• 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]

vasuderatorrent said:
So you are cool with it?
Click to expand...

Cool with requiring kids to earn the right to fulfill a bodily function? No.

In my kids' schools they always have those "earn a right" chips. Help the teacher file papers, you get to spend study hall playing board games instead of having to do homework. Help the teacher put the chairs on the desks at the end of the day, you get to watch "A Christmas Carol" instead of just having to read it and do a paper on it. Help the teacher erase the chalkboards, you get to skip that night's homework assignment. That stuff is normal.

Help the teacher file papers so you can go to the bathroom when you need to? Never saw it and hope I never do.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
It's not real money.
Click to expand...

To the kids it is. They can purchase items with the money they earned.

Why would this form of currency be any less real for those kids?

My question is how can the child earn this fake money?

If it is 1 or 2 per positive thing done and then charge 50 for a bathroom break, it seems the child will always be a long way off from being able to use the bathroom.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Who is the one that should be punished for being stupid? A grown adult who knows how life works or an emotional kid who hasn't finished childhood training yet?

Don't punish this teacher for doing her job. This job is hard enough. She shouldn't be punished for attempting to keep order in the classroom. We need more creative teachers like this. You guys are whiny just like the little girl that pissed her pants.

Grow the F*** up and stop punishing people for doing their job. That's cruel and irresponsible.
Click to expand...

I'd say if mental torture and public humiliation goes with the job of being a teacher, then she's doing her job spectacularly well.
 
grip said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the kids had just saved up enough "money," they wouldn't have had this problem, would they? #RapeApologism
 
Phys251 said:
If the kids had just saved up enough "money," they wouldn't have had this problem, would they? #RapeApologism
Click to expand...

I just wish one of them would've let a smelly poop and made the teacher gag.
 
grip said:
I just wish one of them would've let a smelly poop and made the teacher gag.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's illegal, not to mention highly disruptive. #RapeApologism
 
Mason66 said:
To the kids it is. They can purchase items with the money they earned.

Why would this form of currency be any less real for those kids?

My question is how can the child earn this fake money?

If it is 1 or 2 per positive thing done and then charge 50 for a bathroom break, it seems the child will always be a long way off from being able to use the bathroom.
Click to expand...

You don't know the currency exchange either way. You also do not know one way or the other if the children were granted funds first. Furthermore, once more, students were not prevented from using the bathroom. They were charged for "non-emergency" bathroom visits, which merely means recreational bathroom visits.
 
Fiddytree said:
You don't know the currency exchange either way. You also do not know one way or the other if the children were granted funds first. Furthermore, once more, students were not prevented from using the bathroom. They were charged for "non-emergency" bathroom visits, which merely means recreational bathroom visits.
Click to expand...

Do you not see that it was an emergency because the 2 girls wet their pants?

How much more of an emergency could it have been?
 
Mason66 said:
Do you not see that it was an emergency because the 2 girls wet their pants?

How much more of an emergency could it have been?
Click to expand...

apparently you have not yet recognized that NO student was denied the opportunity to go to the bathroom
neither child made such a request. how was the teacher to then know either student needed a bathroom break?
 
justabubba said:
apparently you have not yet recognized that NO student was denied the opportunity to go to the bathroom
neither child made such a request. how was the teacher to then know either student needed a bathroom break?
Click to expand...

So the OP is alie that the child had to use fake money to buy permission to use the bathroom?
 
Mason66 said:
So the OP is alie that the child had to use fake money to buy permission to use the bathroom?
Click to expand...

the child had the fake money to 'buy' a bathroom experience
she wanted to use it instead to buy popcorn

but more significantly: the student NEVER told the teacher she needed to use the bathroom
now, explain why the teacher is held at fault by the likes of you when the student never notified the teacher she needed to access the bathroom
 
justabubba said:
the child had the fake money to 'buy' a bathroom experience
she wanted to use it instead to buy popcorn

but more significantly: the student NEVER told the teacher she needed to use the bathroom
now, explain why the teacher is held at fault by the likes of you when the student never notified the teacher she needed to access the bathroom
Click to expand...

If the student didn't tell the teacher she needed to use the bathroom, how did she make the choice.

By the way, why would it matter if she told the teacher or not. If it is understood in her class that she is not allowed to use the bathroom, needed or not, unless she buys the privledge, she wouldn't ask.

I know that from experience from my 2nd grade class.
 
Mason66 said:
If the student didn't tell the teacher she needed to use the bathroom, how did she make the choice.

By the way, why would it matter if she told the teacher or not. If it is understood in her class that she is not allowed to use the bathroom, needed or not, unless she buys the privledge, she wouldn't ask.

I know that from experience from my 2nd grade class.
Click to expand...


the student NEVER notified the teacher of her need to use the bathroom
had the student done so and been denied, your argument would have basis
but since no such notification of need was made by the student to the teacher, all we are left with is a dumb student rather than a mean teacher
 
It seems like there would be a better use of parenting resources than going after the teacher in this situation. Perhaps a more collaborative approach to work with the teacher would yield better results?
 
Mason66 said:
Do you not see that it was an emergency because the 2 girls wet their pants?

How much more of an emergency could it have been?
Click to expand...

I see that. I addressed this numerous times. The mixing of other immediate rewards put a student in a conflict of interest.

