WaPo: Three-year-old suspended from Arlington preschool for too many potty accidents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Montessori schools specify that children must be potty-trained by age 3, in order to be part of the program. They even list it on the application! If the little girl was not fully potty trained and had multiple accidents, then obviously, she did not meet the requirements specified by the school. Instead of trying to pull a fast one on the school and subjecting her daughter to embarrassment, her mother should have: (1) delayed her entry into the Montessori program or (2) sent her daughter to a daycare or a another facility where people are hired to change diapers.

Anonymous wrote:Geez, it seems that a teacher announcing that your child has had accidents is nothing compared to having it published on the front page of the Washington Post!

Aw, hardly anyone reads the Post anymore anyway...

This poor kid, too bad the father didn't shut down this horrible idea. Her mother should be ashamed. I think her entitlement got in the way of her good judgment.

[Anonymous]

Being written up in the Post isn't the only publication of the story. I heard it on News 4 this morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. Montessori schools specify that children must be potty-trained by age 3, in order to be part of the program. They even list it on the application! If the little girl was not fully potty trained and had multiple accidents, then obviously, she did not meet the requirements specified by the school. Instead of trying to pull a fast one on the school and subjecting her daughter to embarrassment, her mother should have: (1) delayed her entry into the Montessori program or (2) sent her daughter to a daycare or a another facility where people are hired to change diapers.

It sounds as if the mom is saying that she thinks Arlington County should revise its policy that preschoolers need to be potty trained in order to attend the Montessori program.

I have to say I agree with her, if so.

Or there need to be allowances made for kids who just aren't ready to be trained at age 3.

How would it be if a PUBLIC preschool opened up but said, "We are not staffed to accomodate children who don't already know the alphabet. We just don't have the time or capacity to teach kids the alphabet. Many 3 year olds do know they alphabet, so they may enter this preschool. Other children need to find other arrangements."

This would discriminate against children who were slower to develop the skill of learning one-to-one correspondence of letter to sound. The current Arlingto County policy discriminates against children who are slower to develop bladder control.

[Anonymous]

Oh, please. There are plenty of programs in Arlington County that do not require 3-year olds to be potty trained. Go to one of those and stop pushing your child into a program she is clearly not ready for. Or worse, trying to change the whole system to fit the needs / developmental readiness of your child. I am all for advocating for our kids, but this is simply ridiculous.

She thought it was bad that the school "publicly shamed" her daughter - that was nothing compared to the national attention this issue is now receiving, with this little girl's name plastered all over it. Way to go, mom! She will greatly appreciate your misguided efforts during the teenage years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds as if the mom is saying that she thinks Arlington County should revise its policy that preschoolers need to be potty trained in order to attend the Montessori program.

I have to say I agree with her, if so.

Or there need to be allowances made for kids who just aren't ready to be trained at age 3.

How would it be if a PUBLIC preschool opened up but said, "We are not staffed to accomodate children who don't already know the alphabet. We just don't have the time or capacity to teach kids the alphabet. Many 3 year olds do know they alphabet, so they may enter this preschool. Other children need to find other arrangements."

This would discriminate against children who were slower to develop the skill of learning one-to-one correspondence of letter to sound. The current Arlingto County policy discriminates against children who are slower to develop bladder control.

If there were a legal requirement to educate 3 year olds, then you would be correct that APS would have to accomodate kids that aren't potty trained - but there's not! If Zoe is still having accidents when she enters kindergarten, she can get accomodations for her incontinenance because the school is required to accept her. That's not the case for preschool. Participation in preschool is completely up to the parents and the school is well within it's authority to require the child be potty trained.

[Anonymous]

If there were a legal requirement to educate 3 year olds, then you would be correct that APS would have to accomodate kids that aren't potty trained - but there's not! If Zoe is still having accidents when she enters kindergarten, she can get accomodations for her incontinenance because the school is required to accept her. That's not the case for preschool. Participation in preschool is completely up to the parents and the school is well within it's authority to require the child be potty trained.

Absolutely right - the parents knew of the requirement, but chose to enroll their daughter anyway when a spot became available because of some combination of their experience at the prior school (which is the place where the child was "publicly shamed"), price, convenience, whatever. There are PLENTY of preschools where kids don't have to be potty trained - the parents chose not to send their daughter to one of them for whatever reason, and because they believe (or purport to believe) that she is potty-trained.

But the evidence indicates otherwise. I suppose part of this debate is the line between potty-trained-but-has-accidents and not potty-trained. At some point, lots of accidents = not potty trained. I believe the article said something about the schools requirement being no more than 8 accidents in a month - that seems reasonable to me.

It can't be said often enough - it's the parents who are at fault here, not the little girl. Both for putting their daughter into a situation she wasn't ready for, and for making such a public stink about this, which will certainly be more embarassing for the girl later in life than the comments of the teacher ar the former school. (I really can't figure out the thinking there - they're upset that the teacher noted that the girl had accidents, but cooperate with an article for the Post? They were upset about the comments on DCUM, but still went forward with the Post article?)

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Brigid Schulte, the author of this article, posted a message here last week asking if anyone else had had their child kicked out of preschool as a result of accidents. The reaction from DCUM users was to question whether the child had, in fact, been potty-trained. This apparently upset the mother and Brigid asked me to remove the message thread. But, seeing the comments on the Post website, I think DCUM was largely restrained in comparison. If the DCUM comments gave the mother pause about the wisdom of the article, she probably should have followed her instincts.

