Jump to content

School Board takes new Steps


God Save Us From Christians

Recommended Posts

Guest Parent of a KHS student
So, which law does recording public conversations break? Cite or admit you're full of it.

Yes, because it was your kid who received a death threat.

"Cross fire"...come on. No students were even identified in Matthew's recordings!

Interesting how no one in favor of this policy seems to be at all concerned about the fact that such a policy would prevent people like Paszkiewicz from ever getting caught. Interesting indeed...

1-I never said recording public conversation is against the law. Do not put words in my mouth.

2-I'm not talking about the past, Matthews secret recordings are "water under the bridge" by now. Again, don't put words in my mouth.

The BOE is initiating a new policy regarding recording in class, at the parents request, so in the future our minor children won't be caught in any "cross fire" and be made a specticle of. And I am sure that the policy will include disabled students who can't write will be allowed to record lectures, among other things. This policy will pass, so, don't get your feathers ruffled over it.

3-The very first concern of every parent is to protect thier children. Believe me, catching a teacher doing wrong is not that hard to do.

I'm not at all surprised that you could care less about our children, you are just a 22 year old, living with you parents, town worker, who only got your job because your a friend of the mayor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So, which law does recording public conversations break? Cite or admit you're full of it.

Yes, because it was your kid who received a death threat.

"Cross fire"...come on. No students other than Matthew were even identified in Matthew's recordings!

Interesting how no one in favor of this policy seems to be at all concerned about the fact that such a policy would prevent people like Paszkiewicz from ever getting caught again. Interesting indeed...

The new policy isn't to protect the teachers, it is to protect the students. Matthew, by law, had the right to record the class. However, the students in that class also have a right to privacy. The board needed to put this policy into place for that reason. The entire student body needs to feel safe in school. There are several laws, that are "overruled" in school. Such as a persons choice of dress. Kearny grammar schools have a strict uniform policy, but in the "outside" world you can wear whatever you please. You can use your cell phones whenever and whereever you choose; not in school. So you see, while the entire country has one set of rules, schools go by a whole different set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1-I never said recording public conversation is against the law. Do not put words in my mouth.

Well then, you'll have to come up with a damned good reason to take away one's right to record what goes on in a public school classroom.

2-I'm not talking about the past, Matthews secret recordings are "water under the bridge" by now. Again, don't put words in my mouth.

The BOE is initiating a new policy regarding recording in class, at the parents request, so in the future our minor children won't be caught in any "cross fire" and be made a specticle of.

(ironic that you're a parent of a high school kid, and that by high school, one would suppose the ability to spell "spectacle" correctly) But since that has never happened in the past to "our minor children" (their age makes no difference in this case, no matter how much you emphasize it), what scenario would you suggest they'd be 'protected' from by disallowing anyone from recording speech in a public area?

And I am sure that the policy will include disabled students who can't write will be allowed to record lectures, among other things. This policy will pass, so, don't get your feathers ruffled over it.

But you do realize that if Paszkiewicz or another teacher crosses the 'separation line' again, it could be quite possible that this policy in itself would prevent them from ever getting caught? That issue needs to be addressed, because if this policy was in place at the time the preaching issue occurred, Paszkiewicz WOULD have gotten away with what he was doing. I think this is a legitimate concern--don't you?

3-The very first concern of every parent is to protect thier children. Believe me, catching a teacher doing wrong is not that hard to do.

1. No one has yet provided any kind of real, this-could-happen example of what exactly this policy would be 'protecting' high school kids from.

2. As I stated before, this kind of policy could quite feasibly (all you have to do is look back a few months to see how) remove the only tool a student has to protect himself from a teacher who is doing wrong but has popular support. Frankly, I think one needs a _very_ good reason to enact a policy that would cause this significant (imho) problem. I just want to hear what that reason is.

I'm not at all surprised that you could care less about our children,

You say that without even giving me any reason to believe recording their voices would even be any sort of threat to them.

If I didn't care about those kids, I wouldn't have been as outraged as I was at the teacher who trampled their civil rights. Ever thought about that?

you are just a 22 year old, living with you parents, town worker, who only got your job because your a friend of the mayor.

