Secondary school BATHROOMS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPD needs a special SRO division dedicated to policing school bathrooms.

NO!

Police are NOT the answer! NO POLICE / SROs IN SCHOOLS ! !

dp.. disagree.. they can be one part of the solution. No one else has any real meaningful solution, certainly not Elrich who defunded SROs, even though the Principals wanted them, and maybe, this is one of the reasons why the Principals wanted them to remain.

So, unless you can come up with a better solution, SROs should be brought back.

It is not possible to bring SROs back.

The current political makeup of the MoCo council and MCPS render the idea of SROs returning to school buildings a non-starter.

Every elected official in MoCo, and those in charge of MCPS, is entirely loyal to the “defund the police” / BLM-loyal crowd, including the locally powerful DSA, and the entire extreme-progressive wing of the democrat party. These politicians will never tolerate SROs in schools.

It simply is not possible.

When and how did SROs get in the schools in first place? I can't remember the history of SROs. And what is a CEO what do they do?

It was a Clinton Era community policing nutritive that provided grant funding to start the program. Schools and police departments thought it was useful so funded it themselves when the federal grants ended. The whole purpose was to crreate better relations between law enforcement and policed communities, to show kids police that they could know and trust, and to act preemptively by having someone in place that would know when troublesome issues were developing.

I guess that backfired since it makes many kids feel unsafe.

This is not true. There is an activist minority who says this but that is not how the majority of parents, teachers or students feel. Certainly that's not the opinion of MCPS HS admin who overwhelmingly argued to keep SROs in place.

Why can't schools have more community engagement officers CEO? Budget reasons? If each school can have a CEO on site, Principal can be paged by whichever staff sees a concern and depending on the situation of concern, Principal can mobilize the CEO who will already be in the building. Right now there's only 1 CEO for multiple schools in a cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPD needs a special SRO division dedicated to policing school bathrooms.

NO!

Police are NOT the answer! NO POLICE / SROs IN SCHOOLS ! !

dp.. disagree.. they can be one part of the solution. No one else has any real meaningful solution, certainly not Elrich who defunded SROs, even though the Principals wanted them, and maybe, this is one of the reasons why the Principals wanted them to remain.

So, unless you can come up with a better solution, SROs should be brought back.

It is not possible to bring SROs back.

The current political makeup of the MoCo council and MCPS render the idea of SROs returning to school buildings a non-starter.

Every elected official in MoCo, and those in charge of MCPS, is entirely loyal to the “defund the police” / BLM-loyal crowd, including the locally powerful DSA, and the entire extreme-progressive wing of the democrat party. These politicians will never tolerate SROs in schools.

It simply is not possible.

When and how did SROs get in the schools in first place? I can't remember the history of SROs. And what is a CEO what do they do?

It was a Clinton Era community policing nutritive that provided grant funding to start the program. Schools and police departments thought it was useful so funded it themselves when the federal grants ended. The whole purpose was to crreate better relations between law enforcement and policed communities, to show kids police that they could know and trust, and to act preemptively by having someone in place that would know when troublesome issues were developing.

I guess that backfired since it makes many kids feel unsafe.

This is not true. There is an activist minority who says this but that is not how the majority of parents, teachers or students feel. Certainly that's not the opinion of MCPS HS admin who overwhelmingly argued to keep SROs in place.

That's definitely NOT TRUE. The majority know that SROs don't work. There's greater risk to students because of their presence.

I mostly agree but they could probably guard the toilets without much risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are considering HS choices for next year.

Does this problem extent to Einstein?

Yes. Every high school in MCPS has its own bathroom issues. Einstein does also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to physical limitations (closing facilities) many schools also limit numbers of passes for students. I counted what my child is "entitled to" based on the policies at his school and he can go 5x/class during a marking period, and has 7 classes, so he can go to the bathroom 35/45 days. I guess the other days he just has to go during lunch or hold it.

I have given him permission to just leave the room if he's denied access to a bathroom and needs it. I'll deal with the discipline. His doctor is willing to write a note because my kid has suffered from health consequences related to holding pee and poop before.

Every parent on behalf of a
child with this kind of problem should have the doctor write a note stating a diagnosis and that the child should have a 504 plan with a "flash pass" to the bathroom.

I'd like to see this dumb policy spawn hundreds of 504 plan requests per school.

Situations:
1. Kid has to hold it in because they used up all the bathroom passes allowed per quarter. Hopefully not all the teachers have this policy or is this school-wide? Some HS also restrict bathroom use for first 10 and last 10 min of class.
2. When kid gets to an unlocked bathroom, there is either a line, or is occupied by other students who are using stalls/toilet for smoking etc., and in some cases, those same students tell the kid to leave because kid is not part of whatever is going on in that bathroom. So then kid leaves Bathroom A in hopes of making it to Bathroom B in time. And this cycle may repeat.
3. Not enough time to use bathroom between classes.
4. With less than a handful of bathrooms out of 20+ unlocked, long lines to use it at lunch, and as stated in #2 above, smokers and inappropriately behaving students may have occupied the stalls or the entire bathroom.

