Jump to content

flyonthewall

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About flyonthewall

  • Birthday 06/25/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Kearny, NJ

flyonthewall's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. flyonthewall

    Drunk BOE Member

    TIME FOR CHANGE? Mr Campbell, did you think this up yourself or did a family member have to come up with it for you? It's really ironic because you're the first thing that should be "changed" on the board of ed. You attached your "Time for Change" slogan to ALL of your anonymous posts on this forum while running for town council and it didn't help you win. The taxpayers of Kearny are obviously smarter than you give them credit for. They showed their smarts on Election Day. If you wanted to remain anonymous, you should have been a little more original in the slogan department by not using the one you were campaigning with in your ward. It's really sad that you can't be a productive member of the board of ed. It was what you were elected to do. This board seems to be doing the right thing for the children and the taxpayers of Kearny without you. Kearny's children deserve the best we can afford. They definitely deserve more than personal attacks every time you borrow a coach's coat.
  2. Did anyone remember to celebrate the birthday of Our United States of America Government today, Constitution Day? On this day, September 17, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met for the last time to sign the document they had created, the US Constitution. Constitution Day commemorates the formation and signing of the U.S. Constitution by thirty-nine brave men recognizing all who, by coming of age or by naturalization, have become citizens. The Bill of Rights, Constitutional Amendments 1 through 10, was passed by Congress in 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791 because a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. Amendment I states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The passage of Constitutional Amendments 11 through 27 by Congress followed. Amendment XIV was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868. Section 1. states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Why is all of this relevent, you ask? 222 years later, these are the laws that still protect our rights and protect us from mandatory school uniforms! Our founding fathers knew issues would arise from excessive government powers and established safeguards to protect the rights of individuals. Popular or not, mandatory school uniforms violate those rights and need to be repealed. The BOE should act now to correct this Constitutional violation.
  3. Maybe you should do a little more reading about the Constitution yourself. You should have done some educated research before posting your responses. I don't assume it affords rights, I know it does. If you were a little more knowledgible, then you would know that the US Supreme Court has the final say interpreting the Constitution. Their decisions, in fact, become law. As such, in the 1969 court case, "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District", the United States Supreme Court established the principle that a student’s appearance falls under First and Fourteenth Amendment protection. This decision didn't expire, it still has the effect of law 40 years later. The policy enacted by the Kearny Board of Education and revised recently infringes on both freedoms by restricting a child’s right to express themselves and their individuality through their attire. The uniform policy also restricts our rights as parents to make decisions about issues for our children based upon their best interests and not because of “popular opinion.” Someone else wrote that the hoodie ban was done for the simple fact that the students were wearing them to alter the appearance of the uniform. My point is that if the students really support a uniform policy, why then are so many students trying to put their own, individualized spin on it. I see all attempts by the administration to curtail this "individualism" as the violation of the First Amendment.
  4. I think it should happen. You say that any adult who works in the schools and most parents love the uniforms. I will disagree. Some parents like them and some don't. I would say the same ratio applies to school district employees. As for your statement that I don't see it serves other purposes because I am not in the trenches every day, are we at war or something in the schools? Should students' rights be eliminated because school employees love school uniforms? The point is that kids should be adjusted after three years but that doesn't make it right. As for it working well for all, make the uniforms optional and see how many students continue to wear them. That would be a true test.
  5. Buzzy and crazed? That's original but that's not me. I like your user name because it's original too. The freedoms we have in this country, aren't they wonderful? I'm just stating an opposing point of view, a view that I feel very strongly about. I am a parent of a Kearny student so I see the kids in town going to/from the public schools every day. I agree that the kids I see appear to be happy and well adjusted with their own personalities and looks. I would hope so because they're kids. Why shouldn't they be? Kids are supposed to be happy and well adjusted. The point here is that you list "Different styles of hair cuts, shoes, back packs, clothing etc." Clothing???? Doesn't this statement support my opposition to uniforms? The uniform policy doesn't cover outer clothing so long as it isn't a hooded sweatshirt. Maybe that's why the kids are happy. They can still select and choose their own hair cuts, shoes, and back packs. These items are not part of the uniform policy, at least not yet anyway. Maybe they're happy because they still have a choice regarding their outer clothing, for the time being as well. Like I indicated, they're kids and their supposed to be happy. I am a supporter of a dress code because they have been deemed legal in court cases wheras uniform codes have not. Dress codes violate our Constitutional rights. The school system had a dress code in place for years but the school administration at the time didn't enforce it. A child not being able to wear a hooded sweatshirt to school is ridiculous. Why should parents have to spend extra money to buy "mandatory" uniform items so their children can attend public schools that they are legally entitled to attend for free. Our property taxes allow our children to attend the school system, that's the cost for the entitlement. Having vendors who are charging up to $20.00 each for uniform shirts and more for fleece or sweatshirts with the school emblem is outrageous. Parents have to pay these fees for their children, which can now cost up to a few hundred dollars if they have multiple children attending schools. I like your statement, "Save your stand up for your rights speech for another day." Today is another day and tomorrow will be another day too as long as my rights are concerned. I would hope that the kids stay fine. If they don't learn about individuality and their need to stand up and assert their rights now, they will never make it in the real world. The next uniforms that they could be wearing could be issued by McDonalds or even worse, the NJ Department of Corrections and I am not talking about employment as officers. The current BOE needs to take another look at this issue and give the Constitutional issues a serious review.
