Put Them In Jail, Not Back In School

[molson_golden2002]

From today's Buffalo News:

 

By DONN ESMONDE

Plan an assault, attack a student and take out a teacher as collateral damage. In a sane district, six students - each with a history of trouble - would never again set foot in that school. In Buffalo, they walked back into the Academy for Visual and Performing Arts escorted by the superintendent.

Actions need to have consequences. If they don't, then good kids are victims, teachers are humiliated, and rules are useless. According to Performing Arts teachers, the returning six were greeted by friends with high-fives.

 

Superintendent James Williams' response to a November assault at Performing Arts gave logic a beating. Six seniors plotted with friends to divert school security. Then they attacked a targeted student in chemistry class. Teacher Bob Kurasiewicz was badly hurt in the melee. School officials believe he will retire rather than return - costing kids an excellent teacher and putting a sad punctuation on a fine career.

 

Instead of sending the six to separate schools, or to the discipline-tight alternative school, Williams last week let them return.

 

"It's degrading," Rebecca Felicetta, a special-ed teacher at Performing Arts, said recently at a downtown coffee shop. "None of us feels safe."

 

By bending over limbo-backwards to be sensitive to the insensitive, Williams undercut his teachers, pumped up screw-ups and sent a message that anything goes. "The [six attackers] are being treated like the victims," said Jim Healy, a history teacher who taught all of the six. "Teachers feel that they're on their own, there is no support."

 

As the husband of a Buffalo teacher, although not one working in a classroom, I hear the concerns firsthand.

 

Williams said he acted after the young men's parents showed concern, the community group MADDADs got involved, and a local pastor stepped in.

 

"You talk to students, that's how you change behavior," Williams said. "We don't want these kids out on the street knocking us on the head someday."

 

It is a nice sentiment, if these were freshman first offenders. The six are seniors. A district spokesman told me that "most of them have never been in trouble before."

 

All six were previously suspended - two for having knives and another for fighting a teacher, said teachers union officials. "Why aren't the rights of our [other] 948 students being protected as much as the rights of these six kids?" asked theater teacher Gerry Durak.

 

Put the rights of the wrongdoers first, and you open the door to fear and frustration. And this isn't about race. The victim and six attackers all are minorities, as are most of the school's students.

 

"The message is, there are no consequences," Durak said, "and school is no safe haven."

 

By standing logic on its head, Williams gives a bad rap to a good school. Performing Arts is filled with talented musicians and artists - and teachers who help them to blossom. There now is talk of teachers wanting out and parents pulling their kids. According to Healy, this is the fifth assault this year on a Performing Arts teacher. There is a crying need for discipline across the district. Instead, Williams handed out free passes.

 

Plan a vicious assault and take out a teacher - accidentally or otherwise - and the disciplinary hammer should come down. That is how violent kids change their behavior: Do something way wrong, and you pay a price. The price includes barring the door to the school you disgraced with menace and mayhem. Those are consequences that teach a lesson, that change behavior, that send a message districtwide.

 

Williams sent a different sort of message. I don't know which was worse, the attack in the classroom or the assault on common sense.

[Tux of Borg]

I remember when a school fight consisted of two chicks pulling each other's hair. We'd form a circle around them hoping to see someone get their shirt ripped off. Aww... the good ole days.

[yall]

Don't worry. I'm willing to bet at least 2 of them are incarcerated within 2 years.

[molson_golden2002]

Don't worry. I'm willing to bet at least 2 of them are incarcerated within 2 years.

Yes, but its not hard to understand why people wouldn't want their kids in the Buffalo school system

[Wacka]

Don't worry. I'm willing to bet at least 2 of them are incarcerated within 2 years.

 

Or dead.

[GG]

Irony? Calling Dr. Irony. Come in Dr. Irony.

[Orton's Arm]

Williams sent a different sort of message. I don't know which was worse, the attack in the classroom or the assault on common sense.

An excellent article. I don't understand why the superintendent is completely unwilling to discipline these kids or to maintain a safe school environment.

[OCinBuffalo]

Yes, but its not hard to understand why people wouldn't want their kids in the Buffalo school system

Perhaps if we raised taxes and paid them more money all these problems would go away?

[OCinBuffalo]

An excellent article. I don't understand why the superintendent is completely unwilling to discipline these kids or to maintain a safe school environment.

Like I said, we haven't raised taxes high enough so that we can pay this super enough so that he is willing to discipline these kids. The solution is always raise taxes, it is never to hold the people who receive our tax money accountable for bad behavior. Don't you know that? Aren't you as smart as we?

 

Only idiots and people from the Midwest think that we should actually require competence, leadership, and the ability to make sound decisions. This situation is not anyone's fault - certainly not the super's since we have already established that he doesn't have enough money. Everyone simply has a different point of view. The best thing to do is to form a study group that will study each point of view in this situation, of course we will need to raise taxes in order to pay for said group, but once that is done, we are one our way! After the six-month study, we want to be sure every voice is heard, we will then start a new program in the school district. Of course we will need to raise taxes to do that, no biggie!

 

This new program will focus on consulting the district regarding the findings of our study group. It will also spend time counseling all principals, and the super, in the district on the points of view established in the study group. Of course once this is done, now the super in question will be armed with the power of everyone's point of view. Now they will be ready to sit down and negotiate with all the people involved. The super could not have done this alone because, for the last time, they don't have/make enough money!

 

This is a much better plan because, of course, we came up with it! Finally, we will need to raise taxes to keep our study group and the facilitators of our new program going regardless of whether it has solved the problem or not. Why? We simply cannot afford to cut educational programs in this country. It is our children's future we are talking about here and anyone who says differently is a complete idiot! They are obviously not as smart as we, and they simply do not care about children. The adjective, of the day, for anyone who dares post something contradictory to this is: imbecilic. The number of the day is 7.

 

I dare you to post: confirm my choice of adjective and/or number.

 

 

Hey liberals, sound familiar?

[Orton's Arm]

Like I said, we haven't raised taxes high enough so that we can pay this super enough so that he is willing to discipline these kids. The solution is always raise taxes, it is never to hold the people who receive our tax money accountable for bad behavior. Don't you know that? Aren't you as smart as we?

 

Only idiots and people from the Midwest think that we should actually require competence, leadership, and the ability to make sound decisions. This situation is not anyone's fault - certainly not the super's since we have already established that he doesn't have enough money. Everyone simply has a different point of view. The best thing to do is to form a study group that will study each point of view in this situation, of course we will need to raise taxes in order to pay for said group, but once that is done, we are one our way! After the six-month study, we want to be sure every voice is heard, we will then start a new program in the school district. Of course we will need to raise taxes to do that, no biggie!

 

This new program will focus on consulting the district regarding the findings of our study group. It will also spend time counseling all principals, and the super, in the district on the points of view established in the study group. Of course once this is done, now the super in question will be armed with the power of everyone's point of view. Now they will be ready to sit down and negotiate with all the people involved. The super could not have done this alone because, for the last time, they don't have/make enough money!

 

This is a much better plan because, of course, we came up with it! Finally, we will need to raise taxes to keep our study group and the facilitators of our new program going regardless of whether it has solved the problem or not. Why? We simply cannot afford to cut educational programs in this country. It is our children's future we are talking about here and anyone who says differently is a complete idiot! They are obviously not as smart as we, and they simply do not care about children. The adjective, of the day, for anyone who dares post something contradictory to this is: imbecilic. The number of the day is 7.

 

I dare you to post: confirm my choice of adjective and/or number.

 

 

Hey liberals, sound familiar?

Your post is funny, but also a depressingly real portrayal of the way NYS's government works. Or fails to work, in this case.