Ahh, the ol' ad hominem--the sign of someone with no real argument. I won't bother correcting you, but tell me...how does it feel? How does it feel to have nothing better to say than this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new policy isn't to protect the teachers, it is to protect the students.

Protect them from what? That's what I want to know--how is someone recording the events in a public school classroom, especially without identifying any of these students, any sort of danger to them, that they would need protection?

Matthew, by law, had the right to record the class.  However, the students in that class also have a right to privacy.

Yeah, in their homes, etc. The right to privacy doesn't exist in a public place--sorry to break that to you, since apparently you didn't know.

The board needed to put this policy into place for that reason.

Then you're going to have to come up with something better, because the reason you provided rests on a false assertion.

The entire student body needs to feel safe in school.

I'd like to know what it is that a kid could say in class that, if recorded, would make them less safe. Seriously--how could recording a kid's speech while in a classroom endanger him/her?

There are several laws, that are "overruled" in school.  Such as a persons choice of dress.  Kearny grammar schools have a strict uniform policy, but in the "outside" world you can wear whatever you please.

Yeah, only as of late, but I won't address how BS mandating uniforms in public school is right now.

You can use your cell phones whenever and whereever you choose; not in school.  So you see, while the entire country has one set of rules, schools go by a whole different set.

This is not justification for anything--at best, you're saying "we're going to do this because we can," going from what you said above, since you haven't actually given any good reason to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest WilliamK
Protect them from what? That's what I want to know--how is someone recording the events in a public school classroom, especially without identifying any of these students, any sort of danger to them, that they would need protection?

It isn't. These people are just plain lying. They want this to protect the misdeeds of Paszkiewicz and his ilk, not the students, and not the parents. They want it because it will partly negate the LaClair's partial win (the new policy and staff training) by simultaneously taking something away. They want to ensure that, should this happen again, the preacher/teacher can get away with it next time.

Of course, this could come back to bite them should some teacher improperly teach some other thing, antisemitism, for example. Perhaps they're counting on the school board and administration being very selective with enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Strife but the school has every right to stop recording in classrooms. Just as they have the right to restrict dress, language and behavior. While the facility may be "Publicly Owned" in the strictest sense, it is NOT "Public" property..if that was the case anyone could come and go as they please..I assure you that if you were found on school property with no authorization to be there (ie Staff, Student, or with permission) you WOULD be arrested and prosecuted for Tresspassing. It is the same with the recording issue if the school restricts the use of recorders, then they have the right to discipline any student, or teacher who does not get the requisite permission before making recordings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Parent of a KHS student
Well then, you'll have to come up with a damned good reason to take away one's right to record what goes on in a public school classroom.

(ironic that you're a parent of a high school kid, and that by high school, one would suppose the ability to spell "spectacle" correctly) But since that has never happened in the past to "our minor children" (their age makes no difference in this case, no matter how much you emphasize it), what scenario would you suggest they'd be 'protected' from by disallowing anyone from recording speech in a public area?

But you do realize that if Paszkiewicz or another teacher crosses the 'separation line' again, it could be quite possible that this policy in itself would prevent them from ever getting caught? That issue needs to be addressed, because if this policy was in place at the time the preaching issue occurred, Paszkiewicz WOULD have gotten away with what he was doing. I think this is a legitimate concern--don't you?

1. No one has yet provided any kind of real, this-could-happen example of what exactly this policy would be 'protecting' high school kids from.

2. As I stated before, this kind of policy could quite feasibly (all you have to do is look back a few months to see how) remove the only tool a student has to protect himself from a teacher who is doing wrong but has popular support. Frankly, I think one needs a _very_ good reason to enact a policy that would cause this significant (imho) problem. I just want to hear what that reason is.

You say that without even giving me any reason to believe recording their voices would even be any sort of threat to them.

If I didn't care about those kids, I wouldn't have been as outraged as I was at the teacher who trampled their civil rights. Ever thought about that?

Ahh, the ol' ad hominem--the sign of someone with no real argument. I won't bother correcting you, but tell me...how does it feel? How does it feel to have nothing better to say than this?

