Answers on Kearny HS teacher controversy

[Guest Guest]

Given the extreme nature of the offenses and the obvious intent to persist in this behavior, we concluded that there was no point in taking this to Paszkiewicz. He would have stopped in that class, perhaps, and then persisted in the behavior. Or perhaps he would merely have toned it down. Either way, the conduct demanded that it be reported over his head

Obivious intent to persist.... How do you know that, if you or your son DID NOT EVEN try to talk to him.

"You and your son should think of others before going around causing trouble. Not everyone believe the same way do. This is a free country." Listen to yourself. I ask again: What if this was a Muslim teacher telling Christian children they are going to hell. Would you be defending it?

Civilized people talk to each other. If you do not agree take the time a let the person know that you are been offended. Is not the case of defending it, is how you went about it.

Little Mattie is going to find that in life he is going to find many things that he does not agree with, what are you going to do? Fight his battle for him FOREVER.

Ours is a nation with a long history of religious practice, coupled with separation of church and state. You can't have the one and forget the other without completely changing our founding principles.

Finally, if we were afraid what we believe might be challenged, then why did I open this thread to invite questions?

Maybe because you do not have many clients at this time and have plenty of time in your hands and would like to share with us all you know.

[Guest Quidproquo]

Paul,

Lets stop all this beating around the bush.

First off, you and your son went to a great deal of trouble setting up this teacher.

Secondly, you both have spent a great deal more time and energy spreading this story to various news agencies and web blogs.

So, what is the bottom line?

How much are you going to ask for?

[Guest Guest]

Yes, the poor, helpless teacher. Totally helpless against this wily 16-year-old in his own classroom where he isn't sitting on a witness stand, is supposedly in control as the only adult in the room, and doesn't have to answer any question he knows is inappropriate.

He preached religion because that is what he wanted to do from the moment he walked into that classroom. So your analogy is not well-taken, or to put it more colloquially: Give me a break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul please give us a break. If you want a fair discussion about this then lets be fair.

Many people are well aware of Matthew's need to take up confrontational issues. Not standing for the pledge, protesting Bush, protesting In God We Trust being on our currency, looking for debate from other students, etc, are just a few examples. While Mr. P may have overstepped, I'm sure Matt was chomping at the bit to get him. So please, lets drop the innocent and defenseless 16 year nonsense. He knew enough to bring a recording device into the class, engage the teacher in the discussion, and keep the discussion going with leading questions to get as much on tape as possible.

I also question the claim that, in the beginning, you had no intention of taking this to court. I'm sure you were aware that the Superintendent and BOE could not use the recording made by Matthew against Mr. P since it was obtained without Mr. P's permission and i beleive that is in violation of his contract. You knew that ultimately this would be headed to court.

I know you love the Constitution and the law will probably side with you. You don't have to look to hard to see some of the wacky judgements and silly cases that many judges entertain. However, the very thing you're going to sue over, will always be co-mingled with government because the founding fathers based this government's defining documents on Judeo-Christian principles. I guess this is a small fact that you left out of Matthew's training.

You may think you're fighting some great crusade to keep all of the children safe from this out of control man and uphold the Constitution. The sad fact is that you and your son have caused another huge and unnecessary distraction in an educational system that has so many more important issues to deal with.

[Guest Paul]

Perhaps the teacher was showing the students critical thinking by citing opposing viewpoints! In general discussions all have something to learn, we all do not have to agree. That's the beauty of an education in a "free" country.  I pledge allegiance to the FLAG .... one nation under GOD....?!?! That's right your son doesn't do this either... it only gives us the right to protest what we feel is wrong or even "burn the flag" (which I do not agree with) without reprisals!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you can explain to us, then, what critical thinking skills are enhanced by telling sixteen-year-olds that they belong in hell. I'd love to see an answer to that one!

[Guest KOTW fan]

Paul,

Lets stop all this beating around the bush.

First off, you and your son went to a great deal of trouble setting up this teacher.

Secondly,  you both have spent a great deal more time and energy spreading this story to various news agencies and web blogs.

So, what is the bottom line?

How much are you going to ask for?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As KOTW put it on the home page of this website what are the Kearny Board of Education members doing to bring finality to this crisis.