[TheMadCap]

Like I said, we haven't raised taxes high enough so that we can pay this super enough so that he is willing to discipline these kids. The solution is always raise taxes, it is never to hold the people who receive our tax money accountable for bad behavior. Don't you know that? Aren't you as smart as we?

 

Only idiots and people from the Midwest think that we should actually require competence, leadership, and the ability to make sound decisions. This situation is not anyone's fault - certainly not the super's since we have already established that he doesn't have enough money. Everyone simply has a different point of view. The best thing to do is to form a study group that will study each point of view in this situation, of course we will need to raise taxes in order to pay for said group, but once that is done, we are one our way! After the six-month study, we want to be sure every voice is heard, we will then start a new program in the school district. Of course we will need to raise taxes to do that, no biggie!

 

This new program will focus on consulting the district regarding the findings of our study group. It will also spend time counseling all principals, and the super, in the district on the points of view established in the study group. Of course once this is done, now the super in question will be armed with the power of everyone's point of view. Now they will be ready to sit down and negotiate with all the people involved. The super could not have done this alone because, for the last time, they don't have/make enough money!

 

This is a much better plan because, of course, we came up with it! Finally, we will need to raise taxes to keep our study group and the facilitators of our new program going regardless of whether it has solved the problem or not. Why? We simply cannot afford to cut educational programs in this country. It is our children's future we are talking about here and anyone who says differently is a complete idiot! They are obviously not as smart as we, and they simply do not care about children. The adjective, of the day, for anyone who dares post something contradictory to this is: imbecilic. The number of the day is 7.

 

I dare you to post: confirm my choice of adjective and/or number.

 

 

Hey liberals, sound familiar?

 

 

Sadly, ironically.....true...

[molson_golden2002]

Like I said, we haven't raised taxes high enough so that we can pay this super enough so that he is willing to discipline these kids. The solution is always raise taxes, it is never to hold the people who receive our tax money accountable for bad behavior. Don't you know that? Aren't you as smart as we?

 

Only idiots and people from the Midwest think that we should actually require competence, leadership, and the ability to make sound decisions. This situation is not anyone's fault - certainly not the super's since we have already established that he doesn't have enough money. Everyone simply has a different point of view. The best thing to do is to form a study group that will study each point of view in this situation, of course we will need to raise taxes in order to pay for said group, but once that is done, we are one our way! After the six-month study, we want to be sure every voice is heard, we will then start a new program in the school district. Of course we will need to raise taxes to do that, no biggie!

 

This new program will focus on consulting the district regarding the findings of our study group. It will also spend time counseling all principals, and the super, in the district on the points of view established in the study group. Of course once this is done, now the super in question will be armed with the power of everyone's point of view. Now they will be ready to sit down and negotiate with all the people involved. The super could not have done this alone because, for the last time, they don't have/make enough money!

 

This is a much better plan because, of course, we came up with it! Finally, we will need to raise taxes to keep our study group and the facilitators of our new program going regardless of whether it has solved the problem or not. Why? We simply cannot afford to cut educational programs in this country. It is our children's future we are talking about here and anyone who says differently is a complete idiot! They are obviously not as smart as we, and they simply do not care about children. The adjective, of the day, for anyone who dares post something contradictory to this is: imbecilic. The number of the day is 7.

 

I dare you to post: confirm my choice of adjective and/or number.

 

 

Hey liberals, sound familiar?

Actually you have it all wrong. This is something else we can blame the press for. Bad news like this is all that the press cares about. What about little Johnny who passed is test with a 90 in that same class where the fight happened? Did the press report that? No! They hate Bush to much to report that!

[OCinBuffalo]

Actually you have it all wrong. This is something else we can blame the press for. Bad news like this is all that the press cares about. What about little Johnny who passed is test with a 90 in that same class where the fight happened? Did the press report that? No! They hate Bush to much to report that!

How did I know that the clear failing of bad policy, that has been advocated for years by liberals, would end up someone else's fault? Of course it's not the fault of liberals:

 

All liberals are smart and therefore create smart policy.

