Whining in class

[Guest Paul]

Two days after he was admonished against preaching in his classroom, Mr. Paszkiewicz became engaged in a discussion in the same classroom. He used the opportunity to whine that his words had been changed, an obvious swipe at Matthew who had complained about his conduct, but of course hadn't at all changed his words.

Here is the discussion in the October 10 meeting on that subject:

i. [October 10, 2006, 10:11-10:56] {Matthew} “Do you remember another, another incident where, um Student Y asked you, I think he asked you a question, something to do with, um, ‘I was talking to this student and he --- and she told me something about that going to church would prevent kids from having sex,’ or something like that.” {Paszkiewicz} “Yes, mm-hmm, I remember vividly.” {Matthew} “Yeah, and I remember what you said in response to that was ‘what I would do would be to ask the student,’ which is a very good idea.” {Paszkiewicz} “Go back to the individual.” {Matthew} “And ask the student, because, you know, that’s how you think you should do it. You then said ‘because my words may get changed.’” {Paszkiewicz} “No, I didn’t say my words, I said the individual’s words get changed.”

However, here is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said:

ii. [september 27, 2006, 0:34-1:06] {Paszkiewicz} “What I’m going to suggest, what I’m going to suggest is ask the student. She’s the one that made the statement, ask her. When I discuss these kinds of issues, my words get changed, and I think that could be very dangerous. I’d love to be able to share more with you on the subject, but I know what’s going to happen.”

Sure sounds like a thinly veiled, whining accusation to me, two days after a student had reported him for misconduct; and a denial yet again of the facts. This behavior does not engender confidence in Mr. Paszkiewicz's response to this situation.

[Bryan]

However, here is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said:

ii. [september 27, 2006, 0:34-1:06] {Paszkiewicz} “What I’m going to suggest, what I’m going to suggest is ask the student. She’s the one that made the statement, ask her. When I discuss these kinds of issues, my words get changed, and I think that could be very dangerous. I’d love to be able to share more with you on the subject, but I know what’s going to happen.”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that from a recording session, or based on Matthew's notes?

[Guest Guest]

JUST STOP PAUL!!! YOU BIG BABY

[Guest Gil from Brooklyn]

Two days after he was admonished against preaching in his classroom, Mr. Paszkiewicz became engaged in a discussion in the same classroom. He used the opportunity to whine that his words had been changed, an obvious swipe at Matthew who had complained about his conduct, but of course hadn't at all changed his words.

Here is the discussion in the October 10 meeting on that subject:

i. [October 10, 2006, 10:11-10:56] {Matthew} “Do you remember another, another incident where, um Student Y asked you, I think he asked you a question, something to do with, um, ‘I was talking to this student and he --- and she told me something about that going to church would prevent kids from having sex,’ or something like that.” {Paszkiewicz} “Yes, mm-hmm, I remember vividly.” {Matthew} “Yeah, and I remember what you said in response to that was ‘what I would do would be to ask the student,’ which is a very good idea.” {Paszkiewicz} “Go back to the individual.” {Matthew} “And ask the student, because, you know, that’s how you think you should do it. You then said ‘because my words may get changed.’” {Paszkiewicz} “No, I didn’t say my words, I said the individual’s words get changed.”

However, here is what Mr. Paszkiewicz actually said:

ii. [september 27, 2006, 0:34-1:06] {Paszkiewicz} “What I’m going to suggest, what I’m going to suggest is ask the student. She’s the one that made the statement, ask her. When I discuss these kinds of issues, my words get changed, and I think that could be very dangerous. I’d love to be able to share more with you on the subject, but I know what’s going to happen.”

Sure sounds like a thinly veiled, whining accusation to me, two days after a student had reported him for misconduct; and a denial yet again of the facts. This behavior does not engender confidence in Mr. Paszkiewicz's response to this situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoa - am I reading this correctly? It seems that you are attacking Mr. P for refusing to discuss a sensitive issue in the classroom. I thought that this was the correction of the conduct that your son requested, no? Now, could he have been a little more sensitive to Matthew? Sure. Would I characterize it as a whiny swipe? Well, that's a real stretch.

Basically, what you're asking Mr. P to do is treat Matthew with kid gloves two days after Matthew reported him to his boss without discussing the matter with him first. While I would agree that Matthew has no obligation to discuss the matter with Mr. P first, I would suggest that - for all the maturity that Matthew clearly possesses - he was absolutely capable of doing so and, instead, chose not to provide such courtesy to Mr. P (as was his prerogative).

At this point, I would ask all of us to be honest with ourselves. If faced with someone who has made complaints to your boss about your performance at work that threatened the livelihood of your family - without affording you the courtesy of discussing the matter with you first - whether you would have been capable of those "whiny swipes". Before we get off on a tangent, please note that I'm not asking whether Mr. P's discussion of religion in the classroom was acceptable or unacceptable. I am simply dealing with the above post, and asking whether Mr. P's comments in the classroom on September 27th represented the reasonable conduct of a human being, or whether they were examples of outrageous conduct that cannot be tolerated within our schools.

Please note that I STILL think that Mr. P's original comments in the classroom were inappropriate. However, I am sensing that you are getting frustrated at the glacial pace of the administration. And I think that - in an attempt to keep the pressure on the administration (a la Alinsky) - you are taking somewhat minor points and trying to twist them into major points. In my humble opinion, I think that all of this is taking the focus away from the truly major points - which are rightly deserving of attention.