  6. They have gone too far!!!! The Kearny Board of Education initiated a "uniform" policy three years ago. That means that the parents and students have no say whatsoever in the attire that they are allowed to wear. As such the Kearny BOE has dictated what is allowed and has the full ability to restrict non-approved items. People need to stand up for their rights and demand that the uniform policy be abolished. The current Board needs to correct this violation of the US Constitution.
  7. Please let me clarify. This was not meant to confuse anyone as I was responding to two separate posts. My praise was meant for the current board. My conclusions are based upon what I've seen by attending meetings over the last four years. Good or bad, they seem to have the kids interests at heart. I was attempting to be critical of a decision made by the members of a previous board, the board that was in place three years ago. My hope was that I could stir enough of a debate regarding the uniforms that the policy would be reviewed and challenged by members of the current board. I think that this group of board members has the ability and the knowledge to do the right thing.
  8. How can the Kearny BOE mandate wearing school uniforms through a policy as a pre-requisite to attending public schools for an education that children are legally entitled to and mandated to receive by law? Although the legality requiring school uniforms in public schools may not have been addressed recently by any court, previous court decisions indicate that the students have the right to express themselves through articles of clothing as long as the clothing does not present a distraction or a safety hazard. Dress codes have been affirmed by courts whereas uniforms policies have been deemed unconstitutional by other courts. It would seem to be an obvious infringement of a person’s freedom of speech and freedom of expression by requiring mandatory uniforms. Although it does show school spirit for those students that wish to participate, it infringes on the rights of other students that do not want a government entity such as the Kearny Board of Education dictating social order or social conformity. Although some people feel that kids are just kids and have no rights, they are actually mistaken. Children have the same rights under the Constitution. Parents have rights too. Are uniforms really a safety mechanism at any school in Kearny? All schools have multiple entrances and students are still required to possess school supplied ID cards. How will uniforms provide safety for our children when ANYONE can show up at ANY VENDOR that sells the shirts and buy as many as they want without identification. The Kearny Board of Education’s decision to create a standardized uniform policy in the Kearny School District was implemented and became effective on October 16, 2006. The idea for a uniform policy was proposed late in May of the 05-06 school year. This time frame did not give the parents who disagreed with the proposal enough time to research the issue and present alternatives. The June 7, 2006 edition of The Observer reported that on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 a public forum was held at Lincoln School in the auditorium in which Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Robert Mooney, spoke with the people in attendance. He indicated that the debate was discussed in great detail by the Board and that no decision had been made as to the implementation of such a policy. The Observer also reported that the factors behind the uniform initiative were discussed. It listed the following reasons: • Allow for more safety. It’s easier to tell who belongs and who doesn’t belong on a school campus. • Removes gang influence, gang colors and gang paraphernalia from schools — including the elementary schools. • Allow teachers and administrators to be certain that weapons, in most cases, are not brought onto school grounds. • Dictate social equality, since not all students’ parents are able to afford high-priced regular “street” clothes. • Instills pride among students. • Calls for a significant savings for parents, since shirts will potentially be priced at only $6 a piece, with the first shirt being provided by the school district. The following counters the points made: • Allow for more safety. The Kearny School District already had an I.D. card program for identifying students. A uniform was not necessary to make it easier to tell who belongs and who doesn’t belong on a school campus. Uniforms can be purchased by anyone and easily worn by anyone to make them look like they belong making them less than secure. I.D. cards are more secure as they are only issued to students and faculty. Ensuring enforcement of the current I.D. card use should have been more than sufficient to address this point. I.D cards are still required in addition to the uniforms. • Removes gang influence, gang colors and gang paraphernalia from schools — including the elementary schools. The color options presented by the Kearny School District at the forum and the blue chosen as the official uniform shirt for the elementary schools are actually used by some gangs. No definition was offered to identify what “gang paraphernalia” entailed as previous discussions indicated that a gang problem did not exist within our school system. When questioned about a gang problem, Mr. Mooney was quoted from the June 6, 2006 public forum by The Observer in its June 7, 2006 edition as saying, “The Kearny Police Department has been in the schools several times this year. We think the police and the school district, that gang influence is minimal. There may be some kids who aspire to get to that level, but in our discussion, we feel that, though there are some signs, the answer for the most part is no.” If the threat or perceived threat of gang influence was truly minimal, a requirement for uniforms was excessive and did not resolve this point of concern. • Allow teachers and administrators to be certain that weapons, in most cases, are not brought onto school grounds. This statement did not address children carrying book bags, lunch boxes or other carrying devices, all of which could surely become an even better route of entry for weapons. A requirement for uniforms did not resolve this point of concern. • Dictate social equality, since not all students’ parents are able to afford high-priced regular “street” clothes. The Kearny Board of Education