Smart people and smart policies do not fail.

Therefore liberals, by definition, cannot fail.

And anyone who disagrees with liberals must be an idiot, because liberals are smart.

 

This is the logic that is used by the far-left in just about everything. Whether you agree or not is immaterial because it is a fact! The use of this logic is precisely why two things occur:

 

1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice!

2. As you have so obviously stated above: Every single time a far-left policy/idea fails, it automatically must be someone else's fault. Why? Because taking responsibility for a failed policy would call into question the "smartness" of liberals. That contradicts premise #1 above so there is no other choice but to blame someone else!

 

Edit: I forgot the solution part: in order to stop looking ridiculous, liberals, and you, need to drop the first two premises out of their thinking. Being a liberal doesn't make you smart, not being a liberal doesn't make you stupid. Being a liberal makes you: you. Any plan can fail. Liberal plans are not immune to failure, just as much as conservative plans are not immune to failure. Running around presuming that those who don't agree with you are idiots, and even worse,publicly stating your false presumption is the best way to play into their hands. Why? Because when, not if, some of your ideas fail, you are stuck with the presumption you created. When the facts prove otherwise, you look like the idiot.

[Orton's Arm]

1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, they must be inferior - there's no other choice!

I'd add Bungee Jumper and Ramius to the list of those who prefer name-calling to intelligent debate.

[jjamie12]

1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, they must be inferior - there's no other choice!

And it really helps further the debate to paint everyone on one side of a political spectrum with a convenient brush so as to dismiss them. As a counter-point to your example, Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as someone who could be labeled as 'far-left' who responds to arguments in a lucid manner. Now, whether or not you agree with those arguments is another story...

 

In any event, I believe that someone could make a good case for more $$ for schools based on this example:

 

It is not that the Super doesn't have enough money to make a good choice, it's that the kind of Super that you will get for the money you pay will be more likely to make bad choices than someone who becomes a Super in an environment where a school Super makes, as an example, 5 times what they make now. If you want to get better Super's, pay them alot of money, give the school board latitude to fire them, and watch competitive forces draw the talented people into the school system. It could be argued that this Super is incompetent, and the reason for the incompetence is the lack of talented alternatives to this 'bad' super.

[DC Tom]

I'd add Bungee Jumper and Ramius to the list of those who prefer name-calling to intelligent debate.

 

Like you'd even know an intelligent debate if it bit you in the ass.

[OCinBuffalo]

And it really helps further the debate to paint everyone on one side of a political spectrum with a convenient brush so as to dismiss them. As a counter-point to your example, Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as someone who could be labeled as 'far-left' who responds to arguments in a lucid manner. Now, whether or not you agree with those arguments is another story...

 

In any event, I believe that someone could make a good case for more $$ for schools based on this example:

 

It is not that the Super doesn't have enough money to make a good choice, it's that the kind of Super that you will get for the money you pay will be more likely to make bad choices than someone who becomes a Super in an environment where a school Super makes, as an example, 5 times what they make now. If you want to get better Super's, pay them alot of money, give the school board latitude to fire them, and watch competitive forces draw the talented people into the school system. It could be argued that this Super is incompetent, and the reason for the incompetence is the lack of talented alternatives to this 'bad' super.

Dennis Kucinich - yes the same guy who basically bankrupted Cleveland when he was the mayor, this is the guy you want to hold up as poster-boy? Ouch. It took them years to recover from Denny's Great Society. Ever heard of "the Mistake by the Lake?" That was the nickname ol' Denny earned for Cleveland. Great Job! In fact, I was living there at the tail end of the recovery, after they had LOWERED taxes and created the Flats. Turned the whole city around. Kucinich better be going around kissing all the ass he can after that debacle; for the rest of his life. I admire his guts(or he is just plain nuts) for actually running for President with a record like that. Talk about failing upwards.

 

Next.

 

You obviously missed my point. I don't care how much a guy makes - an adult needs to be responsible for the authority they have been given, or that adult needs to be given less or no authority at all. This has nothing to do with Budgets. I have good friend, fraternity brother, who is a principal now. (By the way he got free school and the job because he is half African-American - I figured I would throw you a bone - but he is a solid guy and has worked hard and has earned the job regardless). I guarantee you he is not making worse or better decisions based on how much money he makes I've known the kid for years and he was capable of taking responsibility and making sound decisions way before he got his current job. If I asked him: "Scott, would you be able to make better choices if you made more money?" He would say:"OC, put down the crack pipe. That is the most retarded question I have ever heard. I have a lot more self respect than that. Don't get me wrong, I'll take the money you want to give me; and then you and I can go up to Canada and make great decisions about which stripper has the best t_ts!"

 

If your boss came up to you one day and said: "I'll pay you more so you can make better decisions", are you telling me you wouldn't be offended? At the very least, you wouldn't develop a serious doubt about your abilities? As though you are merely a beast of burden who works better if they get fed more? The proof is the inverse: If your boss came up to you and said: "I'll pay you more because you have been doing a fine job" you would be gratified.

 

Therefore: Is it OK for you to speak of others as beasts of burden, in this case this superintendent, and in this fashion because somehow human nature applies to you differently than the superintendent?

[jjamie12]

Dennis Kucinich - ... ... ...Talk about failing upwards.

 

Next.

You said:

1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice!

To which I responded:

And it really helps further the debate to paint everyone on one side of a political spectrum with a convenient brush so as to dismiss them. As a counter-point to your example, Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as someone who could be labeled as 'far-left' who responds to arguments in a lucid manner. Now, whether or not you agree with those arguments is another story...

I could have added that someone calling for intelligent debate while in the same post making a statement like the above would be highly entertaining if it weren't so typical of the actual level of 'debate' in our country.

 

You obviously missed my point. I... ... ... "I'll pay you more because you have been doing a fine job" you would be gratified.

I didn't miss your point, you missed mine. Let me try again. It isn't about how much money this particular super makes. If we decided, tomorrow, to pay superintendants, say, $500k a year, and give the school board wide discretion to fire their super, you would see a marked improvement in super performance, after a period of time. Just watch how many very talented managers from other walks of life decide to get into education because of the great pay, and, consequently, increase the talent pool in education. The super in question is doing his job as well as he can, presumably. He very clearly doesn't have much of a talent for it. This was an obviously bad decision.

 

Therefore: Is it OK for you to speak of others as beasts of burden, in this case this superintendent, and in this fashion because somehow human nature applies to you differently than the superintendent?

I honestly don't know what this means.

[OCinBuffalo]

I could have added that someone calling for intelligent debate while in the same post making a statement like the above would be highly entertaining if it weren't so typical of the actual level of 'debate' in our country.

So why didn't you? Or, wait, did you?

 

All I did was state the facts about Kucinich. Are you going to deny/disagree with these facts? How is stating fact(s) "typical of the actual level of 'debate' in our country"? I'm glad the facts about your boy Kucinich are highly entertaining to you. I'm sure they are a hysterical for people in Cleveland. The guy has demonstrated through his own actions that he is not qualified to lead a cub scout den. Moreover, when presented with Kucinich's record by me(go look it up), you start complaining? The guy bankrupted Cleveland on his own, what does that have to do with me?

I didn't miss your point, you missed mine. Let me try again. It isn't about how much money this particular super makes. If we decided, tomorrow, to pay superintendants, say, $500k a year, and give the school board wide discretion to fire their super, you would see a marked improvement in super performance, after a period of time. Just watch how many very talented managers from other walks of life decide to get into education because of the great pay, and, consequently, increase the talent pool in education. The super in question is doing his job as well as he can, presumably. He very clearly doesn't have much of a talent for it. This was an obviously bad decision.

