• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UPDATE: Pay-To-Pee Teacher Faces No Discipline[W:146]

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Last week, two Vancouver, Wash. third graders said they wet their pants after their teacher would not let them use the bathroom. The students, both girls, said the reason for the denial was that they hadn’t accumulated enough pretend classroom money to pay for privilege.

The unidentified teacher will not be punished in any way as a result of one investigation of the incidents, a teachers union representative told The Columbian.

A separate investigation of the same incident based on livid mother Jasmine Al-Ayadhi’s complaint remains pending.

The alleged incidents occurred May 15 at Mill Plain Elementary School.

The pretend money is designed to teach students about the value of money. Students earn the fictional funds by doing their homework, for example, or by being nice to others. They can spend it to buy pizza or pointless crap like a squirt gun. Students say they must also use the fake cash to pay for bathroom breaks.

The unidentified teacher exacts a seemingly high imaginary price for toilet time: $50.

UPDATE: Pay-To-Pee Teacher Faces No Discipline; Mad Mom Vows To Homeschool

Are we truly becoming this stupid, to let little kids pee in their pants because we can't find a different way to teach?
If they're abusing bathroom breaks, they can be cut back without humiliating them.
 
I was always of the attitude that the teacher could go **** himself.

If I gotta go, I gotta go, I was a pretty quiet good student, but I was never gonna let a teacher say no to that.
 
Are we truly becoming this stupid, to let little kids pee in their pants because we can't find a different way to teach?
If they're abusing bathroom breaks, they can be cut back without humiliating them.

Christonacracker, is this for real??
 
Christonacracker, is this for real??

Apparently, from the article/link I provided, it happened in WA state. Not to denigrate a whole area, because I really like certain ecological concerns of the left coast, but they can come up with some ignorant ideas sometimes.
 
Apparently, from the article/link I provided, it happened in WA state. Not to denigrate a whole area, because I really like certain ecological concerns of the left coast, but they can come up with some ignorant ideas sometimes.

If some ****ing teacher made my 3 kids pay to use the bathroom, that person would have real trouble with me.
 
If some ****ing teacher made my 3 kids pay to use the bathroom, that person would have real trouble with me.

One of the mother's was livid and wanted the teacher disciplined, which didn't happen. I guess the school Principle approves of letting 3rd graders soil themselves? What a goofy nation we're becoming.
 
This happens when you try to put a mechanism to control unnecessary bathroom ventures, while not having that "is it an emergency?" out.
 
This happens when you try to put a mechanism to control unnecessary bathroom ventures, while not having that "is it an emergency?" out.

Supposedly, the teacher would've let the child go, if it were an emergency. But the little girl only had $50 left of class money and wanted to buy some popcorn with it later, so she peed herself. Now a little kid choosing a treat over the bathroom is not a surprise but a teacher using that as a ransom on a student is SO stupid.
 
One of the mother's was livid and wanted the teacher disciplined, which didn't happen. I guess the school Principle approves of letting 3rd graders soil themselves? What a goofy nation we're becoming.

The idiot principal should be removed from his/her job.

If nothing else, it could be potentially dangerous for a child to hold in his/her urine which I suspect some of them would do in an effort not to be humiliated in the classroom.
 
50 bucks to take a dump...liberal inflation at its finest.

Yea, I wouldn't expect to see that in a 3rd world country, more less the US. Using bathroom privileges as a tool to teach children how to respect money? They'll grow up as the Port-A-Let Kings of the industry.
 
Supposedly, the teacher would've let the child go, if it were an emergency. But the little girl only had $50 left of class money and wanted to buy some popcorn with it later, so she peed herself. Now a little kid choosing a treat over the bathroom is not a surprise but a teacher using that as a ransom on a student is SO stupid.

Mixing it with other things is not a good idea, but I used to be part of a system where "passes" were distributed. In matters of age-appropriateness, the concept should be flexible, but the way it worked in upper division is they would have so many passes a quarter and once they used them up, they weren't supposed to claim restroom breaks unless it was an emergency. It largely worked.
 
Supposedly, the teacher would've let the child go, if it were an emergency. But the little girl only had $50 left of class money and wanted to buy some popcorn with it later, so she peed herself. Now a little kid choosing a treat over the bathroom is not a surprise but a teacher using that as a ransom on a student is SO stupid.

I'd like to know the teacher in question's credentials to decide what is an emergency and what isn't.
 