OK Strife, here is your scenario:

A discussion between students is going on in a classroom, lets just say about something like racism, there are a few different views among the class, without any warning someone says something racist, or it's just taken as a racist remark, the class is in an uproar they all start verbally fighting, the teacher ends the discussion. But, someone was recording the whole thing. Somehow the local papers get a hold of the recording and one day with no warning the story breaks, the recording gets downloaded to the Internet, the local news stations show up at school, it makes its way to a national paper. Now, there where about 20 kids in the class, like lightning, they each tell 2 people the names of the kids on the recording, then they tell 2 friends and so on and so on and so on until everyone in school know who where involved. the whole school is pretty much divided. Names of kids are written on Internet forums, newspapers, etc. They start being harassed in the hallways of school, even death threats are posted on their my-space, the nation gets involved on the Internet calling the whole school barbarians because a fight or two have broken out and someone got hurt. Many students can't sleep and can't concentrate on school work because they have lost friends or can't stand hearing their friends being called names or getting beat up.

Kinda sounds a little familiar? Something like this happened to Matt LaClair. He had a lot of nasty stuff said about him and to him. I would say the majority of parents would do anything in their power so their children are not "fair game" as you put it. We want to "protect" them from any harm, emotionally and/or physically.

Rest assured, there are other tools to catch a teacher doing wrong.

Can you try to see this side of this debate? Even a little bit?

In closing, it was unacceptable of me to write about you at the end of my last post, please accept my sincere apology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Strife but the school has every right to stop recording in classrooms.

No, it doesn't--at the very least, this policy would have to allow for any parent to be able to override it at will, since any parent has the right to know everything that goes on in their kid's classes. So, unless you suggest taking this right away from parents (and considering that their taxes are paying for the school, I don't think they'd be too happy about that), it's pretty much a worthless policy from the beginning, practically speaking.

Just as they have the right to restrict dress, language and behavior.  While the facility may be "Publicly Owned" in the strictest sense, it is NOT "Public" property..if that was the case anyone could come and go as they please..I assure you that if you were found on school property with no authorization to be there (ie Staff, Student, or with permission) you WOULD be arrested and prosecuted for Tresspassing.  It is the same with the recording issue if the school restricts the use of recorders, then they have the right to discipline any student, or teacher who does not get the requisite permission before making recordings.

So, tell me--how will you address the issue that this policy would make it much more difficult to catch a teacher who is doing wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Strife, here is your scenario:

A discussion  between students is going on in a classroom, lets just say about something like racism, there are a few different views among the class, without any warning  someone says something racist, or it's just taken as a racist remark, the class is in an uproar they all start verbally fighting, the teacher ends the discussion. But, someone was recording the whole thing. Somehow the local papers get a hold of the recording and one day with no warning the story breaks,  the recording gets downloaded to the Internet, the local news stations show up at school, it makes its way to a national paper. Now, there where about 20 kids in the class, like lightning, they each tell 2 people the names of the kids on the recording, then they tell 2 friends and so on and so on and so on until everyone in school know who where involved. the whole school is pretty much divided. Names of kids are written on Internet forums, newspapers, etc. They start being harassed in the hallways of school, even death threats are posted on their my-space, the nation gets involved on the Internet calling the whole school barbarians because a fight or two have broken out and someone got hurt. Many students can't sleep and can't concentrate on school work because they have lost friends or can't stand hearing their friends being called names or getting beat up.

Kinda sounds a little familiar?

Yup, even right up to the point where you shift the blame away from the wrongdoer(s) who deserve the heat they get. Are you seriously telling me that you want to enact a policy that will keep others from knowing people were saying racist things in class? Why would you be in favor of protecting racists?

It is incredible that you would be in favor of removing all accountability for things said in the classroom. I don't even know what else to say to this, I'm so shocked. That you would sooner ban a method of acquiring foolproof evidence, than force a racist etc. to be held accountable for what he/she says...disgusting.

Something like this happened to Matt LaClair. He had a lot of nasty stuff said about him and to him.

Only because the majority of Kearnians seem to have no sense of right and wrong anymore, to threaten to murder a high school student just because he caught his teacher doing crap he shouldn't be doing in the first place...

And yet, even though Matthew got all that flak, go ask _him_ if he'd be in favor of this policy, or if he'd take his actions back if he could. Your pretense is ridiculously obvious.

I would say the majority of parents would do anything in their power so their children are not "fair game" as you put it. We want to "protect" them from any harm, emotionally and/or physically.