That being said, I would love to consider any arguments that you, Strife or others can make to convince me that I am wrong as to the topic at hand that do not delve into Mr. P's original discussion of religion. The way I see it, you would have to argue that human nature does not apply to teachers. But there's enough bright minds on this forum to make an alternative argument.

Any takers?

[Strife767]

JUST STOP PAUL!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'STOP SHOWING US WHAT A DICK PASZKIEWICZ IS!'

[Strife767]

Whoa - am I reading this correctly?  It seems that you are attacking Mr. P for refusing to discuss a sensitive issue in the classroom.

Nope, you're not reading it correctly, then. The 'attacking' is for his comment about being unwilling to speak on a subject because he claims "my words get changed," a comment that is not only false, but clearly directed at Matthew.

That level of immaturity (not to mention dishonesty) is what Paul is referring to.

[Guest Paul]

Whoa - am I reading this correctly?  It seems that you are attacking Mr. P for refusing to discuss a sensitive issue in the classroom.  I thought that this was the correction of the conduct that your son requested, no?  Now, could he have been a little more sensitive to Matthew?  Sure.  Would I characterize it as a whiny swipe?  Well, that's a real stretch. 

Basically, what you're asking Mr. P to do is treat Matthew with kid gloves two days after Matthew reported him to his boss without discussing the matter with him first.  While I would agree that Matthew has no obligation to discuss the matter with Mr. P first, I would suggest that - for all the maturity that Matthew clearly possesses - he was absolutely capable of doing so and, instead, chose not to provide such courtesy to Mr. P (as was his prerogative). 

At this point, I would ask all of us to be honest with ourselves.  If faced with someone who has made complaints to your boss about your performance at work that threatened the livelihood of your family - without affording you the courtesy of discussing the matter with you first - whether you would have been capable of those "whiny swipes".  Before we get off on a tangent, please note that I'm not asking whether Mr. P's discussion of religion in the classroom was acceptable or unacceptable.  I am simply dealing with the above post, and asking whether Mr. P's comments in the classroom on September 27th represented the reasonable conduct of a human being, or whether they were examples of outrageous conduct that cannot be tolerated within our schools.

Please note that I STILL think that Mr. P's original comments in the classroom were inappropriate.  However, I am sensing that you are getting frustrated at the glacial pace of the administration.  And I think that - in an attempt to keep the pressure on the administration (a la Alinsky) - you are taking somewhat minor points and trying to twist them into major points.  In my humble opinion, I think that all of this is taking the focus away from the truly major points - which are rightly deserving of attention. 

That being said, I would love to consider any arguments that you, Strife or others can make to convince me that I am wrong as to the topic at hand that do not delve into Mr. P's original discussion of religion.  The way I see it, you would have to argue that human nature does not apply to teachers.  But there's enough bright minds on this forum to make an alternative argument.

Any takers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gil, I appreciate what I see as a genuine desire to be fair on your part. However, I think the swipe was clear and intentional. The appropriate response from the teacher was humility. There has been not a shred of that to this day, and this was the beginning of it.

[Guest Guest]

Nope, you're not reading it correctly, then. The 'attacking' is for his comment about being unwilling to speak on a subject because he claims "my words get changed," a comment that is not only false, but clearly directed at Matthew.

That level of immaturity (not to mention dishonesty) is what Paul is referring to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another view of "my words get changed" is that they are... by Mr. P.

[Bryan]

Nope, you're not reading it correctly, then. The 'attacking' is for his comment about being unwilling to speak on a subject because he claims "my words get changed," a comment that is not only false, but clearly directed at Matthew.

Are "you" and "me" the same word?

"Using "me" instead of "you" was a very thin veil indeed."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=48078

That level of immaturity (not to mention dishonesty) is what Paul is referring to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems inarguable that Paszkiewicz's words were changed. Strife as much as admits in a recent post in a different thread.

Where's the dishonesty?

[Guest Guest]

Are "you" and "me" the same word?

"Using "me" instead of "you" was a very thin veil indeed."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=48078

It seems inarguable that Paszkiewicz's words were changed.  Strife as much as admits in a recent post in a different thread.

Where's the dishonesty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What part of "You belong in Hell" directed at a captive audience of minors don't you get?

Oh Bryan, with that finely-tuned brain of yours, tell us how you would support a Jewish or Muslim Mr. P saying Jesus was not the Son of God?

I haven't seen any responses to that question yet, but I know you've got the cojones to be the first.

[Bryan]

What part of "You belong in Hell" directed at a captive audience of minors don't you get?

Ah, "Guest" is here! To deflect from the issue of the LaClairs misquoting Paszkiewicz ("Then it really is, to hell with you."/"Then it really is, to hell with me") and then Strife compounding the error!

You're our hero!

Oh Bryan, with that finely-tuned brain of yours, tell us how you would support a Jewish or Muslim Mr. P saying Jesus was not the Son of God?

I wouldn't (in a public school, anyway). But there's no parallel, here. If a Jewish instructor said things parallel to what Paszkiewicz said, on the other hand ("I don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah" or something similar within a larger context) then I don't have a problem with it.