I also said, numerous times, that when a student claims it is an imminent release, the teacher needs to allow the student to go to the restroom. As such, those investigating the case looked at whether or not the emergency trigger remained. It did.
 
grip said:
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.
Click to expand...

I read it as the kid mistakenly believed she couldn't go.

It's a dumb policy, one that should be rethought, but I don't think we need to make more of it then is there.
 
I am surprised conservatives don't support this. I mean if parents won't teach kids responsibility it has to fall to someone. I say give that teacher a raise!
 
PirateMk1 said:
What do you suggest to keep control of 20 some kids from disrupting the class excessively? My recommendation is pretty old school, use the bathroom pass as has been used since there were schools. If you have a better idea share it.
Click to expand...

It isn't that hard. Teachers have been doing it for quite some time. You allow a chance to go to the bathroom (if the child requests it) once before lunch and once after. Very few students are going to need to go more than that throughout the day (unless there is a known medical issue, either temporary or chronic). Then the teacher can regulate more after that. He/she doesn't even have to make this policy absolutely known to the children. Simply put out that if the students need to go during the lessons, then they should request it (my son's first teacher had a hand signal for it that she taught the kinders their first week in school, but they also had a little restroom in the classroom), and the teacher will tell them when they can depending on the urgency of the situation and the class discussions. Then you use a behavior system if their trips are getting out of hand to denote that. (In two different schools, my son has had a basic behavior system used, both basically the same. If you're good throughout the day, then you are on a certain number/color to represent that, if you do stuff above and beyond, you go up and get extra awards for it, if you have to be disciplined, told to be quiet during class or settle down or start fighting, something like this, then you drop down to a different color/number. Taking a suspicious number of bathroom breaks can be a reason to drop down, especially if there is someone to actually monitor the halls and/or bathrooms to check on students.) And if the students know that taking too many bathroom breaks without an actual emergency bathroom situation being involved will cause them to lose behavior "points", then they are less likely to do it. Plus, the teachers are still free to say no to them if they have gone recently.

It isn't like all of the students would be disruptive about this in most classrooms (unless a teacher was absolutely so unlucky or unliked that she/he ended up with every single disruptive student in that grade in their classroom). Most teachers only have, at most a few potentially disruptive students at all.
 
voyager1 said:
I am surprised conservatives don't support this. I mean if parents won't teach kids responsibility it has to fall to someone. I say give that teacher a raise!
Click to expand...

Why? There is little to no connection to real life here. Even at work, most of the time you are going to be able to take breaks, even if it means getting someone to cover for you. Most adults, especially in the US, do not have to pay anything or even earn bathroom breaks.
 
Fiddytree said:
I see that. I addressed this numerous times. The mixing of other immediate rewards put a student in a conflict of interest.

I also said, numerous times, that when a student claims it is an imminent release, the teacher needs to allow the student to go to the restroom. As such, those investigating the case looked at whether or not the emergency trigger remained. It did.
Click to expand...

I think the problem then might be that the students knew they had to go, but did not consider it an emergency at that particular point, but when told they couldn't go after they asked, later, when it became an emergency, then they didn't have enough time. People are overestimating a child's ability to make judgements here, even when it comes to their own bodies and estimating the time they have before they can't hold it in anymore. Even at 8 and 9 years old, children can still find it hard to hold it in the same amount of time adults can and are not good judges of situations, especially if they were just told no they could not use the restroom. (The teacher could easily have had the policy of allowing for emergencies, but not actually mentioned it in these specific circumstances. We have absolutely no clue as to what the conversations were between the teachers and students when these "accidents" occurred or before.)
 
tres borrachos said:
And we obviously differ on the capability of a child to know when he/she is at risk of a potential medical emergency.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow you on the medical emergency statement. Having to urinate is not a medical emergency, and probably never will be. Nature takes care of that problem by taking over and making you pee your pants.

Teachers plan was ill conceived when she included bathroom breaks for third graders in the overall plan, but I get the lesson, that of a finite amount of earned money having to go for a finite group of needs and desires.

Go ahead, beat me up.
 
jimbo said:
I'm not sure I follow you on the medical emergency statement. Having to urinate is not a medical emergency, and probably never will be. Nature takes care of that problem by taking over and making you pee your pants.

Teachers plan was ill conceived when she included bathroom breaks for third graders in the overall plan, but I get the lesson, that of a finite amount of earned money having to go for a finite group of needs and desires.

Go ahead, beat me up.
Click to expand...

Actually, this depends on how well you can hold it in. But even holding it in too long or too often can cause medical issues. People have died because they drank too much water or other liquid and held it in too long. There are some health risks from holding it in.

Holding Your Pee: Health Risks From Ignoring Nature's Call

Now, most children can't hold it in long because they don't have the control over their bladders that most adults have. But it can still hurt their health to hold in their pee too long, even if their bladder will eventually release it by "accident".
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, this depends on how well you can hold it in. But even holding it in too long or too often can cause medical issues. People have died because they drank too much water or other liquid and held it in too long. There are some health risks from holding it in.

Holding Your Pee: Health Risks From Ignoring Nature's Call

Now, most children can't hold it in long because they don't have the control over their bladders that most adults have. But it can still hurt their health to hold in their pee too long, even if their bladder will eventually release it by "accident".
Click to expand...

"health risk" <> "medical emergency"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom