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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The problem wasn't an accident or two accidents or even three accidents. It was repeated accidents of a course of months. The guidelines are age three and potty trained. So if your two year old is potty trained are they ready to be in the program? If you are going to dismiss the potty trained guideline why not dismiss the 3 year old guideline? I am sure we all know plenty of parents who think their 2 year old should be enrolled in a GT program. What would stop them?

The mom knew her daughter wasn't potty trained. If your child is potty trained you don't put them into a potty training class. She was trying to push her to be in this program for herself rather than her DD.

The whole article was ridiculous and very one sided. It would have been nice to hear from teachers who have a class full of 3 year olds (controlled chaos), who expect the first month for there to be numerous accidents and then have the child who has numerous accidents over the course of months. I would have liked to hear from the parents who what children in the class who had to deal with one of the teacher's giving specific attention to this one child multiple times a week for months. As pp said a 3 year old can't clean up their own mess. Someone was doing that an awful lot and not doing what they are paid to do.

[Anonymous]

Arlington County offers summer camps for preschoolers that require the children to be potty-trained. It's not that the counselors don't like kids; it's just not where the program devotes its resources.

[Anonymous]

If the school system thinks that having a pre-school program is beneficial to 3 year olds, why should kids who are not potty-trained be disadvantaged by this exclusion? I think reasonable accommodations can and should be made for those kids who are not potty trained.

[Anonymous]

Arlington thinks preschool is beneficial, but it does not and cannot provide preschool for every kid, and it can't provide a good fit for every child. Most parents understand this.

http://www.wrekehavoc.com/index.php/2011/01/31/mellow-yellow/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the school system thinks that having a pre-school program is beneficial to 3 year olds, why should kids who are not potty-trained be disadvantaged by this exclusion? I think reasonable accommodations can and should be made for those kids who are not potty trained.

How are these kids being disadvantaged? Reasonable accomodations are for disabilities, not for kids who are developmentally appropriate. You're throwing these terms out when you clearly don't know what they mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the school system thinks that having a pre-school program is beneficial to 3 year olds, why should kids who are not potty-trained be disadvantaged by this exclusion? I think reasonable accommodations can and should be made for those kids who are not potty trained.

How are these kids being disadvantaged? Reasonable accomodations are for disabilities, not for kids who are developmentally appropriate. You're throwing these terms out when you clearly don't know what they mean.

Then if it's developmentally appropriate, why are they not allowed in the class? Oh right, because the teachers don't want to deal with "developmentally appropriate" kids, they want only that subset of 3 year olds with full bladder control.

[Anonymous]

Then if it's developmentally appropriate, why are they not allowed in the class? Oh right, because the teachers don't want to deal with "developmentally appropriate" kids, they want only that subset of 3 year olds with full bladder control.

Which is a reasonable preference, and clearly there are enough kids who do have adequate bladder control to fill the available space, and then some.

Look, I didn't want to push potty training, so I didn't send my kids to preschools with a deadline. But I don't think it's unreasonable that such deadlines exist. Then again, I don't think there's only one worthwhile preschool program or that one size fits all. Potty training is just one of a range of expectations that preschools have, and that some kids meet and others (all developmentally within the range of normal) don't.

[Anonymous]

"Oh right, because the teachers don't want to deal with "developmentally appropriate" kids, they want only that subset of 3 year olds with full bladder control. "

No, the program doesn't staff in such a way that to have sufficient resources to handle the bathroom needs of kids who are not potty trained. It's not teacher preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the school system thinks that having a pre-school program is beneficial to 3 year olds, why should kids who are not potty-trained be disadvantaged by this exclusion? I think reasonable accommodations can and should be made for those kids who are not potty trained.

How are these kids being disadvantaged? Reasonable accomodations are for disabilities, not for kids who are developmentally appropriate. You're throwing these terms out when you clearly don't know what they mean.

Then if it's developmentally appropriate, why are they not allowed in the class? Oh right, because the teachers don't want to deal with "developmentally appropriate" kids, they want only that subset of 3 year olds with full bladder control.

Because those kids don't meet the selection criteria. Preschool is not a right or an entitlement as much as you try to make it one. You still haven't indicated why you think these kids are being disadvantaged. In fact, truly disadvantaged kids get preference in this program. Zoe got in by lottery - by chance.

[Anonymous]

If it wasn't an advantage to have these programs, they would not exist and parents wouldn't be applying for their kids to attend. There is a perceived advantage in having your kids in one of these pre-school programs. The same goes for VA, MD and DC whether the program is private or public. What if the requirement were changed so that kids who don't know the alphabet were excluded because teachers or the school system does not want to spend the resources or time on 'slow or different' learners? Oh wait, tbat already happens. Surprisingly, DCPS pre-schools programs, also lottery-based, don't require the kids to be potty trained. I guess the APS has decided that a non-potty trained child has less need for education than one who is potty trained. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

If it wasn't an advantage to have these programs, they would not exist

Right. It's a completely rational world.

Also, everyone is owed everything she wants. If you don't get it, shoot Brigid Schulte an e-mail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are these potty training classes?

Can someone please answer my question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If it wasn't an advantage to have these programs, they would not exist

Right. It's a completely rational world.

Also, everyone is owed everything she wants. If you don't get it, shoot Brigid Schulte an e-mail.

It's not about being "owed" something, it's about getting preschools to recognize that 3 year olds have accidents and to possibly rethink their policies. I doubt anything will change, because clearly the overwhelming majority of people in this area think it's just fine and dandy for schools to put out whatever rules they please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it wasn't an advantage to have these programs, they would not exist and parents wouldn't be applying for their kids to attend. There is a perceived advantage in having your kids in one of these pre-school programs. The same goes for VA, MD and DC whether the program is private or public. What if the requirement were changed so that kids who don't know the alphabet were excluded because teachers or the school system does not want to spend the resources or time on 'slow or different' learners? Oh wait, tbat already happens. Surprisingly, DCPS pre-schools programs, also lottery-based, don't require the kids to be potty trained. I guess the APS has decided that a non-potty trained child has less need for education than one who is potty trained. Go figure.

You sound like the FCPS parents who claim their kids are being disadvantaged by not having full day K. Your "perception" that there's an advantage to kids going to preschool isn't backed by research. There is no marginal benefit for kids who are not at the lower socioeconomic levels and/or limited English proficient. These types of programs help kids that are truly disadvantaged to come more closely to the level other kids are already at. You can get as emotional as you like about the situation, that's what the research shows. Unless a kid is from a low income/LEP household there is no need to go to preschool.

You also can't compare preschools with public elementary schools. Every child is entitled by law to a free and appropriate education beginning in kindergarten. There is no such legal requirement for preschool and a child who does not attend preschool is in no way less educated than a child who has. If you think DCPS is doing such a fine job, feel free to move.

[Anonymous]

The APS pre-school program is similar to DCPS except that DCPS is free and kids are not required to be potty trained. As for the benefits of pre-school, why would you allow your tax dollars to subsidize a program that has no benefits? Plus where is the link to the research that shows pre-schools have no benefits?

I love how the anonymity of the internet lulls people into thinking they know everything. Keep drinking the kool aid of ignorance.