You mean you can preach in public schools. Let's get a Muslin teacher, Jewish teacher, a Lutheran teacher, a Protestant teacher and let them preach about history, math, Spanish, French, Chemistry, Physics.

Only in Kearny would the teacher get away with this. Mr. LaClair, your wasting your time with these Kearny folks, they simply don't get it. Your not suppose to mix a public school with religion. If you want to preach and teach, go to a religious school. Even there they'll fire you if you don't teach what they hired you to teach.

Boy! What nonsense. The Kearny Board of Education members better get on this and do as KOTW suggests -- get to the bottom of this and set the appropriate punishment.

[Guest Miss Crabtree]

Both sides are zealous in pursuit of what they believe. The difference is that the student is within the law and the teacher is not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What law would the student be within dear?

[Guest Paul]

As KOTW put it on the home page of this website what are the Kearny Board of Education members doing to bring finality to this crisis.

You mean you can preach in public schools.  Let's get a Muslin teacher, Jewish teacher, a Lutheran teacher, a Protestant teacher and let them preach about history, math, Spanish, French, Chemistry, Physics.

Only in Kearny would the teacher get away with this.  Mr. LaClair, your wasting your time with these Kearny folks, they simply don't get it.  Your not suppose to mix a public school with religion.  If you want to preach and teach, go to a religious school.  Even there they'll fire you if you don't teach what they hired you to teach.

Boy!  What nonsense.  The Kearny Board of Education members better get on this and do as KOTW suggests -- get to the bottom of this and set the appropriate punishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dear KOTW fan, I couldn't agree with you more, except for one thing. We do not believe the ugliness we have seen from a few on this page, and in a few other places, represents the majority of people in our town.

I, too, applaud KOTW for putting the responsibility where it now must rest if we are to resolve this amicably. We have asked the Kearny BOE to act, but so far nothing. We shall see.

[Guest Paul]

Paul please give us a break.  If you want a fair discussion about this then lets be fair. 

Many people are well aware of Matthew's need to take up confrontational issues.  Not standing for the pledge, protesting Bush, protesting In God We Trust being on our currency, looking for debate from other students, etc, are just a few examples.  While Mr. P may have overstepped, I'm sure Matt was chomping at the bit to get him.  So please, lets drop the innocent and defenseless 16 year nonsense.  He knew enough to bring a recording device into the class, engage the teacher in the discussion, and keep the discussion going with leading questions to get as much on tape as possible.

I also question the claim that, in the beginning, you had no intention of taking this to court.  I'm sure you were aware that the Superintendent and BOE could not use the recording made by Matthew against Mr. P since it was obtained without Mr. P's permission and i beleive that is in violation of his contract.  You knew that ultimately this would be headed to court.

I know you love the Constitution and the law will probably side with you.  You don't have to look to hard to see some of the wacky judgements and silly cases that many judges entertain.  However, the very thing you're going to sue over, will always be co-mingled with government because the founding fathers based this government's defining documents on Judeo-Christian principles.  I guess this is a small fact that you left out of Matthew's training.

You may think you're fighting some great crusade to keep all of the children safe from this out of control man and uphold the Constitution.  The sad fact is that you and your son have caused another huge and unnecessary distraction in an educational system that has so many more important issues to deal with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're missing the point. Matthew is obviously far from defenseless. He correctly sized up and predicted the behavior of several adults in positions of authority over him, and acted in a way that left no doubt as to the facts. Matthew is not the issue here. He has not in a position of public trust. It is the teacher's behavior, and then the administration's, that are at issue. When you make the student's behavior your focus, you only betray your biases. Matthew has had many teachers. None of them has ever behaved like this.

So let's assume you're right. Let's assume Matthew is a trouble-maker with a bad attitude, and his dad was just chomping at the bit to get this teacher. How does that change the teacher's responsibilities? Do you mean to tell me that the teacher couldn't handle a sixteen-year-old trouble-maker? Why couldn't he?

A teacher uses a classroom to preach an extremely hard-line version of "Christianity," so extreme that most Christians wouldn't even recognize it, and then the administration refuses even to try to resolve the matter --- and we're the ones causing the distraction? I think not.

