind. But, again, I don't care if my sons were given the opportunity at Markham to see the thing or not. Because the reality is they would have given up trying to listen at around ten seconds and then forgotten what he said during the ten seconds they did listen to by dinnertime.
I saw the speech on the internet. I also saw the text of the first speech before it was corrected on the Internet and it too is available to parents who want a "teachable moment" with their children.
The speech delivered was a good message for schools with high drop-out rates but I don't see how children with families with high educational expectation missed much.
Here is an email I received from a friend: perhaps it will shed some light on what some people see about our President:
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of
inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of
advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he is a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic,would you have wondered whether he actually “gets” what
happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so COOL?
Oh Yea, he has kids in( PRIVATE) schools!
I wonder how many private schools NEEDED to show this speech?
I encourage some of the moms I know to put aside any "fear" and post here about the responses they got. I think folks will see there was a variety of responses and so Mike's point about a public justification versus what was going on behind the scenes is well taken. I know of 2 instances where the district official started their explanation (for why it wasn't shown) with the politics (it was too political) and when pressed further fell back to the inconvenient lunchtime excuse. Just wishing the ones who had these discussions would get a bit brave and post here.
In my original post on the subject over on my blog I never thought and still don't think the decision was R versus D politics. I think the decision was made to appease both "sides" as an attempt to bow out from the fray.
I think Mike is right in that politics aside the whole episode on a Mt. Lebanon level might be revealing as to certain attitudes. I know many parents who asked and asked and to their dissatisfaction never recieved a clear explanation of how the district's decision came about or who even was the decision-maker. I know of one mom who was chided (and insulted) by being told that "unlike her [the school official who spoke to her] did not have time to sit at home and watch tv all day." Now that oughta start a SAHM riot (R or D be damned) in and of itself....yet I know she would never dare publicly speak about it. It is that type of condescending reply I've heard about that raises concerns and that has nothing to do with Obama or politics. It does have something to do with the behind the scenes attitude Mike might be referring to.
Marjie Crist
Marjie's comment prompted a mental image of a SAHM riot in Mt. Lebanon. At the least, that's a great title for a blog.
Talk about making the G-20 protests look like a cake walk. Documentary movie to be later shown at the Denis...
Marjie Crist
PART ONE:
First, please allow me to correct some misinformation contained in a previous post. The Pittsburgh Public School District DID allow students to watch President Obama's speech in its schools. Also, the truly elite academies in the region and Catholic schools showed the speech to their students.
On the morning of September 8,
2009, the day President Obama delivered his live speech to students, I emailed the administration of Markham Elementary School, where my son is in second grade, to confirm that the President's speech would be shown to all students at Markham. The administration replied by telling me that no elementary schools in the Mt. Lebanon School District would be broadcasting the speech to their students during the school day. I am still pinching myself in disbelief. Like other Mt. Lebanon parents with whom I have spoken, I assumed that any President's speech specifically directed to students on the subject of the importance of education would be the highlight of that day's lesson plans. What prompted me to email Markham that morning was the sudden realization that Markham parents had not received any advance emails or notices from the school saying anything about the President's upcoming speech. Usually, we get notices, in duplicate or triplicate, of everyting going on at the school. When it came to the President's speech, our mailboxes where empty.
In August 2009, just after the White House announced that President Obama would be delivering a speech to students, the head of the Florida Republican Party was the first out the gate to issue a warning to parents that, among other things, the speech would be filled with the President's political agenda and that parents should try to persuade their schools to refuse to broadcast the speech. The Floridian's message quickly was picked up by others, including Fox News, and it soon became chatter throughout America. Later, around the time the text of the speech was released--which was days before the live speech--that same Florida Republican retracted his comments and said that the speech was fine in content and spirit. Other prominent Republicans, including Laura Bush and Newt Gingrich, went public, encouraging all schools to show the speech to their students.
Unfortunately, the early message from those who make up this country's ultra-conservative fringe infiltrated the minds of their counterparts at the grass roots level where it got stuck, like Crazy Glue.
Nita M. Fandray
PART TWO:
That is when the calls to school districts across America began. Those are the parents who called their school districts incessantly at the end of August and beginning of September 2009, and demanded that President Obama not be welcomed in their children's classrooms. And, in many instances, as we well know, the squeaky wheels got what they wanted, as many school districts took what they thought at the time to be the path of least resistance.(All this was going on while the majority of parents, including me, naively took for granted that the Mt. Lebanon School District was as wowed and excited as we were that the President of the United States would be talking to our children, along with their classmates and teachers.) Was it a conspiracy that drove the school districts to decide that refusing to show the President's speech was somehow a good idea? Heck, no. These folks lack the creativity and brain power to be source material for a Matt Damon film.
Was it censorship? Yes. Not in the legal sense, however. School districts have broad discretionary powers with respect to deciding what is shown or not shown to their students. But, the manner by which the Mt. Lebanon School District arrived at its decision to ban the President's speech in its classrooms and its subsequent failure to provide parents with advance notice of that decision, arguably, are illegal.
Nita M. Fandray
PART THREE:
I've heard all the canned, scripted excuses for censoring the speech, including the silly lunchtime alibi. (What? Should the President have rearranged his schedule because Mt. Lebanon Elementary students were not allowed to watch the speech with their mouths full?) President Obama's speech could easily have been recorded at each school for the students' viewing later that day, or the next day, or the next day, and so on.
Is this case of censorship an example of a lack of quality, enlightened leadership within the ranks of the Mt. Lebanon School District? Obviously, yes. Keep in mind, though, that this situation did not require the Mt. Lebanon School District to lead a march into Selma or change water into wine. All we needed (and still need) was for those in power to recognize President Obama's speech as a positive educational opportunity and to give the okay for any elementary level student to press the right buttons on the audio-visual equipment to get the show on the road.
A couple days ago, I suggested to the Mt. Lebanon School District that it show the speech to all students during the upcoming week, after providing advance notice to all parents and making alternative study hall arrangements for those students whose parents object to their children watching the speech. Not surprisingly, my idea was tossed to the curb.
Nita M. Fandray
This was a truly embarassing moment for our community and America at large. Regardless of what you fear the President is going to say--you respect the office.
As leaders of the community--you should model respect for the office regardless of what you think about the office holder.
Several Presidents have addressed school children. I remember watching addresses from President's Carter, Reagan, and Bush while in school. I didn't necessarily like or even particularly understand why they were addressing us, but it was clear that in each case our teachers taught us to respect the office.
Perhaps more importantly, the nuns who were teaching us didn't tell us how to think about it. In this case, educators and administrators took that decision out of the hands of students. You sent a message that essentially said: "We don't trust you to think and interpret for yourselves. We know better.
When you fear the possibility that people can think for themselves, you fear democracy.
It is a disgrace that the leaders of Mt. Lebanon School District did not show the president's speech. It is also a disgrace that the superintendent and all but two of the school board members did not return a response to my e-mail requesting that the speech be show.
Post a Comment
<< Home