Then raise them to not be racists/proselytizers/etc.

Rest assured, there are other tools to catch a teacher doing wrong.

Such as?

Let me give _you_ a scenario. Let's say a teacher is sexually harassing a student. This teacher is popular and well-liked by most of this students, so when the student complains about it, no one believes him/her. It's the student's word against the teacher's...with your little policy in place. The teacher might never get caught. But in the absence of the policy, there would be a very easy way for the victim to easily prove his/her side, regardless of who the principal/peers/etc. trusts more.

Can you try to see this side of this debate? Even a little bit?

As of now, all that's been shown to me is exactly what I've been suspicious of. That "such as" up there is one of the examples of that thing where you try to assure that the policy would not impede a student's ability to both prove an accusation and defend him or herself, but don't give any really solid examples.

I've shown that the policy would throw a pretty big wrench into a student's ability to protect him or herself. I just want to see that issue _seriously_ addressed, and be given a good reason why it would be overall favorable to implement it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then, you'll have to come up with a damned good reason to take away one's right to record what goes on in a public school classroom.

(ironic that you're a parent of a high school kid, and that by high school, one would suppose the ability to spell "spectacle" correctly) But since that has never happened in the past to "our minor children" (their age makes no difference in this case, no matter how much you emphasize it), what scenario would you suggest they'd be 'protected' from by disallowing anyone from recording speech in a public area?

But you do realize that if Paszkiewicz or another teacher crosses the 'separation line' again, it could be quite possible that this policy in itself would prevent them from ever getting caught? That issue needs to be addressed, because if this policy was in place at the time the preaching issue occurred, Paszkiewicz WOULD have gotten away with what he was doing. I think this is a legitimate concern--don't you?

1. No one has yet provided any kind of real, this-could-happen example of what exactly this policy would be 'protecting' high school kids from.

2. As I stated before, this kind of policy could quite feasibly (all you have to do is look back a few months to see how) remove the only tool a student has to protect himself from a teacher who is doing wrong but has popular support. Frankly, I think one needs a _very_ good reason to enact a policy that would cause this significant (imho) problem. I just want to hear what that reason is.

You say that without even giving me any reason to believe recording their voices would even be any sort of threat to them.

If I didn't care about those kids, I wouldn't have been as outraged as I was at the teacher who trampled their civil rights. Ever thought about that?

Ahh, the ol' ad hominem--the sign of someone with no real argument. I won't bother correcting you, but tell me...how does it feel? How does it feel to have nothing better to say than this?

Strife, Strife..you can get angry but the fact is that the BOE is working in this policy and I am sure it will be approved, even if Mr. LaClair doesn't like it. So, spread the word, who knows maybe your savior will be be able to do something before the policy is approved. lol! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We want to "protect" them from any harm, emotionally and/or physically.

And yet, you're willing to allow Pascewicz to continue teaching when he's emotionally harming all the children in that class.

Spreading his version of a religion can do more harm than calling someone names.

He condemmed a student to hell, for God's sake!

That's what I don't understand about this. All parents, myself included, want to protect their kids. To me, that includes protection from people who claim their religious beliefs are superior to everyone else's and who are willing to teach their religious version of events rather than the state mandated curriculum.

If the school board does keep to it's new guidelines against preaching in class, and does something to reprimand this guy, then there's hope and there's no need to record him again.

But if he starts preaching again, there needs to be a way to deal with it and prove it. This wouldn't have come out had not a student recorded his nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the response to having a teacher's wrongdoings exposed is... to make sure no student is in a position to expose such wrongdoing in the future?

This is a "shoot the messenger" solution, quite transparently. If you don't like what the media's reporting, then by golly, condemn the media! It's a DODGE, folks. They don't want their dirty laundy waved around in public, so they try to suppress the means of exposing it.

This rule does NOTHING to correct the far more serious problem of classroom preaching... it just tries to make sure nobody hears about it in future. That's just as cowardly and dishonest when a local school board does it, as when a president does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve_C
It's one thing to record classes for lectures and a completely different thing to record student minors and broadcasted them world wide without the concent of the parents.

What does being a minor have to do with an audio recording in a public setting?