[Guest Paul]

When I first heard about this I took Mr. P's side. I thought Matthew was dead wrong. Then I listened to the tapes, heard from his father (Paul) and really tried to think about the situation with an open mind. I never had Mr. P when I was in high school, so I cant comment on his teachings. However, putting aside the fact that he spoke about religion in his class. He lied, thats all that needs to be said. He is a role model, he is not only supposed to teach the kids history but also he is an example of how adults are to act, and his actions are apalling. Its seems as if most of you expect Matthew to act like a 35yr(?) old teacher, and its ok for that teacher to act like a 16 year old. I think Matthew, and his parents are extremely brave. Whether you agree or not, Im sure that most people would not be brave enough to stand up against the masses and do what they think is right. I apolgize if this post is a jumble of thoughts. So Paul, God bless you, and keep up the good fight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you. Comments like yours mean a lot. Anyone who thinks this is fun ought to try it some time. Please tell me you live in Kearny.

[Guest Guest]

Bigots and hypocrites of Kearny, unite! You can bet your bottom dollar that if this was a Muslim teacher telling their Christian kids they belong in hell, NASA would be tracking his progress through the solar system after he'd been kicked out through the roof.

If the defenders of this teacher's rants don't have the sense to be embarrassed at what they're writing, what can possibly be said to them? Quite obviously, nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Mr. P was promoting atheism, Paul LaClair and the rest of us would not be dicussing this at all.

[Guest Guest]

Do you people honestly believe this could be fun for a parent. Do you think its fun for a 16 year old boy to be ostracized from his peers? If thats your idea of fun then you have issues. It seems to me that Paul and Matthew have done everything they could do to solve this outside of the public domain. This happened months ago and yet we are just hearing about it now. This is just another example of how badly this town is run, from the town hall to the BOE. Its ridiculous. Paul, if you have read other threads on this site about a majority of different topics...you will realize that most of the people who come here...dont have much to contribute to an intelligent conversation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul is an attorney. He knows full well that he could have simply followed this up the chain of command at the school and BOE. If he didn't receive a satisfactory response there, he could then pursue it in court. It would have still become public but at least he would have followed logical and fair minded course of action. His decision to take this to the media instead speaks volumes about his motives and agenda. Not to mention his poor judgement in advising and expecting a 16 year old to resolve this matter.

There is good reason why 16 year olds don't have full legal rights.

[Guest Guest]

You're missing the point. Matthew is obviously far from defenseless. He correctly sized up and predicted the behavior of several adults in positions of authority over him, and acted in a way that left no doubt as to the facts. Matthew is not the issue here. He has not in a position of public trust. It is the teacher's behavior, and then the administration's, that are at issue. When you make the student's behavior your focus, you only betray your biases. Matthew has had many teachers. None of them has ever behaved like this.

So let's assume you're right. Let's assume Matthew is a trouble-maker with a bad attitude, and his dad was just chomping at the bit to get this teacher. How does that change the teacher's responsibilities? Do you mean to tell me that the teacher couldn't handle a sixteen-year-old trouble-maker? Why couldn't he?

A teacher uses a classroom to preach an extremely hard-line version of "Christianity," so extreme that most Christians wouldn't even recognize it, and then the administration refuses even to try to resolve the matter --- and we're the ones causing the distraction? I think not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul, you continue to steer away from all of the facets of this issue and you only address the points that advance your argument. You want to call it preaching. It could just as easily be characterized as an informal discussion by a teacher and students, including your son, who didn't have their books at this point in the school year. You may think the law is black and white, though since you deal with it daily I find this hard to believe, but hopefully a good court will take all of the context into account.

Let's not assume I'm right, I am right. My analysis of Matthew is fact and anyone involved with him on a regular basis would see that. I don't absolve the teacher and administration of their responsibilities in this matter. However, your response to the matter is a distraction to everyone involved and if you get your way it will probably cost the taxpayers. If Matthew is "far from defenseless" I'm sure this discussion didn't hurt him at all. By Matthew's standards he should have seen the teacher's statements as ridiculous and left it at that. That would have been the reasonable reponse.

I'll say it again. If Mr. P was preaching atheism, we wouldn't be discussing this right now. You, under the guise of justice, are doing the same thing you accuse Mr. P of doing. You're preaching your beliefs.