Jeff - I take it you complied with that request - can I ask why? I don't believe any names were mentioned in the first thread, and the discussion, while not supportive of the mother, was not really that bad (what I saw of it, anyway). If an anonymous person being upset that she received criticism in a thread is grounds for removing that thread, aren't all threads subject to removal? It seems especially odd because the mother (and you) knew that an article would appear in the Post - it's not like removing the thread would put an end to the issue. Not trying to be confrontational, but I'm curious about your thought process.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AnonymousHow would it be if a PUBLIC preschool opened up but said, "We are not staffed to accomodate children who don't already know the alphabet. We just don't have the time or capacity to teach kids the alphabet. Many 3 year olds do know they alphabet, so they may enter this preschool. Other children need to find other arrangements."

This would discriminate against children who were slower to develop the skill of learning one-to-one correspondence of letter to sound. The current Arlingto County policy discriminates against children who are slower to develop bladder control.

Potty training and teaching the alphabet are hardly comparable. Teaching reading and letters are a school's job. Potty training is not. What if your 3 year old isn't sleeping through the night? Should the teachers come to your house at night and "accommodate" your child's sleeping patterns?

See what I did there?

[Anonymous]

I think it is sad that the mother not only put her child into potty-training class (clearly trying to gear her up for something she wasn't ready for) but then also failed to take her out when her child wasn't comfortable in the environment. From what the article says these weren't "accidents," this was a 3 year old child expressing displeasure with her situation the only way she knew how. Instead of realizing that her mother forced her to stay there. The school was very accommodating.

Plus I love how the article says she cleaned herself up. Yeah, we all know how great 3 year olds are cleaning up anything much less a bodily fluid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plus I love how the article says she cleaned herself up. Yeah, we all know how great 3 year olds are cleaning up anything much less a bodily fluid.

You got that right! Of course, Zoe's mom probably thinks she's as capable of cleaning as she is at using the potty!

[Anonymous]

My son was in a DCPS preschool classroom when he was 3. While he had been completely pottytrained in daycare and at home, he regressed, havig more frequent accidents. His teacher and aid could not have been kinder. My son commented on how kind they were when he had accidents. We strategized (reminders before nap time to use the bathroom) and the accidents stopped. His teacher said, "Each child is having his or her own adjustment, Ralph's is having accidents."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=AnonymousHow would it be if a PUBLIC preschool opened up but said, "We are not staffed to accomodate children who don't already know the alphabet. We just don't have the time or capacity to teach kids the alphabet. Many 3 year olds do know they alphabet, so they may enter this preschool. Other children need to find other arrangements."

This would discriminate against children who were slower to develop the skill of learning one-to-one correspondence of letter to sound. The current Arlingto County policy discriminates against children who are slower to develop bladder control.

Potty training and teaching the alphabet are hardly comparable. Teaching reading and letters are a school's job. Potty training is not. What if your 3 year old isn't sleeping through the night? Should the teachers come to your house at night and "accommodate" your child's sleeping patterns?

See what I did there?

Actually, teaching basic life skills and activities, such as being able to wash your hands, carry water and pour milk and clean up after yourself, seem to me to be perfectly legitimate jobs of a preschool.

You are making a joke about the sleeping thing, but actually it's a good analogy. If the Montessori teachers said that all children needed to be sleeping through the night in order to attend school, because they weren't staffed to be able to handle kids who weren't well rested, then I guess the teachers shoudl have to accomodate those who were not able to sleep through the night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quote=AnonymousHow would it be if a PUBLIC preschool opened up but said, "We are not staffed to accomodate children who don't already know the alphabet. We just don't have the time or capacity to teach kids the alphabet. Many 3 year olds do know they alphabet, so they may enter this preschool. Other children need to find other arrangements."

This would discriminate against children who were slower to develop the skill of learning one-to-one correspondence of letter to sound. The current Arlingto County policy discriminates against children who are slower to develop bladder control.

Potty training and teaching the alphabet are hardly comparable. Teaching reading and letters are a school's job. Potty training is not. What if your 3 year old isn't sleeping through the night? Should the teachers come to your house at night and "accommodate" your child's sleeping patterns?

See what I did there?

Actually, teaching basic life skills and activities, such as being able to wash your hands, carry water and pour milk and clean up after yourself, seem to me to be perfectly legitimate jobs of a preschool.

You are making a joke about the sleeping thing, but actually it's a good analogy. If the Montessori teachers said that all children needed to be sleeping through the night in order to attend school, because they weren't staffed to be able to handle kids who weren't well rested, then I guess the teachers shoudl have to accomodate those who were not able to sleep through the night.

You make no sense. Betsy Rosso considered Zoe potty trained, the school did not. If Betsy wanted the school to work with Zoe on it, she should have chosen one that provided that level of service. To use your sleep analogy, if the kids were required to sleep through the night but weren't, the school would be within their rights to ask the student to leave. The parents should find a school that better fits their needs.

[Anonymous]

I think a better analogy than sleeping through the night would be no longer needing a nap. It is reasonable for kids of a certain age to need a nap or not to be potty trained. That does not mean that every school should accommodate those kids.

There's nothing wrong with a kid being three and not being potty trained. There's something very wrong with a mother who repeatedly puts her child in a situation the child isn't ready for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You make no sense. Betsy Rosso considered Zoe potty trained, the school did not. If Betsy wanted the school to work with Zoe on it, she should have chosen one that provided that level of service. To use your sleep analogy, if the kids were required to sleep through the night but weren't, the school would be within their rights to ask the student to leave. The parents should find a school that better fits their needs.

But then Zoe started a new school and had no more accidents. So doesn't that sort of speak to the fact that she actually WAS toilet trained, and was having accidents at this school for another reason? Possibly going straight from the "shaming" school to a new environment that was also not very nurturing wasn't, in hindsight, the best move, but clearly Zoe needed to get out of the first school ASAP. And is it really THAT unreasonable to expect a class of 3 year olds to be staffed by people who are actually competent at assisting young children through transitions and to come up with solutions to very common problems, like why a child is having repeated accidents at school but not at home?