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

[Anonymous]

Where are these potty training classes?

[Anonymous]

No sympathy for the mom.

She sent her kid knowing she wasn't potty trained and I have not doubt her attitude was "they will just have to deal with it. What is the County going to do? Kick her out ... hell no I pay taxes, she is entitled to be there. They need my tuition dollars," etc and so forth.

sucks to be the mom!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, it doesn't mean that Zoe was actually potty trained. Maybe by the time she hit her third school, she was finally ready. We don't know that Zoe wasn't having accidents at home her mother hasn't shown herself to be very reliable. The sheer number of "accidents" indicates that Zoe's not ready for that school either because she's not potty trained or it was too developmentally challenging and stressed her out too much. Why in the world would her mother put her in two schools that required potty training and then go public with it in the WP. Talk about poor judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No sympathy for the mom.

She sent her kid knowing she wasn't potty trained and I have not doubt her attitude was "they will just have to deal with it. What is the County going to do? Kick her out ... hell no I pay taxes, she is entitled to be there. They need my tuition dollars," etc and so forth.

sucks to be the mom!

Sucks to be Zoe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Umm... we're saying the same thing. Zoe shouldn't have been enrolled in the school.

And again... washing hands and potty training are hardly comparable. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Anonymous]

Just for the record, I'm not the mom nor a friend of hers. And my kids were potty trained by 2.

But my point is that -- well I have a few points. One is, it's not so simple to say "The mom should find a school that meets the needs of her child" -- if what the schools are asking for isn't something all kids are developmentally able to give AND if early entry to the program guarantees later acceptance in K and beyond.

For example, would it be OK for a school to say "We reserve the 3 year old and 4 year old classes only for kids of a certain race, or only for kids of low income families.... The school is open to all kids in K regardless of race or family income, but only if there's room"? No, of course not. That doesn't happen, does it? That wouldn't be fair.

Sure you can say that there are other programs that could take a less than perfectly trained child, and the mom should have chosen one of those -- but why should she have to? Lots of kids aren't well trained by age 3. The school should revise its policy.

There are a lot of differences between children at the age of three. Kids develop at different rates. My handwashing example wasn't a good one, so how about this? Children develop the ability to process phonemes (phonemic manipulation, segmentation, blending) at different rates. Some kids can sound out and blend words at age 3 or 4, otehrs not until closer to age 7. Some chidren have the ability to sit still and attend to a lesson for 20 minutes in circle time by age 3. (My kdis did!) Others at that age can only sit still for 5 minutes... or for less time!

Should a public preschool be able to select ONLY those children who are able to process phonemes proficiently by age 3, and say that they aren't staffed to be able to handle the needs of the chidlren who develop this skill later? Should a public preschool be able to say, we aren't staffed to handle the needs of kids who can't sit still for 20 minutes during a lesson in circle time?

True, preschool isn't mandatory. But admission to this preschool at age 3 provides entrance to the school at K. Depriving children of admission to this preschool at age 3 for their failure to, say, be able to process phonemes proficiently, or for their failrue to sit still and attend, would prevent them from being able to attend the program at age 5. And maybe it is a really good program.

It is completely normal for a 3 year old to have pottying accidents. Schools need to change their expectations, and not just cater to those children who are on the higher end of what is developmentally normal.

[Anonymous]

PP, sorry but your analogies just don't work. The issue here is potty training. It's that simple. Don't try to over analyze it to make your point.

[Anonymous]

I'm in the city and my kiddo isn't old enough for potty training yet, but I still think this last PP had a good point. People send their kids to these schools at three as placeholders for kindergarten. I have no desire to do preschool but know that this makes it less likely that I'll be able to get into a good school for elementary. But, that's my choice. A parent doesn't necessarily get the same "choice" about whether or not her young three is potty trained. Whether or not we're coddling our kids or potty training too late is another matter; the fact is most parents these days are told by the experts in their lives (pediatricians, parenting books, etc) that potty training can't happen before a kid is ready. Even if that's not factual or completely true, it's the "word on the street" right now. So if you potty train somewhere around three, and your child is three and a half on the first day of school, you're in one place. If you potty trained around three and your child is three years and three days old on the first day of school, you're in another place. There are a wide variety of ages by which children are potty trained. So by virtue of having a late potty trainer, your chances of getting into a better school are reduced.

While I think this article is a little bit ridiculous, I think that point is what makes it worth talking about.

[Anonymous]

PP, exactly makes one preschool better than another. It seems that many parents are more interested in where they say their kid goes to school vs what they are actually learning. Which isn't too much at 3yrs. At the end of the day, they all catch up with one another by the 2nd grade. It's the parents who never recover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, sorry but your analogies just don't work. The issue here is potty training. It's that simple. Don't try to over analyze it to make your point.

Sorry if you think I am overanalyzing it.

The issue is more than just potty training. It is that some kids have a harder time with training than others, but ALL of them should have the chance to access the public Montessori program.

If schools really can't deal with a child who has accidents, then they at least need to be sure that those kids who weren't able to enter the program at age 3 are able to enter it at age 5 when they are able to meet the school's requirements. The schools need to make more slots open for the K level and they need to provide some way for the kids to catch up on the Montessori skills that they have missed out on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, sorry but your analogies just don't work. The issue here is potty training. It's that simple. Don't try to over analyze it to make your point.

Sorry if you think I am overanalyzing it.

The issue is more than just potty training. It is that some kids have a harder time with training than others, but ALL of them should have the chance to access the public Montessori program.

If schools really can't deal with a child who has accidents, then they at least need to be sure that those kids who weren't able to enter the program at age 3 are able to enter it at age 5 when they are able to meet the school's requirements. The schools need to make more slots open for the K level and they need to provide some way for the kids to catch up on the Montessori skills that they have missed out on.

What are you talking about? All kids can enter K the fall the turn 5. It's not like children are being denied education. The kids who don't go to Montessori aren't missing out on anything. Have you done no research on early education? It's really only kids who come from low income home and/or are limited English proficient that really benefit from these programs. Even then, by the end of second grade, all these kids catch up.

[Anonymous]

No school can be all things to all people. Arlington schools are overcrowded, and destined to become even more so in the next few years. Maybe Arlington should free up some space by doing away with preschool entirely.

The issue is more than just potty training. It is that some kids have a harder time with training than others, but ALL of them should have the chance to access the public Montessori program.

I don't think Arlington taxpayers would agree.

FTR, I am an Arlington taxpayer, and I love Montessori. But my kids are in a standard public school, and I don't feel wronged by Arlington for not making Montessori workable for me.

[Anonymous]

http://www.arlnow.com/tag/school-capacity/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, sorry but your analogies just don't work. The issue here is potty training. It's that simple. Don't try to over analyze it to make your point.

Sorry if you think I am overanalyzing it.

The issue is more than just potty training. It is that some kids have a harder time with training than others, but ALL of them should have the chance to access the public Montessori program.

If schools really can't deal with a child who has accidents, then they at least need to be sure that those kids who weren't able to enter the program at age 3 are able to enter it at age 5 when they are able to meet the school's requirements. The schools need to make more slots open for the K level and they need to provide some way for the kids to catch up on the Montessori skills that they have missed out on.

No you are wrong. There is no law that stipulates preschool must be avaiable to all children - this is true at the Federal, State and County level.

As stated, the preschool charges a fee and even on sliding scale, one must still pay for the education.

Free public education begins at age 5 and is available for anyone.

Public preschool is an option that is limited by rules and fees. Using the term "public" in front of preschool in this case does not equate it to the actual public school system.

The mother ws in the wrong and knew it. She just expected that they would bow to her wishes. She gambled and lost. Her mistake was pushing her child to do something the child was not developmentally capable of doing.

[Anonymous]

If the program is being offered at a public school using public funds, how is it not public?
While I agree that potty training is not the job of teachers, I don't see how teaching a child how to use the potty is so far removed from a pre-school teacher's job as to warrant the child's suspension from school. I sense a certain laziness from some of these teachers who either don't have the patience or the desire to help TEACH a child to use the potty. Like it or not, when you agree to teach children you are agreeing to take on a parental role, especially for pre-schoolers. It's not just ABCs and 123.