Aside from this, could you let us know where you stand on the fact that the history curriculum has numerous sections containing religious subject matter. In the Supreme Court case that is being thrown around, no religious based material is to be discussed in a public school by a teacher. Will you sue to have every reference to religion removed from the curriculum or are you just after Mr. P's version.

[Guest Paul]

Dear KOTW fan, I couldn't agree with you more, except for one thing. We do not believe the ugliness we have seen from a few on this page, and in a few other places, represents the majority of people in our town.

I, too, applaud KOTW for putting the responsibility where it now must rest if we are to resolve this amicably. We have asked the Kearny BOE to act, but so far nothing. We shall see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clarification: Our issue is not teacher discipline. Mr. Paszkiewicz has rights too, and while I have been and am highly critical of Mr. Lindenfelser's handing of this situation (he is the school district's attorney), he is entirely correct to point out that resolution of these matters takes time, and must follow established procedures. However, that does not mean the BOE cannot take the matter away from the administration. Given the abysmal manner in which the administration has handled this situation, the Board should do that. However, that still does not mean the resolution of disciplinary issues will be made known to the public.

Our issues are correction of the nonsense that was spewed forth in that classroom, and quality control. The Board of Education has power to act in those areas, too, and it should, and on those matters the public has every right to know.

[Guest Guest]

I agreed to answer appropriate questions germane to the issue at hand. How I parent my son is not such a question, and I will not respond to any questions along those lines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul.

Once again you are not answering a legitimate question;

HOW COULD YOU NOT ATTEND SUCH AN IMPORTANT MEETING?

Given all the fanfare about this topic, probably the most important meeting in your family's lives.

It's got nothing to do with you parenting your son, it makes you look unresponsible with poor judgement on your part.

There is no way, given the huge injustice you claim being done by this teacher, that you should missed the MEETING. This matter could have ended there! But that's not what you have wanted it is obvious now.

[Guest Paul]

What law would the student be within dear?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All of them.

[Guest Guest_Janet_*]

I support the rights of both students and parents to bring their problems and concerns regarding teachers to the administration. It seems that was done here, and "corrective action" was taken. It seems like the corrective action was an instruction to the teacher to cease proselytizing in the classroom. It seems like the corrective action was sufficient to bring about the desired result. It also seems that the LeClairs were dissatisfied with the corrective action, and are hell bent on having Mr. P suspended, fired or drawn and quartered. I cannot support that result for several reasons.

First, parents and students are not, and should not be, the arbiters of these types of disputes. We elect a board of education, which in turns hires administrators, to mete out appropriate guidance and/or disciplinary action. These board members and administrators must consider not only the rights of the parents and the student, but also the rights of the teacher, the other students in the class, and the public. They consider what measures are appropriate to resolve the problem. To the extent the parents disagreed that corrective action alone was a sufficient response to the problem, they should nonetheless respect and be bound by the actions taken by the administration.

Instead, the LeClairs chose to go to the media, which is my second reason for not supporting their actions. Paul started this post by asking for intelligent discussion, yet his family chose to go the route of inviting a media circus to town. The media thrive on exploitation and quick sound bites, not intelligent discussion. Also, I can't help but feel annoyed at anyone who invites negative commentary on my town.

Third, it is abundantly clear that the LeClairs have attempted to villify Mr. P., and in turn the administration, far beyond what the situation calls for. I can't help but agree with the posts who accuse the LeClairs of being overly sensitive about this situation. Not every slight needs to rise to a level of constitutional warfare. Lighten up already.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you. Comments like yours mean a lot. Anyone who thinks this is fun ought to try it some time. Please tell me you live in Kearny.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Born and raised. Went to Kearny High and had many wonderful teachers. I feel bad that something like this has given our town a bad name, there are many here who are good people and agree with you, you just wont meet them on this site.

[Guest Kate]

RULE # 2:

If you are such a caring, protective and involved parent, why did you "leave" it up to Matt to hold a meeting.

You have started a full blown war over this topic and treated this whole episode as being a "very serious" matter.

As a parent, and you as an attorney, why in the world would you not attend the most important meeting of your family's lives????????????????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The school administration would not allow Matt's parents into the meeting. If you had read Paul's clear explanation, you would know that as it is stated more than once.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions left and right about what has happened and acting concerned, but do not even bother to read the facts. That doesn't sound like true concern to me, just an emotional reaction to something that apparently hits a little too religiously close to home.

