On September 8th, President Obama is broadcasting a speech, through a webcast, to students throughout the United States about education and the value of students taking responsibility for their own learning. Both are core elements of American civic life. So, this should be uncontroversial. So, now the Right Wing in the United States is up in arms, folks such as Governor Rick Perry, as well as people like Michelle Malkin who poisons our national civic dialogue. Many want to keep their kids at home.

First, let’s take the facts. Barack Obama is THE President of the United States. He’s talking about education, setting goals, and taking responsibility for one’s own education–simply resonant and uncontroversial ideas. George H. W. Bush did something similar in 1991.

A teacher interested in exploring topics related civics, education, or history might show the address to students. Indeed, it could be a great prompt for a discussion about ideals of citizenship in the United States. Or, maybe not; after all Presidential speeches to such audiences and in such contexts can be watered-down pablum on uncontroversial topics, making them too dull to be of much use in a classroom setting. Regardless, the President of the United States–past and present–is a fixture of history, civics, and social studies classes.

That is, until now. The right wing rejects the idea that the President of the United States can speak to the nation about education and/or civics, calling it “indoctrination.” Some parents, in Texas and elsewhere are demanding the right to “opt out.”  And, guess what, school districts are caving.

Here in Chagrin Falls, the school district has received so many calls from local right-wing activists (apparently there are lots of Limbaugh listeners out there), that they’ve had to adopt a policy.  In response, iit is my understanding that the district has left it up to teachers whether to show the broadcast, depending on whether they thought it had educational merit. (School is letting out early on the 8th, so they would be taping for later view, I am told.) HOWEVER, and regardless of whether its live or taped, the district has made the explicit decision, defaulting to an existing policy. If a teacher chooses to show it, it is my understanding then that the teacher must send home a permission (consent) form. If parents don’t want their kids to see the speech, then the student must be given an alternative assignment. Apparently, this conforms to an existing policy and, I am told, what is fairly standard practice in the district–asking parents to sign consent forms when teachers go outside the usual curriculum. Now it is hard for me to judge, from the outside, the enforcement and use of that policy in daily practice. What I do know is that I have received notes from teachers informing me that they will be showing a movie in class at a Christmas Party, rather than doing something like “writers’ workshop.”  That said, I am loathe to recall receiving and being asked to sign a particular “permission form” pertaining to lesson content.

So what to make of that policy?  Surely, I understand the idea of a consent form when teachers vary from the curriculum. But, one wonders what is the threshold for requiring consent. So, for example, is asking students to view a webcast speech by the President of the United States on educational goal-seeking really a dramatic departure from the curriculum in the context of a civics lesson???  Speaking of thresholds, how do we determine that threshold? Is it determined by a loud, vocal minority, of right-wing political zealots? Do we really want to cede the center of civic life to zealots on the extreme of any issue, or political movement?

Turning our attention to teachers, how much freedom do we want to give our kids’ teachers? Do we trust their professionalism and expertise? Or, do we want to micromanage the curriculum,  their daily lesson plan, or even their words? What is the effect of such practices? Does stifling teacher autonomy produce better teaching or just unimaginative and inflexible lessons?

More broadly, though, I think this whole issue raises very significant questions about education practice and civic life–not just in my town, but throughout the country.  If we assume a world in which educators are professionals and behave that way, then one has to ask: Is it ever appropriate for students to “opt out” of a lesson they don’t like, even if a teacher has jumped off the syllabus to cover a current event, like say Hurricane Katrina, the events of 9-11, or genocide in Darfur?

As an American historian, I wonder how one teaches American history effectively without teaching difficult ideas? Now, to be fair, the situation here involves an addition to the curriculum, not something already a part of it. You cannot, for example, teach Civil Rights (at least teach it well) without reading Malcolm X, which can be difficult for white suburban kids to understand, much less digest. What happens when a literature teacher asks students to read Catcher in the Rye or Poet Laureate Maya Angelou’s, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings? What, precisely, is the threshold for inappropriate? Of course, this exposes a more difficult question that is worth asking, but I don’t have space to fully explore: Precisely why are some parents demanding that schools don’t show a pablum speech by the President of the United States on the subject of students taking responsibility for their education? Really, what is the larger agenda there?

I don’t think its appropriate to “opt out,” except in cases of teacher professional malpractice. Even then, I wonder whether “opting out” solves any problem. And, this is why I am not opting out of writing this post–despite the seeming reasonableness of my friends around Chagrin who made this decision. I want to point out that we can only make our union (in all its dimensions from communities to the nation more broadly) more perfect through spirited civic debate. Of course, the zealots on the right know this. Indeed, their own engagement, in their actions and vitriol, absolutely runs  contrary to their demands. Through their action, they “opt in;” they create a discussion (albeit one filled with hyperbole). Ironically, it is precisely the sort of discussion that they want to deny their own–and everyone else’s–children.

Let’s not run away from that challenge. Indeed, what does fleeing from controversy or taking a stand teach the students about American Democratic ideals, about speech, engagement, and citizenship? Instead of teaching them to engage, we teach students that being part of a community and engaging in civil discourse are not important values (or values that can be circumscribed if you yell loudly enough.)

Now surely, to be fair, the situation in Chagrin Falls is subtly different than this. The district appears to have distinguished between those things in the standard curriculum and those things added to it at the last minute.  The district has taken a highly legalistic approach, a “policy” approach, as a way to avoid getting into the middle of this conflict. At some level, that might be a wise decision because it changes the conversation. And, by requiring consent forms, even if that is a default policy (how widely applied, though, is hard for me to say), the district has tried to split the difference. I applaud the sentiment behind that move, but wonder about the precedent the district is setting.

So, in the end, I suppose that I am disappointed that the Chagrin Falls Exempted Village Schools. If this policy satisfies political zealots and does not wholly violate the spirit of the district’s commitment to educating students, it fails ultimately because it does not make an affirmative argument for teacher autonomy and professionalism, as well as for the importance of civic engagement as an educational virtue.  It fails because of where it places the threshold. Ultimately what we’re talking about is a Presidential speech on education, for students, about innocuous things like goal setting. Moreover, in the culture of the United States, the President is a symbol of citizenship and engagement. You would think that this would raise few eyebrows, especially in a town where there are almost as many American flags flying as there are homes.

I am willing to admit that I might be overthinking, but then again I am a history teacher and researcher.  I care about ideas; I am passionate about American history. I care about teachers and excellence in teaching history. Efforts to suppress an educational address by the President, and institutional unwillingness to stand up to extremists, dampens the spirit that is so important to good teaching, learning, and citizenship. And, we should all be concerned about that!

Additional Reading (after initial posting):
I just read this piece in the New York Times, which provides context. Also, for chilling reading, check out the crazy “tea party” folks, acknowledging that Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush (the elder) spoke to schoolchildren but questioning the motives of President Obama.