Not just high schools. Our MS has this policy also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to physical limitations (closing facilities) many schools also limit numbers of passes for students. I counted what my child is "entitled to" based on the policies at his school and he can go 5x/class during a marking period, and has 7 classes, so he can go to the bathroom 35/45 days. I guess the other days he just has to go during lunch or hold it.

I have given him permission to just leave the room if he's denied access to a bathroom and needs it. I'll deal with the discipline. His doctor is willing to write a note because my kid has suffered from health consequences related to holding pee and poop before.

Every parent on behalf of a
child with this kind of problem should have the doctor write a note stating a diagnosis and that the child should have a 504 plan with a "flash pass" to the bathroom.

I'd like to see this dumb policy spawn hundreds of 504 plan requests per school.

Situations:
1. Kid has to hold it in because they used up all the bathroom passes allowed per quarter. Hopefully not all the teachers have this policy or is this school-wide? Some HS also restrict bathroom use for first 10 and last 10 min of class.
2. When kid gets to an unlocked bathroom, there is either a line, or is occupied by other students who are using stalls/toilet for smoking etc., and in some cases, those same students tell the kid to leave because kid is not part of whatever is going on in that bathroom. So then kid leaves Bathroom A in hopes of making it to Bathroom B in time. And this cycle may repeat.
3. Not enough time to use bathroom between classes.
4. With less than a handful of bathrooms out of 20+ unlocked, long lines to use it at lunch, and as stated in #2 above, smokers and inappropriately behaving students may have occupied the stalls or the entire bathroom.

Can not emphasize this enough, students are walking around having to SEARCH for an UNLOCKED, UNOCCUPIED, SAFE bathroom to use during the school day. What the F country do we live in?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to physical limitations (closing facilities) many schools also limit numbers of passes for students. I counted what my child is "entitled to" based on the policies at his school and he can go 5x/class during a marking period, and has 7 classes, so he can go to the bathroom 35/45 days. I guess the other days he just has to go during lunch or hold it.

I have given him permission to just leave the room if he's denied access to a bathroom and needs it. I'll deal with the discipline. His doctor is willing to write a note because my kid has suffered from health consequences related to holding pee and poop before.

Every parent on behalf of a
child with this kind of problem should have the doctor write a note stating a diagnosis and that the child should have a 504 plan with a "flash pass" to the bathroom.

I'd like to see this dumb policy spawn hundreds of 504 plan requests per school.

Situations:
1. Kid has to hold it in because they used up all the bathroom passes allowed per quarter. Hopefully not all the teachers have this policy or is this school-wide? Some HS also restrict bathroom use for first 10 and last 10 min of class.
2. When kid gets to an unlocked bathroom, there is either a line, or is occupied by other students who are using stalls/toilet for smoking etc., and in some cases, those same students tell the kid to leave because kid is not part of whatever is going on in that bathroom. So then kid leaves Bathroom A in hopes of making it to Bathroom B in time. And this cycle may repeat.
3. Not enough time to use bathroom between classes.
4. With less than a handful of bathrooms out of 20+ unlocked, long lines to use it at lunch, and as stated in #2 above, smokers and inappropriately behaving students may have occupied the stalls or the entire bathroom.

Can not emphasize this enough, students are walking around having to SEARCH for an UNLOCKED, UNOCCUPIED, SAFE bathroom to use during the school day. What the F country do we live in?!

If only MCPD would monitor our school bathrooms since laws are being broken!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPD needs a special SRO division dedicated to policing school bathrooms.

NO!

Police are NOT the answer! NO POLICE / SROs IN SCHOOLS ! !

dp.. disagree.. they can be one part of the solution. No one else has any real meaningful solution, certainly not Elrich who defunded SROs, even though the Principals wanted them, and maybe, this is one of the reasons why the Principals wanted them to remain.

So, unless you can come up with a better solution, SROs should be brought back.

It is not possible to bring SROs back.

The current political makeup of the MoCo council and MCPS render the idea of SROs returning to school buildings a non-starter.

Every elected official in MoCo, and those in charge of MCPS, is entirely loyal to the “defund the police” / BLM-loyal crowd, including the locally powerful DSA, and the entire extreme-progressive wing of the democrat party. These politicians will never tolerate SROs in schools.

It simply is not possible.

When and how did SROs get in the schools in first place? I can't remember the history of SROs. And what is a CEO what do they do?