And since the "rule naming" seems to be so popular, Rule #3:

On occasion, it is better to say nothing and perhaps appear uneducated than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Get the facts.

[Guest Guest]

The school administration would not allow Matt's parents into the meeting. If you had read Paul's clear explanation, you would know that as it is stated more than once.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions left and right about what has happened and acting concerned, but do not even bother to read the facts. That doesn't sound like true concern to me, just an emotional reaction to something that apparently hits a little too religiously close to home.

And since the "rule naming" seems to be so popular, Rule #3:

On occasion, it is better to say nothing and perhaps appear uneducated than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Get the facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it were even close to the truth that the parents were not allowed into this meeting why would anyone, especially an experienced attorney, allow their 16 year old son to attend that meeting alone? What possible useful outcome could such a meeting have? What makes you think Paul's word is fact? We haven't heard word one from Mr. Somma.

I think you'd better get the facts, not just read the facts according to Paul. Or maybe you'd rather appear uneducated.

Rule #4 Attorneys should always steer clear of people (and even some judges) that know there's two sides to every story, and common sense tells us that somewhere inbetween lies the truth.

[Guest Truth Seeker]

Honestly Paul... don't you have a bit too much time on your hands? I know many "successful" attorney's who wouldn't put this amount of effort into something unless of course there was a payout at the end of the day.

Is that your motive?

Okay, here's the rundown from my point of view (* and many others I'm sure)

#1) You have strong beliefs

#2) You do not value others who think differently than you do

#3) You had your son ask questions, bait a teacher, and record it

#4) You did eveything you could to get this teacher fired

#5) You are now "obviously" going to pursue this legally

There are 21 county's in New Jersey... can't you find another one to play your games in? THe majority of us in Kearny happen to appreciate this teacher. I cannot say the same for you.

Okay, I know you want a more thoughtful and insightful conversation about this incident... Sorry, I'd rather everyone just forget about you and your "15 minutes of fame" crusade.

C'mon Paul, you're an aethiest and an attorney... that's already two strikes... do you really want a third?

[Guest Nicole Romaniak]

When I first heard about this whole situation, I could not believe what I was reading. Someone FINALLY got Mr. Paszkiewicz between a rock and a hard place, eh? I had the man for U.S. History 12 in 2000, and I have to say that everything I have read/heard from the LaClairs and people supporting them is absolutely spot-on when compared to my own memories of Paszkiewicz's class, and the memories of a few members of my graduating class I've discussed this with. The man used to speak about religion so much that he was barely teaching us anything at all! I think I learned more about history from my grandmother as a child than I did from him. I absolutely can not believe how many people are coming out to support him, and they are all either lying through their teeth or just ignoring their memories of his preaching. I've read all of these letters in the Observer claiming that Paszkiewicz "never tried to sway anyone to his point of view," and I'm sorry for the vulgar language, but I call bullshit on that statement! I don't think he ever once taught us an entire chapter's worth of material, when he ran out of time for in-class discussion he would make us do outlines of the chapters as homework and assume that we would learn everything from the textbook just fine, most times having tests the very next day without any discussion of the more difficult issues we were learning about. I didn't do very well in his class because I've always had a hard time learning from text books; if I didn't need a teacher to help me see the issues clearly, I would have begged for homeschooling, as he wasn't the only teacher at KHS who couldn't teach a damn thing most of the time. In addition to the trouble in the classroom, Mr. Paszkiewicz once told me personally in the hallway between classes that I was going to go to hell, too. Why? Because at the time I was reading Mein Kampf, and I was on my way to a study period. He even went so far as to speak to my guidance counselor and attempt to get me sent to the school's favorite mental hospital for this offense. How in the hell do we live in a free country when we allow teachers to shove their religious beliefs down our throats? How in the hell do we live in a free country if a teenager can't read a book to try and gain a better understanding of a dark part of our past without being judged 'mentally disturbed' by the same teachers? When I spoke to my guidance counselor about my discomfort in his class due to his religious and personal comments to me, Mrs. C******* basically told me "tough shit". See, they won't let you change your classes or teachers around at KHS unless you have one of the guidance counselors who actually tries to do their job, you know? And Mrs. C******i never gave a damn one way or the other about any of the students under her care. There was NEVER a reason good enough to be switched out of a class in her opinion. Not even religious persecution, which I took extremely to offense, because not only am I not a Baptist, I'm not a Christian of any kind. Just because I don't believe what your church tries to force-feed me, I'm going to a place that may or may not exist, to burn and writhe in agony forever- and never mind that I try to live a good life, right? Mr. LaClair, I wish the best of luck to you and your family in resolving this issue. If more people stood up for our rights, maybe I never would have had to deal with the shame and misery that Paszkiewicz forced on me in my sophomore year of high school. I sure hope that the Board of Education doesn't make the mistake of letting Paszkiewicz keep his job. People don't deserve to be treated this way, ESPECIALLY not teenagers who are just learning who and what they are and want to do with their lives. They have enough difficulties without teachers weighing them down with this kind of garbage.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Guest wondering]