No, I understand the point your are attempting to make. My issue with it is this: it makes no sense. How much money a guy makes is no guarantee of success! Your logic defies fact! Are you saying that the Enron CEO would not have ripped all those people off if he made more money??? How about CEOs in general? According to your logic we can guarantee ourselves that no top level executive will ever pull an Enron again as long as we pay them enough. Of course not! Ken Lay made a hell of a lot more than your proposed $500,000 and he still f'ed up - and he is not alone. How about the Rigas'? How about Daunte Culpepper? Do you think he wouldn't have gotten sacked by Ko if the Dolphins had paid him more money?

 

People of all walks of life, that make all levels of money, have to be responsible for the authority they are given. Most managers take great pride in the fact that their people rely on them to do the right thing, at the right time. Money has nothing to do with that! What part of this don't you get? Perhaps you have never led? Perhaps you have not been a manager yet? I dunno? But the simple fact is: any real leader will tell you that there is always a time when everyone in their group, platoon, squad, conference room, etc., stops what they are doing, and looks to them to make a decision. It is at that point in time that the leader either earns the respect of his/her people or doesn't. I guarantee you no one(the leader or the team) is thinking about how much money they each make at that point in time. Dude - check the quotes in the article - every one is about leadership/management decisions. I don't see one where a teacher is saying: "Well, if the Superintendent made more money....." The guy should be fired, period. Not because he lacks talent, but because he just lost the respect of the people he is supposedly "leading".

I honestly don't know what this means.

I can see where you wouldn't get the reference. How about answering some simple questions: What qualifies you to sit in judgment of this situation such that you can make a definitive statement that simply adding money to this equation will solve all problems? And, how do you "know" that will work? Why is this the only thing you have offered as a solution? Why are you suggesting that "talent" has a direct relationship to money(i.e. All people with talent make lots of money)? What data can you present that supports any of your answers?

[molson_golden2002]

How did I know that the clear failing of bad policy, that has been advocated for years by liberals, would end up someone else's fault? Of course it's not the fault of liberals:

 

All liberals are smart and therefore create smart policy.

Smart people and smart policies do not fail.

Therefore liberals, by definition, cannot fail.

And anyone who disagrees with liberals must be an idiot, because liberals are smart.

 

This is the logic that is used by the far-left in just about everything. Whether you agree or not is immaterial because it is a fact! The use of this logic is precisely why two things occur:

 

1. Every single time someone disagrees with the far-left, they immediately begin calling that person names, rather than respond to the argument, because, due to the logic above, that person must be inferior - there's no other choice!

2. As you have so obviously stated above: Every single time a far-left policy/idea fails, it automatically must be someone else's fault. Why? Because taking responsibility for a failed policy would call into question the "smartness" of liberals. That contradicts premise #1 above so there is no other choice but to blame someone else!

 

Edit: I forgot the solution part: in order to stop looking ridiculous, liberals, and you, need to drop the first two premises out of their thinking. Being a liberal doesn't make you smart, not being a liberal doesn't make you stupid. Being a liberal makes you: you. Any plan can fail. Liberal plans are not immune to failure, just as much as conservative plans are not immune to failure. Running around presuming that those who don't agree with you are idiots, and even worse,publicly stating your false presumption is the best way to play into their hands. Why? Because when, not if, some of your ideas fail, you are stuck with the presumption you created. When the facts prove otherwise, you look like the idiot.

Wow! First off, I never called you any names at all in my reply. You are dreaming up insults to be outraged, I guess. Secondly I only offered a silly reply because your post was silly. You went off on some rant that had nothing at all to do with the story, my position on it or anyone else's postion associated with the story. Who has said more money was needed for this situation? No one. You made that up just like you made up my insulting you. Do you know what the scarecrow was in the Wizard of Oz? He was a strawman. Much like your arguments. I said fire the guy, not pay him more money. Stick to the facts. Maybe if you would do that you wouldn't get so hung up on people thinking they are smart or not.