Primary school putting kids "in the naughty corner" if they need the toilet

Sambucus_Nigra

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080618083945AAEefxc

Personally, I'd get all the angry parents rounded up, and go and see the Head and tell her she is on her last warning before you take legal action against her.

mummyroysof3

when i took my son to the doctors about his frequent loo trips she said at 6 it was normal and best to ignore it as making a big deal out of it could encourage him to do it more

Nicki

meritaten wrote: »

[/COLOR]

Havent you Nicki? but then a newsreader is only on air for half hour or so. and even the longest winded vicar doesnt go on for more than an hour or so. as for the rest, shop and factory workers are certainly allowed to leave the shop floor after telling the supervisor they need to! If you believe otherwise then perhaps you dont know employment law.
You obviously dont get out much Nicki!

More than you'd think meritaten!

There is no legal right for a shop worker or factory worker to leave the floor to use the loo. If you look at the attached, you will see that one of the biggest unions, the TUC, has been lobbying for some time for this to happen

http://www.worksmart.org.uk/health/do_i_have_a_right_to_use

but if you ever read the employment forum on here, you'll see that lots of people struggle with this problem.

To be clear on what I am saying, I do not think the school should force a child to wet themselves, just that it is acceptable to encourage the children to use their breaks for this purpose, and to be cross with them if they clearly chose not to for whatever reason. And that I don't agree an acceptable reason is the desire to use the toilet block in total privacy. A child of 6, if shy about this, should be encouraged to get over that timidity, as most public toilets are not single occupancy, and it is very life limiting not to be able to use a toilet cubicle in a bank.

If 6 is too young to begin teaching the concept that you should use the toilet facilities when they are available and to hand, and not interrupt a class for a toilet break unless it is urgent, what age is more acceptable, given that adults do need to be able to ordinarily exercise some scheduling and control in this area?

j.e.j.

At age 6 some kids are still having trouble with wetting their pants, etc. That's why I think it's inappropriate and unreasonable for kids this age to be punished for asking to go to the loo. I tend to be more non-plussed when kids DON'T ask, and then wet themselves!

ETA don't doctors usually say give it till age 7 or older before worrying about problems with toilet training, etc?

faerie~spangles

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

For an adult, that's a fairly silly thing to say, whatever the rights and wrongs are for young children.

I never claimed to be sensible too.

Hanging_by_a_thread

:eek::eek::eek:

Awww, poor little kids. I am glad my school days are well and truly finished. Id permanently be stuck in that naughty corner, having somewhat of a weak bladder. What a way to carry on with such young children. You would think teachers would want to avoid at all cost, one of the little darlings in their care having an accident. Talk about kids being led by someone with brains but next to nowt common sense.

I dont think you will be the parent with a tarred reputation at all OP. You approached the school and asked about their policy concerning when children may go to the toilet. You showed that you wanted to gain all the facts. It seems that no-one could agree and from the headteacher down they are blaming someone else for this policy being in place.

Personally I think it is awful to treat a child in such a manner. Ideally they will get to the stage where they go to the toilet before school, during break and lunch and be able to wait for these times. If they can avoid going during lessons then there is less disruption. However for any child to get to the stage where they wet themselves, rather than face being punished by being put in a naughty corner, is awful.

If a child holds and holds off going to the loo cant this cause urine infections? So long as when you raised your concerns you didn't start shouting or become abusive then you handled things fine. Lets hope your courage and determination to stand up for the kids will make all the pupils school days more pleasant from now on in.

**curlywurly**

OP this is disgusting, and I urge you to follow it up.

When I was at senior school I had a condition which meant that I had to go to the toilet when I needed to, sometimes outside of breaktime. The school toilets were LOCKED and out of bounds except during breaks.

My GP had to write to the headteacher to get this policy changed.

It's ridiculous to suggest that a human being should not be able to go to the toilet when they need to, and most particularly a young child. The only time I think the school should get involved is if it was happening frequently, or if the child was clearly just playing up and not really needing the toilet.

And ... Nicki... I HAVE seen a barrister leave court to use the loo. The world didn't end, and the case didn't collapse.

Sparklyfairy

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080618083945AAEefxc

Personally, I'd get all the angry parents rounded up, and go and see the Head and tell her she is on her last warning before you take legal action against her.

I tried to round some up but some parents are complaining on facebook, then speak to the teacher very softly & that's it. Others are just so blase about it all - they aren't happy about it, but won't say anything either - very apathetic. I, on the otherhand, always tend to be the one to bring up the white elephant in the room & this situation, unfortunately is no different. :cool:

Sparklyfairy

Nicki wrote: »

be cross with them if they clearly chose not to for whatever reason. Be cross with them? What exactly do you mean?

And that I don't agree an acceptable reason is the desire to use the toilet block in total privacy. A child of 6, if shy about this, should be encouraged to get over that timidity, as most public toilets are not single occupancy, and it is very life limiting not to be able to use a toilet cubicle in a bank. This is not an issue with my dd at all.

If 6 is too young to begin teaching the concept that you should use the toilet facilities when they are available and to hand, and not interrupt a class for a toilet break unless it is urgent, what age is more acceptable, given that adults do need to be able to ordinarily exercise some scheduling and control in this area? Concept teaching - yes. Punishment at 6? No.

My notes are above in red

mrcow

Sparklyfairy wrote: »

I always looked past her toughness as a drive to improving the school & never thought for a minute the kids would be made to suffer like this. If I seem to be ott about it, which it may come across like I am, I wish you could have seen my dd sobbing the other day - truly shocking - then they pass it off as "she probably has a water infection" knowing full well she clearly doesn't! Grr gets my back up!

The thing is, she's being tough over the wrong thing.

Some would say that I'm pretty tough or "old school" myself in terms of my high expectations. Certainly my behaviour mangement is extremely focussed. I'd never however look to humiliate any child like this, and I just can't understand the logic behind it. I don't think being "tough" is a suitable excuse.

If toilet trips are a problem, then they need to start training the kids to be more responsible. That's a learning process. The children are not going to learn by being publicly humiliated. They need to be reminded (as a class) before break and reminded after break too, until it's become habit.

If anyone still needs to go in lessons, then they should obviously go - although with a reminder that they should have gone earlier.

As for the child who had just started her periods, I work in a secondary girls' school and I'm shocked that any teacher would stop her from going to check if she's okay. That's just awful for her.