another thought..

you say in your claims that this type of teacher "has been going on for years" and it was well known. Being that this taping occurred within the first few days of school, Matthew had to have some "previous" knowledge about how Mr. P teaches. Most stundets do not know what to expect fromt heir teachers for the first few days. WHY WOULD HE STAY IN THE CLASS. Why didn't he go to his counselor WITH YOU and request a change. It happens all the time. There are other level 1 history teachers. He didn't because that would be no fun for Matt. This was an absolutely planned scheme. It's truly ashame. I shudder to think about how this child will be treated within the next year and half he is in the school. I can't imagine how any teacher would be comfortable with him in a classroom. Unfortunately matt has been charcterized.

[Guest Guest]

The school administration would not allow Matt's parents into the meeting. If you had read Paul's clear explanation, you would know that as it is stated more than once.

Everyone is jumping to conclusions left and right about what has happened and acting concerned, but do not even bother to read the facts. That doesn't sound like true concern to me, just an emotional reaction to something that apparently hits a little too religiously close to home.

And since the "rule naming" seems to be so popular, Rule #3:

On occasion, it is better to say nothing and perhaps appear uneducated than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Get the facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My Dearest Kate,

You must be smoking crack.

If you believe for one second that the admin. would now allow a parent or parents of a student to attend a meeting regarding this matter or any other matter, you must have a bloodline to the LeClairs.

And get your facts straight, Paul has stated that from what his son's perspective on the matter was he thought his parents could not attend. This part of the whole matter is VERY SUSPECT.

One more Rule, but this only applies to you:

RULE # 4;

When your name is Kate and you post on KOTW follow Rule # 3.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, you continue to steer away from all of the facets of this issue and you only address the points that advance your argument.  You want to call it preaching. It could just as easily be characterized as an informal discussion by a teacher and students, including your son, who didn't have their books at this point in the school year.  You may think the law is black and white, though since you deal with it daily I find this hard to believe, but hopefully a good court will take all of the context into account. 

Let's not assume I'm right, I am right.  My analysis of Matthew is fact and anyone involved with him on a regular basis would see that.  I don't absolve the teacher and administration of their responsibilities in this matter.  However, your response to the matter is a distraction to everyone involved and if you get your way it will probably cost the taxpayers.  If Matthew is "far from defenseless" I'm sure this discussion didn't hurt him at all.  By Matthew's standards he should have seen the teacher's statements as ridiculous and left it at that.  That would have been the reasonable reponse. 

I'll say it again.  If Mr. P was preaching atheism, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.  You, under the guise of justice, are doing the same thing you accuse Mr. P of doing.  You're preaching your beliefs.

Aside from this, could you let us know where you stand on the fact that the history curriculum has numerous sections containing religious subject matter.  In the Supreme Court case that is being thrown around, no religious based material is to be discussed in a public school by a teacher.  Will you sue to have every reference to religion removed from the curriculum or are you just after Mr. P's version.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The history of religion is perfectly appropriate in a history class. Advocating a religion is not.

[Guest Paul]

Born and raised. Went to Kearny High and had many wonderful teachers. I feel bad that something like this has given our town a bad name, there are many here who are good people and agree with you, you just wont meet them on this site.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I appreciate that, but this is not easy. Please contact us.