Are you not aloud to take notes and write down what a minor said too?

As far as I can tell the only minor ever identified in the recording is Matt.

So if a nameless faceless minor says something on a tape what exactly is the implication?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
OK Strife, here is your scenario:

A discussion  between students is going on in a classroom, lets just say about something like racism, there are a few different views among the class, without any warning  someone says something racist, or it's just taken as a racist remark, the class is in an uproar they all start verbally fighting, the teacher ends the discussion. But, someone was recording the whole thing. Somehow the local papers get a hold of the recording and one day with no warning the story breaks,  the recording gets downloaded to the Internet, the local news stations show up at school, it makes its way to a national paper. Now, there where about 20 kids in the class, like lightning, they each tell 2 people the names of the kids on the recording, then they tell 2 friends and so on and so on and so on until everyone in school know who where involved. the whole school is pretty much divided. Names of kids are written on Internet forums, newspapers, etc. They start being harassed in the hallways of school, even death threats are posted on their my-space, the nation gets involved on the Internet calling the whole school barbarians because a fight or two have broken out and someone got hurt. Many students can't sleep and can't concentrate on school work because they have lost friends or can't stand hearing their friends being called names or getting beat up.

Kinda sounds a little familiar? Something like this happened to Matt LaClair. He had a lot of nasty stuff said about him and to him. I would say the majority of parents would do anything in their power so their children are not "fair game" as you put it. We want to "protect" them from any harm, emotionally and/or physically.

Rest assured, there are other tools to catch a teacher doing wrong.

Can you try to see this side of this debate? Even a little bit?

In closing, it was unacceptable of me to write about you at the end of my last post, please accept my sincere apology.

Haven't heard from Paul in a while. I think he developed Carpel Tunnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Parent of a KHS student
Yup, even right up to the point where you shift the blame away from the wrongdoer(s) who deserve the heat they get. Are you seriously telling me that you want to enact a policy that will keep others from knowing people were saying racist things in class? Why would you be in favor of protecting racists?

It is incredible that you would be in favor of removing all accountability for things said in the classroom. I don't even know what else to say to this, I'm so shocked. That you would sooner ban a method of acquiring foolproof evidence, than force a racist etc. to be held accountable for what he/she says...disgusting.

Only because the majority of Kearnians seem to have no sense of right and wrong anymore, to threaten to murder a high school student just because he caught his teacher doing crap he shouldn't be doing in the first place...

And yet, even though Matthew got all that flak, go ask _him_ if he'd be in favor of this policy, or if he'd take his actions back if he could. Your pretense is ridiculously obvious.

Then raise them to not be racists/proselytizers/etc.

Such as?

Let me give _you_ a scenario. Let's say a teacher is sexually harassing a student. This teacher is popular and well-liked by most of this students, so when the student complains about it, no one believes him/her. It's the student's word against the teacher's...with your little policy in place. The teacher might never get caught. But in the absence of the policy, there would be a very easy way for the victim to easily prove his/her side, regardless of who the principal/peers/etc. trusts more.

As of now, all that's been shown to me is exactly what I've been suspicious of. That "such as" up there is one of the examples of that thing where you try to assure that the policy would not impede a student's ability to both prove an accusation and defend him or herself, but don't give any really solid examples.

I've shown that the policy would throw a pretty big wrench into a student's ability to protect him or herself. I just want to see that issue _seriously_ addressed, and be given a good reason why it would be overall favorable to implement it anyway.

OK Strife, this is what you do about it.

Contact members of the BOE and tell them your concerns.

Go to BOE meetings and tell them your concerns.

They are working on this policy now, so hurry up and let them know how you feel so this new policy isn't one sided.

You've asked for a scenario showing how innocent children can get hurt, I gave you one, a scenario where racist and non-racist children can get hurt, and your telling me it's ok with you, no-matter what the cost, as long as the guilty ones are publicly humiliated? Too bad if the innocent ones are brought down too!!!!????

Frankly, I'm blown away by you and the others who would care less about innocent children. Your all saying that as a parent my concerns are frivolous. Well guess what, there will be a new policy, whether you like it or not.

Crying WHA WHA WHA and throwing your tantrums on a public forum, insulting the concerns of parents who have different priorities than you isn't going to accomplish your goal, unless of course you are here just to get your jollies off, so get to a meeting. In other words "S**t or get off the pot"!

