“It doesn’t matter how much money we put in (to education) if parents don’t parent,” Barack Obama told a mostly black crowd in Texas. They went wild, reports the LA Times.
“It’s not good enough for you to say to your child, ‘Do good in school,’ and then when that child comes home, you’ve got the TV set on,” Obama lectured. “You’ve got the radio on. You don’t check their homework. There’s not a book in the house. You’ve got the video game playing.”
Each line was punctuated by a roar, and Obama began to shout, falling into a preacher’s rhythm. “Am I right?”
“So turn off the TV set. Put the video game away. Buy a little desk. Or put that child at the kitchen table. Watch them do their homework. If they don’t know how to do it, give ‘em help. If you don’t know how to do it, call the teacher.”
By now, the crowd of nearly 2,000 was lifted from the red velveteen seats of the Julie Rogers Theatre, hands raised to the gilded ceiling. “Make ‘em go to bed at a reasonable time! Keep ‘em off the streets! Give ‘em some breakfast! Come on! Can I get an amen here?”
Whooooooooooooooooo, went the crowd. “You know I’m right,” Obama laughed. “And, since I’m on a roll, if your child misbehaves in school, don’t cuss out the teacher! You know I’m right about that! Don’t cuss out the teacher! Do something with your child!”
Maybe he’ll appoint Bill Cosby secretary of Education.
Update: Here’s a YouTube video of the education portion of the speech.
Up to now I’ve been sitting on the fence, but Barack Obama may have just gotten my vote!
This is good to hear, very good. And perhaps the best of all is this line in the Los Angeles Times article linked to this blog - “The line is one the Democrat delivers often”. Is this true? And has it been reported by the media if it is true? I don’t keep up with the news or politics like I used to, so I’m not sure, but I haven’t been aware of anyone giving such an upbeat message. Would the media have any reason to downplay it? Or am I just not paying attention?
Part of Obama’s style is to express sentiments that are quite opposite the policy prescriptions that follow.
The policies will assist more parents in turning more “parenting” over to the state, from as young an age as possible.
Michael L said, “Part of Obama’s style is to express sentiments that are quite opposite the policy prescriptions that follow.
The policies will assist more parents in turning more “parenting” over to the state, from as young an age as possible.”
Well said, Michael L! Liberals talk about individual responsibility. But the policies they advocate explicitly undermine the notion of individual responsibility. Obama is the most reliably liberal vote in the US Senate and Hillary is not far behind. Their election would be a disaster for schools and families. Not that any Republican can do anything directly for schools and families. The best thing that government can do is to let families keep more of their money and then get out of the way.
As great as all of this sounds, how exactly does he plan to execute how much time parents spend with their kids or how much time these children play video games. I’m skeptical about his claims here, although I do think it is great that he doesn’t want to blame the teachers. Hopefully he will think of some innovative policy to back this and it won’t just be another speech.
Education Maze, I don’t think it’s possible or desirable for the government to pass laws to make parents do certain things in their own homes. But man, is it ever great to hear a POLITICIAN actually tell parents that they need to do a better job. Leadership is not just about passing laws. It’s also about setting a tone and inspriring people to do the right thing. I can give you a number of arguments against having Obama become our next president, but right now I’m impressed. I never thought I’d hear a presidential candidate say what he said.
I never thought I’d hear a presidential candidate say what he said.
Ignore what he says. Look into what he’s done. Or, just believe, believe, believe. . .
I gotta say, I like that speech.
But Bill Cosby, I liked him back when he used to be funny.
What Obama says is true and the crowd knows it. The question, however, is what difference does it make? How does this essentially conservative insight get translated into educational policy?
It’s good preaching, and preaching can help.
But when it comes down to it, any Democratic nominee will support the stranglehold of the bureaucracy and the NEA on the public schools, and these institutions will remain dysfunctional.
Money talks. Maybe government should offer tax incentives for parents of children who earn “honor roll” ? Maybe government (state government), could offer students very well academically, a promise of a place in a state college/university, or a tuition credit or something to help encourage them.
Bill C. for Secretary of Education ? There are worse ideas !
Isn’t Obama a day late and a dollar short. I believe this was Bill Cosby’s message a few years ago and and wasn’t he crucified for saying it.
Polski - yes, money “talks,” but you’re going about it the wrong way. Instead of offering money to parents of those students who succeed, they should take away the money (welfare and other “entitlements”).
In addition to teaching biology I’m also teaching a 7th grade class of Home Ec. During a recent lesson on budgeting, a student claimed he needed a budget higher than $150/month for clothes because his sneakers cost more than that. When I suggested getting less expensive sneakers, he scoffed at the idea.
I was looking over his budget sheet later on and noticed that he had only set aside a little money for groceries and asked him about it. He replied that food stamps would take care of it.
The current generation of poor students are growing up expecting entitlements to be a permanent part of their income, and until we pull the safety blanket away, they will never be motivated to work hard to prepare themselves for a good-paying career later on.
This reminds me of a quote by the late William F. Buckley (from 1983):
The governing assumptions among many young people are that life is an entirely passive experience. Food, shelter, medical care, education and peace are vouchsafed to us all, so to speak, as birthmarks from our heavenly father, via the Democratic Party. One wonders: How much would it cost for Congress to pass a Bill to Strengthen the Resolve of Parents and Teachers to Bring Order to the Younger Generation? Or did we pass along the disease in the first place, and aren
It’s one thing to deliver that message to voters in Texas, it’s another to deliver it to his constituents in Chicago.
Funny, when you check his plan for education on his website, it mostly just mentions billions and billions of dollars of new spending. Not much there about parents or society.
He’s saying that now but went the NEA and AFT start turning the screws he’ll fall into line.
He said “it doesn’t matter how much you spend…”
There is no contradiction. He isn’t opposed to spending money. He just said that money alone can’t produce results.
By being willing to state these things, he is contributing to a discussion of parental responsibility. That, in itself, is helpful.
I haven’t seen a lot of hope for improved education coming out of this election and that just sealed it. Don’t you get it? There’s support for good and responsible child rearing, and then there’s scapegoating.
If we want to support the crucial role of parents then public policy would do things like provide for time off from work to attend to children’s needs (check France or the Scandinavian countries for models). It might provide parents with a broader range of pre-school/child care options (check almost any other industrialized country for models). It might provide social security credit for stay at home moms. It might support home visiting nurses for first time mothers. It might get real about enforcing the parental involvement requirements of No Child Left Behind (not choice–the ones you don’t hear about that call for parents to be informed of and included in decision-making for school improvement).
This particular tirade against the shortcomings of parents (preventing any good coming from increased spending on schools), on the other hand, is pure scapegoating. I hope the NEA is happy.
I personally think Barack Obama is right on the issue. If only parents have sufficient time to engage and look closer to what their children are doing and making sure that they are aware of their responsibilities as students, we can surely provide a good and responsible individuals in the future. Parenting the children is the role of the parents anyway.