should not have “dictated” anything to the parents of this school district regarding “social equality” because the KBOE is a government entity and as such is prohibited by law. Teaching tolerance for social differences to create equality among students is an individual parent’s responsibility towards their own children, not the Kearny Board of Education. A requirement for uniforms did nothing to address other items that convey “status” the same as or even more than street clothes, items such as “high priced” shoes, “high priced” jewelry, “high priced” backpacks, “high priced” lunchboxes, “high priced” hair styles and other “high priced” non-prohibited items. A uniform policy did nothing to resolve this point of concern. • Instills pride among students. Students taking ownership of activities that they are involved in such as participating in school, in sports and in other after-school activities instills pride. Parent’s support of their children’s participation in activities instills pride. Children having the option to wear clothing that makes them feel good by expressing themselves instills pride. This justification for a uniform requirement did nothing to resolve this point of concern. • Calls for a significant savings for parents, since shirts will potentially be priced at only $6 a piece, with the first shirt being provided by the school district. Requiring specific “school clothing” did nothing to create significant savings for parents. It actually created an additional expense for those same parents whose children do not have separate “school clothes” and “play clothes.” Parents had to obtain additional, specific clothing that is only worn in school, thus creating a considerable additional expense, especially if they have multiple children in the school system. It is now three years later and shirts can now be purchased for up to $20.00 each. Where is the cost savings now? Another factor that related directly to uniforms and our children’s safety was and still is that should an emergency occur, having a few hundred students at any school all dressed the same, the ability to recognize an individual or individuals by clothing is lost. Clothing is an important identifier for police when a child abduction/missing child case is reported or when a crime is committed by or against a student. When all of the children look the same, valuable time is lost trying to provide police with additional specific information on other identifiers such as shoes, book bags or such. The July 5, 2006 edition of The Observer reported that the Kearny Board of Education voted a week earlier, by a 4-1 margin, to institute a standardized uniform for the lower grades. The Kearny Board of Education’s position was pre-determined in a very short period prior to any open public opinion being heard. There was and still is support for uniforms from families in the school district but the fact is that the Kearny Board of Education’s decision to require a mandatory uniform in this public school system is illegal. Instituting such a policy based upon the reasons provided by the Kearny Board of Education is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights, specifically violating our rights guaranteed under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In the 1969 court case, "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District", the United States Supreme Court established the principle that a student’s appearance falls under First Amendment protection. The policy enacted by the Kearny Board of Education and revised recently infringes on both freedoms by restricting a child’s right to express themselves and their individuality through their attire. The uniform policy also restricts our rights as parents to make decisions about issues for our children based upon their best interests and not because of “popular opinion.” In a letter sent to parents from Mr. Mooney dated July 2006, Mr. Mooney stated, “Surveys were sent home with an overwhelming positive response of 83%.” What they failed to mention was that only about 200 surveys were returned. Public opinion and strong emotional outpouring, not law, guided the Board’s decision to enact this policy. The current uniform policy leaves too many unclear areas of concern, is too vague and creates situations open to interpretation regarding equal application and equal enforcement. The Kearny Board of Education has not clearly identified its ability to enforce such a policy. The uniform policy should be rescinded and an enforceable dress code should be implemented, uniforms could be allowed as an option.
  9. Its pretty easy to say "Vote out all of the Board of Ed members" without explaining why and without backing it up with some specifics. I've been reading these posts on KOTW and have to wonder how people get their information to form such strong, negative opinions. The information available to the public doesn't seem to substantiate these claims or people's positions. I attend board meetings as well as town council meetings from time to time. What I see is that the same people from the public are usually present at each meeting which doesn't amount to many. Rarely do people avail themselves of their right to voice their opinions publicly on the current topics in discussion. People in town just aren't interested in participating in government, least of all participating in government related to the education of our children. Being critical of our elected officials on this blog is a start but it doesn't have any real value unless people are willing to actively participate during public meetings. I think the members of the BOE as well as the teachers and administrators of the Kearny school district should all be commended for meeting and exceeding the educational needs of our children. Contrary to some of the opinions posted, they seem to be doing it within budget and without raising taxes. Also contrary to some opinions, the people of Kearny do approve the BOE budget every year. Mr. Campbell should receive some credit for his input, as should the eight other board members, the superintendent, the teachers and administrators. All BOE members seem to question and debate issues when they arise during the public meetings. Collectively, they seem to work as a group and function as a board. It shouldn't be about the numbers being against Mr. Campbell but rather it should be about what is in the best interests of the children of our community. The BOE is comprised of nine individuals. One would expect that they could take nine different positions on any subject matter yet still agree on an outcome, whether or not it is a popular one. It would seem more important to know what is being voted on and how each member is voting rather than identifying board members that vote against the consensus solely because they can. Just remember that elected officials of the BOE live in Kearny, pay the same taxes as everyone else and work to ensure that our children's educational needs are fulfilled.
×
×
  • Create New...