Mixing it with other things is not a good idea, but I used to be part of a system where "passes" were distributed. In matters of age-appropriateness, the concept should be flexible, but the way it worked in upper division is they would have so many passes a quarter and once they used them up, they weren't supposed to claim restroom breaks unless it was an emergency. It largely worked.

When I got to High School, they started to monitor bathroom breaks for kids smoking in the stalls but that was the extent of it. Hell, we peed ourselves by accident in elementary not trying too.

But for these adults to hold it out as a paid privilege to 6-10yr olds is absurd and wrong headed. All I knew about money at that age was if I did my chores and picked up some returnable bottles, I got enough change to buy some candy.
 
I'd like to know the teacher in question's credentials to decide what is an emergency and what isn't.

By the time they're doing the pee pee dance, they probably won't make it to the bathroom. ;)
 
I'd like to know the teacher in question's credentials to decide what is an emergency and what isn't.

When students claim emergency, you tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, you weigh their habits and try to instill the before class and after class restroom scheduling. In general, it's a common practice to have some sort of materials that essentially work as "passes" or in this case, money (usually not explicitly money) that are limited.
 
Last edited:
When students claim emergency, you tend to give the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, you weigh their habits and try to instill the before class and after class restroom scheduling. In general, it's a common practice to have some sort of materials that essentially work as "passes" or in this case, money (usually not explicitly money) that are limited.

A 7 year old doesn't know when he's about to have a medical emergency due to holding in his urine.
 
A 7 year old doesn't know when he's about to have a medical emergency due to holding in his urine.

You're not quite understanding the use of the word "emergency." Emergency is used to indicate that you are about to: urinate, defecate, vomit, etc.
 
If people start asking you why the country is going down the drain just point them to the teachers, it starts from there.
 
You're not quite understanding the use of the word "emergency." Emergency is used to indicate that you are about to: urinate, defecate, vomit, etc.

I very much understand the use of the word emergency.

No, emergency means the 7 year old could be physically harmed by holding in his urine. There are many risks involved.
 
I very much understand the use of the word emergency.

No, emergency means the 7 year old could be physically harmed by holding in his urine. There are many risks involved.

But you can likely trust a student to understand the concept of imminent excretion, right?

The crux of the issue seems to be, as Grip was so astute to point out, that the mixing of other rewards with the bathroom privileges caused the conflict of interest.
 
Are we truly becoming this stupid, to let little kids pee in their pants because we can't find a different way to teach?
If they're abusing bathroom breaks, they can be cut back without humiliating them.

Going to the bathroom should not be seen as a privilege but rather the right of the student.
 
Yea, I wouldn't expect to see that in a 3rd world country, more less the US. Using bathroom privileges as a tool to teach children how to respect money? They'll grow up as the Port-A-Let Kings of the industry.

it wasn't so much that as it was that kids earned dollars that they could spend on whatever they wanted that included treats such as popcorn or candy.

of course to a 3rd grader they are going to want candy and popcorn. they are not going to think about going to the bathroom until they have to go.
now they get bathroom breaks during the day going to lunch and stuff but this is in class room breaks.

to me this is a stupid idea. no 3rd grader is going to save money for a bathroom break when there is candy and popcorn they could get later.

it also doesn't surprise me that this teach won't be punished that is the union for you.

funny though because parents have lost their kids over letting them run around in wet or dirty diapers. this teacher lets kids pee in their pants or worse and nothing is done.
 
it wasn't so much that as it was that kids earned dollars that they could spend on whatever they wanted that included treats such as popcorn or candy.

of course to a 3rd grader they are going to want candy and popcorn. they are not going to think about going to the bathroom until they have to go.
now they get bathroom breaks during the day going to lunch and stuff but this is in class room breaks.

to me this is a stupid idea. no 3rd grader is going to save money for a bathroom break when there is candy and popcorn they could get later.

it also doesn't surprise me that this teach won't be punished that is the union for you.

funny though because parents have lost their kids over letting them run around in wet or dirty diapers. this teacher lets kids pee in their pants or worse and nothing is done.

I'm all for teaching kids manners, respect and discipline but there's right and wrong ways. They let kids holler and scream in public, tear up a retail stores products but make them piss themselves. Sounds like our politicians trying to run the gov't as the 3 Stooges.
 
But you can likely trust a student to understand the concept of imminent excretion, right?

The crux of the issue seems to be, as Grip was so astute to point out, that the mixing of other rewards with the bathroom privileges caused the conflict of interest.

You can't trust a child to decide what is a potential medical emergency. Nothing more, nothing less.

Conflict of interest isn't relevant to me when it's a child's well being, especially if that child happened to be mine.
 
Back
Top Bottom