Ya know,,,I'm starting to think you are "getting your jollies off" in front of the computer, so don't bother with a reply, I'm not going to be at the receiving end anymore when you shoot your l**d.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, you're willing to allow Pascewicz to continue teaching when he's emotionally harming all the children in that class.

Spreading his version of a religion can do more harm than calling someone names.

He condemmed a student to hell, for God's sake! 

That's what I don't understand about this.  All parents, myself included, want to protect their kids.  To me, that includes protection from people who claim their religious beliefs are superior to everyone else's and who are willing to teach their religious version of events rather than the state mandated curriculum.

If the school board does keep to it's new guidelines against preaching in class, and does something to reprimand this guy, then there's hope and there's no need to record him again.

But if he starts preaching again, there needs to be a way to deal with it and prove it.  This wouldn't have come out had not a student recorded his nonsense.

Apparently the only student with emotional problem in the classroom in Matthew LaClair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet, you're willing to allow Pascewicz to continue teaching when he's emotionally harming all the children in that class.

Spreading his version of a religion can do more harm than calling someone names.

He condemmed a student to hell, for God's sake! 

That's what I don't understand about this.  All parents, myself included, want to protect their kids.  To me, that includes protection from people who claim their religious beliefs are superior to everyone else's and who are willing to teach their religious version of events rather than the state mandated curriculum.

If the school board does keep to it's new guidelines against preaching in class, and does something to reprimand this guy, then there's hope and there's no need to record him again.

But if he starts preaching again, there needs to be a way to deal with it and prove it.  This wouldn't have come out had not a student recorded his nonsense.

My guess is that you didn't comprehend the scenario. Who is talking about the teacher controversy? It's water under the bridge, it's over. Get with the program.

Are you willing to hang your child out to dry so you an humiliate another child for being racist?

And, with approximately 20 students per class, don't you think at least two are needed to tell thier parents about any unappropriate remarks from a teacher? They would be at the BOE in a second. You won't need a recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bewildered
No, it doesn't--at the very least, this policy would have to allow for any parent to be able to override it at will, since any parent has the right to know everything that goes on in their kid's classes. So, unless you suggest taking this right away from parents (and considering that their taxes are paying for the school, I don't think they'd be too happy about that), it's pretty much a worthless policy from the beginning, practically speaking.

So, tell me--how will you address the issue that this policy would make it much more difficult to catch a teacher who is doing wrong?

Can you imagine a student approaching a teacher and saying, "I think you are doing something illegal. May I record you to prove that you are breaking the law?

The teacher will either refuse permission or allow the recordings but making sure he doesn't say anything he shouldn't. Pure idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, with approximately 20 students per class, don't you think at least two are needed to tell thier parents about any unappropriate remarks from a teacher? They would be at the BOE in a second.  You won't need a recording.

That's not true. Not one student in that class has publicly acknowledged the teacher's remarks, even though they are recorded. On the contrary, many students in that very class have denied that he said it. Without a recording, a student like Matthew is defenseless against a teacher who is willing to lie and a group of students willing and eager to defend him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's one thing to record classes for lectures and a completely different thing to record student minors and broadcasted them world wide without the concent of the parents.

So how do you propose to prevent a teenager from embarrassing himself or herself by running through the woods naked at a beer party? The remedy you propose is worse than the potential offense. No one is more than tangentially interested in what the students said, and no one outside Kearny can even identify them. The likelihood of any student suffering harm from being recorded in class is remote at best. The likelihood of a student being harmed by a bad teacher he has no means of outing is substantial, as proved by this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not afraid of anything. The parents did not sign any permission slip allowing thier minor children to be broadcast worldwide. A cover up? No, just protecting our minor children from getting caught in the cross fire.

The main reason for consent slips has to do with making a profit by using someone else's voice or image, which has nothing to do with this case. In any state where recording a class is legal, no consent is required because the law already allows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes they can and they will.

It's perfectly understandable for college students to record classroom lectures, who are all adults by the way.

