Hanover, Henrico counties shift plans on showing Obama speech
Henrico County added to its Web site yesterday a statement that said Obama’s address can be shown in schools Tuesday, but that parents must be contacted first by teachers.
MICHAEL PAUL WILLIAMS COLUMN: Let the children hear Obama
Two more Richmond-area school divisions have changed their plans for Tuesday's daytime presidential address.
Hanover County sent e-mail notices and phone messages yesterday to parents saying the district has decided not to show President Barack Obama's address during the school day on Tuesday but instead will record it and provide the speech and its supplemental instructional materials for teachers to use later, schools spokeswoman Dale Theakston said.
"Our complete energies must be directed to promoting a productive beginning to the school year for our teachers and children," the message said. "It is important to support the establishment of new routines and a smooth opening at this pivotal moment."
Likewise, Henrico County added to its Web site yesterday a statement that said Obama's address can be shown in schools Tuesday, but that parents must be contacted first by teachers. That means teachers would have to reach parents during the long holiday weekend, before the first day of classes Tuesday.
"If they choose to use the message in class, they MUST inform parents, in advance, and give them the choice to opt-out of having their child view the address," the message said. "No teacher is to show the [Obama speech] without contacting parents first so that parents' wishes are heard and respected."
Hanover joins Chesterfield and Powhatan counties' school divisions in deciding not to show the speech at 1 p.m. Some districts around the country also have opted not to show the speech when it airs.
Richmond city schools still plan to show the speech when it airs at 1 p.m. The state Department of Education this week recommended that "schools that choose to participate in the webcast are encouraged to make reasonable accommodations for students whose parents may object to the viewing of the speech by their children during the school day."
Hanover School Board Chairman John F. Axselle III said after hearing from parents on both sides of the issue, it came down to the reality of what happens on the first day of school.
"The first day of school is just not a good day to do it," he said. "There's enough challenges on the first day."
He said the school division respects the office of the president but said politics are better left outside the classroom.
"We have kindergartners learning how to go to the cafeteria," he said. "Let's keep the children in focus. We don't need to add any more challenges" on the first day.
Henrico School Board Chairman John Montgomery Jr. said the school division's approach is a good one and allows teachers the flexibility to show the president's speech when it can best fit into their lessons. "One size doesn't fit all," he said.
Martha Walker and Kirby Pierce, both parents from Glen Allen and former elementary school teachers, said they would prefer that the president's speech be broadcast at night or during the holiday weekend, when families can watch it together and then discuss it.
"It shouldn't be the right of the school system to make a decision about what students do or do not see," said Walker, who has a first-grader in Henrico schools.
University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato said the uproar that's come from the address is "proof positive that we remain a deeply polarized country, in political terms."
Republicans do not trust a Democratic president and vice versa, he said, and "that's a great shame, because so much of the presidency is supposed to be unifying."
Yesterday, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs pointed out that two Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, delivered similar speeches to students.
"I think we've reached a little bit of the silly season when the president of the United States can't tell kids in school to study hard and stay in school," he said. "I think both political parties agree that the dropout rate is something that threatens our long-term economic success."
He said Obama's speech will not be partisan but rather a chance for children to get "a little encouragement as they start the school year."
The White House plans to release the speech online Monday so parents can read it. Obama will deliver the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington County.
Contact Holly Prestidge at (804) 649-6945 or
.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
sorry, in my anger I misspelled “ridiculous” and “opposed”
further, just saying I saw speeches by presidents in school, why all this uproar?
Both Bush and Reagan gave speeches to schoolchildren. this is rediculos, all people who are oppsed are eihter racist or sore losers
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=5064-1&showVid=true
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=5064-1&showVid=true
I just read Obama’s speech…and surprise, surprise, it stresses personal responsibility and the importance of education. Hopefully people will let the speech be what it is….a positive message, nothing more.
George Bush visited children in school(that’s where he was when 9/11 occured)—so let’s be consistent and remember that the republicans have sent their president to speak to school kids and claimed it was nonpartisan citizenship to support him. They must grant the same respect to our Democratic President they expected citizens to give the republican presidnet. Fair is Fair, oh expect for republicans. Any parent who keeps their child home is UNAMERICAN and teaching their child TREASONOUS attitude towards the President of the United States of America.
Blackbird, very good point, how ever i want to point out something, we have never had a nation that was communist, we have had “communism” but never true communism. every communist nation has been fascist under the name of communism, if you call a pig a cow when no one knows what a real pig is every one will call a pig a cow. along those lines there is a huge difference between socializing and socialism.
i also want to add to you statements of how obama has tried to fix the economy, he is following trickle down economics (a much more conservative idea is it not?) while bush tried a trickle up economic (a much more liberal idea is it not?) yet we know bush’s stimulus checks didnt help much, why? because the money was used to pay bills, that doesnt really stimulate the economy much the same way buying luxury products would.
i think one of the issues (a lot of it is based in the abortion debate) is that people are pushing their moral ideals into politics, where they dont really belong. laws cannot always equal morality up until the 70s or so morals were above the law, now laws dictate what is moral. morals are based on faiths where as laws have to be based on facts. we have a lot of economic dealings that are legal (making a product cheaper and sacrificing quality yet charging the same) but are not very moral or right.
Dandyandy, so that would justify the first invasion of iraq, how about the second?