It was a Clinton Era community policing nutritive that provided grant funding to start the program. Schools and police departments thought it was useful so funded it themselves when the federal grants ended. The whole purpose was to crreate better relations between law enforcement and policed communities, to show kids police that they could know and trust, and to act preemptively by having someone in place that would know when troublesome issues were developing.

What genius thought that having police around would get kids to trust them?

I don't know a single kid who trusts the police. I'm 50+, and I can honestly say, based on multiple personal experience that I don't trust cops. That makes cops the last thing I want inside my kids schools. You do not need cops to police bathrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In addition to physical limitations (closing facilities) many schools also limit numbers of passes for students. I counted what my child is "entitled to" based on the policies at his school and he can go 5x/class during a marking period, and has 7 classes, so he can go to the bathroom 35/45 days. I guess the other days he just has to go during lunch or hold it.

I have given him permission to just leave the room if he's denied access to a bathroom and needs it. I'll deal with the discipline. His doctor is willing to write a note because my kid has suffered from health consequences related to holding pee and poop before.

Every parent on behalf of a
child with this kind of problem should have the doctor write a note stating a diagnosis and that the child should have a 504 plan with a "flash pass" to the bathroom.

I'd like to see this dumb policy spawn hundreds of 504 plan requests per school.

Situations:
1. Kid has to hold it in because they used up all the bathroom passes allowed per quarter. Hopefully not all the teachers have this policy or is this school-wide? Some HS also restrict bathroom use for first 10 and last 10 min of class.
2. When kid gets to an unlocked bathroom, there is either a line, or is occupied by other students who are using stalls/toilet for smoking etc., and in some cases, those same students tell the kid to leave because kid is not part of whatever is going on in that bathroom. So then kid leaves Bathroom A in hopes of making it to Bathroom B in time. And this cycle may repeat.
3. Not enough time to use bathroom between classes.
4. With less than a handful of bathrooms out of 20+ unlocked, long lines to use it at lunch, and as stated in #2 above, smokers and inappropriately behaving students may have occupied the stalls or the entire bathroom.

Can not emphasize this enough, students are walking around having to SEARCH for an UNLOCKED, UNOCCUPIED, SAFE bathroom to use during the school day. What the F country do we live in?!

It’s not really the entire country. It’s Montgomery County. Our local leaders and our BOE have created this situation for our kids and there seems to be nothing parents can do about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPD needs a special SRO division dedicated to policing school bathrooms.

NO!

Police are NOT the answer! NO POLICE / SROs IN SCHOOLS ! !

dp.. disagree.. they can be one part of the solution. No one else has any real meaningful solution, certainly not Elrich who defunded SROs, even though the Principals wanted them, and maybe, this is one of the reasons why the Principals wanted them to remain.

So, unless you can come up with a better solution, SROs should be brought back.

It is not possible to bring SROs back.

The current political makeup of the MoCo council and MCPS render the idea of SROs returning to school buildings a non-starter.

Every elected official in MoCo, and those in charge of MCPS, is entirely loyal to the “defund the police” / BLM-loyal crowd, including the locally powerful DSA, and the entire extreme-progressive wing of the democrat party. These politicians will never tolerate SROs in schools.

It simply is not possible.

When and how did SROs get in the schools in first place? I can't remember the history of SROs. And what is a CEO what do they do?

It was a Clinton Era community policing nutritive that provided grant funding to start the program. Schools and police departments thought it was useful so funded it themselves when the federal grants ended. The whole purpose was to crreate better relations between law enforcement and policed communities, to show kids police that they could know and trust, and to act preemptively by having someone in place that would know when troublesome issues were developing.

I guess that backfired since it makes many kids feel unsafe.

This is not true. There is an activist minority who says this but that is not how the majority of parents, teachers or students feel. Certainly that's not the opinion of MCPS HS admin who overwhelmingly argued to keep SROs in place.

Why can't schools have more community engagement officers CEO? Budget reasons? If each school can have a CEO on site, Principal can be paged by whichever staff sees a concern and depending on the situation of concern, Principal can mobilize the CEO who will already be in the building. Right now there's only 1 CEO for multiple schools in a cluster.

Because MCPS would prefer to spend money on other initiatives. Bathrooms and student safety/comfort are not a priority.

Also, politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPD needs a special SRO division dedicated to policing school bathrooms.

NO!

Police are NOT the answer! NO POLICE / SROs IN SCHOOLS ! !

dp.. disagree.. they can be one part of the solution. No one else has any real meaningful solution, certainly not Elrich who defunded SROs, even though the Principals wanted them, and maybe, this is one of the reasons why the Principals wanted them to remain.

So, unless you can come up with a better solution, SROs should be brought back.

It is not possible to bring SROs back.

The current political makeup of the MoCo council and MCPS render the idea of SROs returning to school buildings a non-starter.

Every elected official in MoCo, and those in charge of MCPS, is entirely loyal to the “defund the police” / BLM-loyal crowd, including the locally powerful DSA, and the entire extreme-progressive wing of the democrat party. These politicians will never tolerate SROs in schools.

It simply is not possible.

When and how did SROs get in the schools in first place? I can't remember the history of SROs. And what is a CEO what do they do?

It was a Clinton Era community policing nutritive that provided grant funding to start the program. Schools and police departments thought it was useful so funded it themselves when the federal grants ended. The whole purpose was to crreate better relations between law enforcement and policed communities, to show kids police that they could know and trust, and to act preemptively by having someone in place that would know when troublesome issues were developing.

What genius thought that having police around would get kids to trust them?

I don't know a single kid who trusts the police. I'm 50+, and I can honestly say, based on multiple personal experience that I don't trust cops. That makes cops the last thing I want inside my kids schools. You do not need cops to police bathrooms.

You need paid staff managing them while school security guards handle other areas of hallways and school or vice versa.

[Anonymous]

As so many have proposed, why can't you move the smokers outside? A security guard goes into the bathroom has any smokers come out and send them on their way outside! Then the students who need that toilet can use it! Why is this so hard to solve? I know I'm missing something here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPD needs a special SRO division dedicated to policing school bathrooms.

NO!

Police are NOT the answer! NO POLICE / SROs IN SCHOOLS ! !

dp.. disagree.. they can be one part of the solution. No one else has any real meaningful solution, certainly not Elrich who defunded SROs, even though the Principals wanted them, and maybe, this is one of the reasons why the Principals wanted them to remain.

So, unless you can come up with a better solution, SROs should be brought back.

It is not possible to bring SROs back.

The current political makeup of the MoCo council and MCPS render the idea of SROs returning to school buildings a non-starter.

Every elected official in MoCo, and those in charge of MCPS, is entirely loyal to the “defund the police” / BLM-loyal crowd, including the locally powerful DSA, and the entire extreme-progressive wing of the democrat party. These politicians will never tolerate SROs in schools.

It simply is not possible.

When and how did SROs get in the schools in first place? I can't remember the history of SROs. And what is a CEO what do they do?

It was a Clinton Era community policing nutritive that provided grant funding to start the program. Schools and police departments thought it was useful so funded it themselves when the federal grants ended. The whole purpose was to crreate better relations between law enforcement and policed communities, to show kids police that they could know and trust, and to act preemptively by having someone in place that would know when troublesome issues were developing.

What genius thought that having police around would get kids to trust them?

I don't know a single kid who trusts the police. I'm 50+, and I can honestly say, based on multiple personal experience that I don't trust cops. That makes cops the last thing I want inside my kids schools. You do not need cops to police bathrooms.

opposite. SROs have created good relationships with kids. Have there been bad SROs? Sure. But, there have been good ones, too. And Principals have all wanted SROs in schools. They know what it's like in there; they've got boots on the ground, not you, me, the BOE or the county executive and council.

I'll listen to the people who know what it's like in the schools over those have zero idea what it's like in there. Unless you have a better solution, SROs can and should be used. Otherwise, you and every anti-SRO person needs to go to every HS in MoCo and monitor the bathrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As so many have proposed, why can't you move the smokers outside? A security guard goes into the bathroom has any smokers come out and send them on their way outside! Then the students who need that toilet can use it! Why is this so hard to solve? I know I'm missing something here.

I think it's because minors aren't supposed to smoke so the school can't turn a blind eye to it. However, MCPS isn't a law enforcement agency either. I agree they should send them outside and let MCPD handle law enforcement since that's their job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As so many have proposed, why can't you move the smokers outside? A security guard goes into the bathroom has any smokers come out and send them on their way outside! Then the students who need that toilet can use it! Why is this so hard to solve? I know I'm missing something here.

It's not just the smoking. It's other drug use, fights, boys bringing in girls to hook up. It's mayhem. They do it, because they no they can get away with it and there's no consequences. There's no risk, so teenagers are going to keeping pushing it further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As so many have proposed, why can't you move the smokers outside? A security guard goes into the bathroom has any smokers come out and send them on their way outside! Then the students who need that toilet can use it! Why is this so hard to solve? I know I'm missing something here.

I think it's because minors aren't supposed to smoke so the school can't turn a blind eye to it. However, MCPS isn't a law enforcement agency either. I agree they should send them outside and let MCPD handle law enforcement since that's their job.

All MCPS facilities are smoke free areas so no one; students, staff, or other adults are not permitted to smoke regardless if they are inside or outside.i