Dumb idea to initiate a recording policy?!I think you are forgetting that high school students are minors and parents are asked to sign waivers at the beginning of school for permission for your child's picture and/or name to be published in local newspapers for achievements in school, they certainly didn't give permission for them to be secretly recorded and then aired nation wide to be made a spectacle of.  I know I didn't give such permission! Trust me, when you grow up you'll understand.

It's time you got over Paszkiewicz, his actons have been corrected and his contract states you'll never know what his punishment was , and you'll never force a sincere apology from anyone.

There are three types of people here, LaClair supporters, Paszkiewicz supporters and Kearny Board of Ed supporters. 

I support the Kearny Board of Ed ,100% !

Prohibiting students from recording their classes is a bad idea for many reasons.

1. Some students find recordings useful. This isn't limited to those classified as disabled under the law. Recordings are valuable educational tools for some students. Taking that tool away is wrong. It's like using a meat axe to remove a sliver.

2. A student like Matthew would have no way of provinig classroom abuse, or violations of the law, which is what this was on both counts. Taking the means of proof away is wrong.

3. In this case, it's being done for the wrong reasons, as a reaction to a particular series of events. If the administration had done the right thing, the recordings would never have made the news. That is where the blame belongs: with the administration, and now the school board. The current proposal is an over-reaction, which is being promoted largely by people who "just happen" to think the teacher did nothing wrong. It sends all the wrong messages.

On the other side of the ledger, the prohibition protects virtually nothing that is worth protecting. The likelihood of any student suffering harm from being recorded in class is remote at best. News organizations aren't interested in something like that, and in addition, the students can't be identified by people who don't know them. Anyone can imagine a harm, but the likely harm is far less than the harm faced by each student in getting to school every day. Furthermore, any statements the students make are already being made in a class of 25-30 people, so they are hardly private remarks, they're already public.

It's just amazing that time after time, this board and this administration have done the exact wrong thing. The right thing would have been to address the situation promptly by adopting the policies they just committed to, correcting the teacher's outrageous mis-statements, and protecting a student who displayed excellent citizenship (Matthew LaClair). The other response should have been termination of Paszkiewicz after he defied the administration with his letter to the Observer. It doesn't really seem like this administration or this board are truly interested in anything except not having their own boats rocked --- and even in that, they have failed miserably. Serves 'em right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Strife, this is what you do about it.

Contact members of the BOE and tell them your concerns.

Go to BOE meetings and tell them your concerns.

They are working on this policy now, so hurry up and let them know how you feel so this new policy isn't one sided.

You've asked for a scenario showing how innocent children can get hurt, I gave you one, a scenario where racist and non-racist children can get hurt,

Oh? Explain to me how the non-racist children who may happen to be also recorded would get hurt, in the scenario you provided. I must have missed that part.

and your telling me it's ok with you, no-matter what the cost, as long as the guilty ones are publicly humiliated? Too bad if the innocent ones are brought down too!!!!????

Why would the innocent ones be "brought down" at all in your scenario or any other like it? I'm missing this part of your argument. What makes you think the non-racist kids in that scenario would experience any of the same humiliation etc. just because their voices happen to also be 'on tape?' Unless you're suggesting they'd be "brought down" and/or "humiliated" for no reason...

Frankly, I'm blown away by you and the others who would care less about innocent children.

You still haven't really given me a situation in which the innocent would suffer as a result of being recorded speaking in class.

Your all saying that as a parent my concerns are frivolous.

Actually, I've said the exact opposite. Any parent has the right to know exactly what's going on in class, and the proposed policy would act directly against that, putting a block that would relegate public school classrooms to a 'behind closed doors' status by closing off a major method of ascertaining exactly what's going on in a class. Don't you realize that such a thing would open the door for both students and teachers doing wrong to get away with it?

Well guess what, there will be a new policy, whether you like it or not.

Crying WHA WHA WHA and throwing your tantrums on a public forum, insulting the concerns of parents who have different priorities than you isn't going to accomplish your goal, unless of course you are here just to get your jollies off, so get to a meeting. In other words "S**t or get off the pot"!

Ya know,,,I'm starting to think you are "getting your jollies off" in front of the computer, so don't bother with a reply, I'm not going to be at the receiving end anymore when you shoot your l**d.

Post just spiraled into ad hominem, so no reason to really acknowledge this last part. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...