Iraq wwas not a threat to world peace like germany was during WWII, if you want to say it was then how about we invade N korea they are a much larger threat to world peace. an air strike and a full on ground invasion are 2 very different things. bush went in with the intent of getting saddam, where as all those quotes you gave (which from the last time you gave quotes i am taking with a grain of salt as to the context they were said in) do not imply ground forces or taking out saddam. you are claiming support as legal justification, they are not the same. it was and is not a Just war, and past that we failed to follow many of the other laws governing war
-matt
And BTW, Matt, you said, “invading Iraq was not justifiable under international law, they did not attack or threaten us and they were not a true threat to world peace”.
I suggest you take your complaints to the United Nations and to the Congress of the United States. I would bet that they would disagree with your assessment…as they have already done did dozens of times.
Matt, the please explain why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan? You said, “...hitler was a threat to world peace along with attacking our allies.“ So was Sadamm. Have you forgotten about Kuwait? They are our allies, you know.
But if you want to continue to blame Bush for all of his “lies” to get us into Iraq, then perhaps you or any other leftwinger can explain these “lies”:
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.
Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.
Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Just_amazed, so are you saying that this is why we went to war with Germany? Okay, that’s alright, but I suggest you learn you history before you make a comment. Iraq did attack the US prior to our involvement there. Do a search on the USS Stark.
menela7 very good thoughts,
DandyAndy, you seem to not understand international law, invading Iraq was not justifiable under international law, they did not attack or threaten us and they were not a true threat to world peace, just because we do not agree with the way a country functions does not mean we have the legal right to invade, congress giving approval does not make it legal. Afghanistan first off was a conflict for year, even in clintons time, bush fully invaded but that was justifiable due to “terrorism” while having a physical war on terrorism is like trying to change some ones believes through beating them (which most of the time will not work) it was still at least justifiable under international law. as to WWII, we were attacked and hitler was a threat to world peace along with attacking our allies.
i honestly am tired of people tossing religion around, not necessarily here just in general, religion is not needed to be a good person, and having religion does not make you a good person. there are many in our country that throw around chapter and verse yet miss the point behind it. all religion says the same things, respect each other, help one another, be a good person. and before it is even mentioned no main religion says to harm others, the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) never said to harm non believers, Jihad is supposed to be a war of the mind, a war against ignorance, a war against the bad int he world, muslims are called to spread the believe peacefully, just like jews and christians are called to spread their beliefs peacefully. peacefully is the part that is neglected though, the jews spread their religion through force (yet most of the wars of the jews are hidden in history by their slavery, yet when one looks to history the Israelites were a very violent people) the christians have the crusades, and now the extremist muslims have their violent Jihad.
i agree one of the major issues in the country now is a fear of others opinions but i think a bigger issue is the lack of care for ones fellow man, we have a very strong belief of “I have mine get your own”. i think it partially comes from people who do work hard for what they have but dont see those that are working just as hard or even harder and not able to get by, those that do nothing but work, eat (some times not), and sleep, just to keep their families off the streets, yet they are looked at as just lazy cause they are so poor.
o and as to being indoctrinated and brain washed, every child says the pledge of allegiance every morning, pledging their allegiance to a flag and a nation who would rather thrown them under the bus than help them survive because of the belief of “I have mine”, if thats not brain washing i dont know what is
-matt
No one has really proved to me that Socialism is evil. Maybe it’s the wrong way to run and economy, but evil? I have heard Reagan’s speeches of the early 60’s. It was a different time , a
different place. Communism and Socialsim were of the same breed, the same evil intent.
I think that time has shown that while Communism has a lot of evil leaders and caused horrible things to happen, Socialism doesn’t really have the same track record. Maybe it’s the wrong way to offer medical coverage to citizens, but a majority of the “civilized” countries have it, and the aren’t evil! Maybe they are wrong, maybe they are driving their country into bankruptcy, but evil?
I don’t think so, gulags…I haven’t heard of any. So what is it that casues so much anger and outrage over this. Why is Obama blamed for being Socialist…like it’s a sure death sentence from
the devil himself. So you have to help you neighbor out a little more, isn’t that more aligned with
Jesus then Satan.
So, let’s see what else could you hate him for. The trillion dollar budget, ok I understand that.
What’s you answer…cut taxes…I know the same old answer. Maybe it would have worked?
But guess what, maybe so has Obama’s approach. Do you hate him because he tried to fix the economy the way he believes is right, or do you dislike his approach..his policies. Either way what specifically do you blame on Obama. Did he create the problem? Many of you would some how take a long roundabout answer and finally settle on his involvement with ACORN. Ok. Somehow ACORN caused this whole mess and Obama did it….that is an unbelievable statement, not really a serious explanation for the complex reasons why our economy almost went into a deep depression. Many of the things Obama did were continuations of the previous administration. So he tried to save GM and stepped on some bond holders…I didn’t agree with
that…do I hate him for trying. NO. Did it help? Probably not, but if your going to give greedy
Wall Street FAT Cats and AIG a trillion dollars. Can’t you spare a few billion for hard working Americans that actually MAKE something you use?
Ok, maybe it’s the abortion issue. It’s got to be that. That is what has gotten everybody so fixated
on the health care bill, that is what got everybody so mad about him speaking at Notre Dame.
The abortion issue is NOT Obama’s making, and will be around for a long time after he’s gone.
I don’t blame Obama for abortions and I don’t wish anybody to have to go through with one.
Why is it, we Americans have gotten so darned aggressive with our debates. These aren’t civil times or words we are writing in these forums and others across the country and the Internet….
oh….that is it…it’s the INTERNET! That is what has caused this! I blame the Internet…and
we all know who invented that…Al GORE. So let’s blame him for all this.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement