I am waiting for a young boy to stand up and walk towards the door, the teacher to ask, “where are you going?” His reply would be, “I’m going to take a piss, would you like to come help me, the doctor told me not to lift anything heavy.”
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am waiting for a young boy to stand up and walk towards the door, the teacher to ask, “where are you going?” His reply would be, “I’m going to take a piss, would you like to come help me, the doctor told me not to lift anything heavy.”[/quote]
Wait, why would their be weights in bat… O_O
You mean their going to the gym first and then the bathroom?
My wife (teacher) has students lie all the time to leave class and usually not come back. It is not surprising there are rules limiting bathroom passes.
She also feels bad for the kids because they really do not have enough time between classes.to use the restroom.
Point is that while you can be appalled at students having to ask permission there are plenty of kids causing the need for those rules.
My mom’s a teacher. She gets bad kids asking to go to the restroom all day long just to leave class.
I doubt we know the whole story here…and no, every kid who says they need to pee doesn’t always have to pee right then.
Her judgment was wrong here…but none of us knows if this kid was a bad ass or not.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
My mom’s a teacher. She gets bad kids asking to go to the restroom all day long just to leave class.
I doubt we know the whole story here…and no, every kid who says they need to pee doesn’t always have to pee right then.
Her judgment was wrong here…but none of us knows if this kid was a bad ass or not.[/quote]
Either way, this kid had to pre so bad he went in a bottle.
If he was a classroom bad ass, I doubt he’d care about the threat of truancy if he had to pee so bad.
He wouldn’t’ve tried to please his teacher by following her rules and would’ve just gone. She’s probably a ho bag power trip.
My mom is a teacher too, in Katy, but there are teachers worse than abusive cops.
And yes, I did type wouldn’t’ve on purpose. Take that, foxworthy.
Administrations response = why zero tolerance is retarded. They say the teach critical thinking in schools, yet want to handle every situation the same w/o examining the facts of each one and coming to a logical conclusion.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
If he was a classroom bad ass, I doubt he’d care about the threat of truancy if he had to pee so bad.
[/quote]
That logic doesn’t follow.
The kid most likely to pee IN class is usually not the quiet kid who never bothers anyone…unless he is peeing due to some emotional issue.
This kid could very well have been acting up all day long until this and the media will ignore that.
You can either believe this teacher just decided no one ever needs to pee…or he was acting up and she held him in class.
One more thing…I don’t know about you but I can pee whether I REALLY have to go or not so him peeing in class doesn’t mean he really needed to go that badly.
We don’t have all the details.
If this article had said he was getting all “E’s” in conduct and was a straight A student then I could see the outrage.
To address the point of “bad” kids lying about needing to use the wash-room << these are typically the same kids who are wasting their time and everyone else’s time by being in high-school in the first place. I don’t see why attendance should be compulsory. Some kids really are better off just starting their careers and won’t gain anything from high-school.
… Actually, no-one really gets anything from high-school (except maybe from the shop classes). After four years of high-school I realized that I’m going to walk out of this building with pretty much nothing more than I walked in with. It’s more of a test of patience than anything. Wade through four years of tedious non-sense and if you can manage it, you are awarded the privilege of doing the same thing again at a higher level (assuming you’re okay with taking on a mortgage worth of debt…).
Anyway, my point is that if teenagers don’t want to be in school, then fine. I say let them leave. The class is better off without them.
And before some idiot fails to put this together himself; No, I don’t think the teacher should be held liable if the student does something retarded and gets hurt after he leaves the class.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
If he was a classroom bad ass, I doubt he’d care about the threat of truancy if he had to pee so bad.
[/quote]
That logic doesn’t follow.
The kid most likely to pee IN class is usually not the quiet kid who never bothers anyone…unless he is peeing due to some emotional issue.
This kid could very well have been acting up all day long until this and the media will ignore that.
You can either believe this teacher just decided no one ever needs to pee…or he was acting up and she held him in class.
One more thing…I don’t know about you but I can pee whether I REALLY have to go or not so him peeing in class doesn’t mean he really needed to go that badly.
We don’t have all the details.
If this article had said he was getting all “E’s” in conduct and was a straight A student then I could see the outrage.[/quote]
Given the decision to over turn the “ruling” when challenged, I think it’s plain to see who was right and wrong in the scenario.
My own personal experience in mind, I’m inclined to side with the kid. He had to pee.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
To address the point of “bad” kids lying about needing to use the wash-room << these are typically the same kids who are wasting their time and everyone else’s time by being in high-school in the first place. I don’t see why attendance should be compulsory. Some kids really are better off just starting their careers and won’t gain anything from high-school.
… Actually, no-one really gets anything from high-school (except maybe from the shop classes). After four years of high-school I realized that I’m going to walk out of this building with pretty much nothing more than I walked in with. It’s more of a test of patience than anything. Wade through four years of tedious non-sense and if you can manage it, you are awarded the privilege of doing the same thing again at a higher level (assuming you’re okay with taking on a mortgage worth of debt…).
Anyway, my point is that if teenagers don’t want to be in school, then fine. I say let them leave. The class is better off without them.
And before some idiot fails to put this together himself; No, I don’t think the teacher should be held liable if the student does something retarded and gets hurt after he leaves the class. [/quote]
Engineers, doctors, IT architects, regular architects, financial analysts, accountants, pharmacists et cetera would all disagree and would tell you that the information, especially math and sciences they learned from grade school through graduate programs, put them where they are.
And the “mortgage of debt”, which is a gross overstatement, is nothing for a petroleum engineer, surgeon or even financial analyst to handle in a couple short years and then spend a career earning way above the national average.
The only people who don’t believe in higher education are the people who don’t have one and it’s because they don’t have one and not the other way around.
He urinated in class. Unless he is 6 years old, that was strange as hell and no, unless this teacher had a history of acting crazy, believing this kid was so innocent is just ridiculous.
He could very well have had to pee…after acting like an ass all day. You sort of put the teacher in a strange spot when every kid, no matter how bad they act, now gets to walk right out of class when they please by just claiming they always need to pee.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
He urinated in class. Unless he is 6 years old, that was strange as hell and no, unless this teacher had a history of acting crazy, believing this kid was so innocent is just ridiculous.
He could very well have had to pee…after acting like an ass all day. You sort of put the teacher in a strange spot when every kid, no matter how bad they act, now gets to walk right out of class when they please by just claiming they always need to pee.[/quote]
The boy was clearly a goody two shoes scared of truancy. The teacher sounds like she has the problem to me telling a kid “You can’t go to the bathroom and I hope you piss yourself”. She knew he had to pee or she wouldn’t have thrown in the insult.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
He urinated in class. Unless he is 6 years old, that was strange as hell and no, unless this teacher had a history of acting crazy, believing this kid was so innocent is just ridiculous.
He could very well have had to pee…after acting like an ass all day. You sort of put the teacher in a strange spot when every kid, no matter how bad they act, now gets to walk right out of class when they please by just claiming they always need to pee.[/quote]
The boy was clearly a goody two shoes scared of truancy. The teacher sounds like she has the problem to me telling a kid “You can’t go to the bathroom and I hope you piss yourself”. She knew he had to pee or she wouldn’t have thrown in the insult.[/quote]
LOL…OR he had been an ass all day.
I am taking this stance because my mom just went through a similar circumstance. The kid kept disrupting the class so she told him to stand outside. The kid tells his mom that the teacher won’t let him learn so she raises hell at the whole school.
All I am saying is that kids treat teachers like shit today. They say things to them that I never would have as a kid. They know no teacher will ever hit them so they act like asses all day and then their parent will 9 times out of 10 take up for the kid no matter how bad the kid was.
None of us were in that classroom…and again, if this kid was a great student, I am sure we would have heard by now. No one does this to the valedictorian.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
He urinated in class. Unless he is 6 years old, that was strange as hell and no, unless this teacher had a history of acting crazy, believing this kid was so innocent is just ridiculous.
He could very well have had to pee…after acting like an ass all day. You sort of put the teacher in a strange spot when every kid, no matter how bad they act, now gets to walk right out of class when they please by just claiming they always need to pee.[/quote]
The boy was clearly a goody two shoes scared of truancy. The teacher sounds like she has the problem to me telling a kid “You can’t go to the bathroom and I hope you piss yourself”. She knew he had to pee or she wouldn’t have thrown in the insult.[/quote]
LOL…OR he had been an ass all day.
I am taking this stance because my mom just went through a similar circumstance. The kid kept disrupting the class so she told him to stand outside. The kid tells his mom that the teacher won’t let him learn so she raises hell at the whole school.
All I am saying is that kids treat teachers like shit today. They say things to them that I never would have as a kid. They know no teacher will ever hit them so they act like asses all day and then their parent will 9 times out of 10 take up for the kid no matter how bad the kid was.
None of us were in that classroom…and again, if this kid was a great student, I am sure we would have heard by now. No one does this to the valedictorian.[/quote]
You are right, none of us were in the classroom.
My mom tells me stories too and kids are rude. I wasn’t exactly the model student myself and I know what you are saying.
There are also some power tripping teachers out there and as none of us were in the room, all we have is circumstantial evidence.
The kid asked to pee repeatedly, the teacher was a bitch, the kid peed in a bottle and got in trouble.
After an investigation by the district, the decision was overturned and an apology issued.
The idea of bathroom passes is pretty stupid. Just punishes kids who legitimately need to take a leak.
How hard is it to make a note of a kid who was allowed to leave for the bathroom and didn’t return to class? It’s not like the teacher can’t write them up for it and have them penalised later (next class or next time they’re are school).
[quote]Otto the Ecto wrote:
The idea of bathroom passes is pretty stupid. Just punishes kids who legitimately need to take a leak.
How hard is it to make a note of a kid who was allowed to leave for the bathroom and didn’t return to class? It’s not like the teacher can’t write them up for it and have them penalised later (next class or next time they’re are school).
[/quote]
Teachers are responsible for students when they are in their class, meaning the time that the class is held. Once the kid leaves the room on a class to pee, teacher is still responsible. My wife has to check stories, especially when it is to the office or nurse, because if something happens (fight, etc.) it comes back on the teacher-why wean’t the kid in class?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
To address the point of “bad” kids lying about needing to use the wash-room << these are typically the same kids who are wasting their time and everyone else’s time by being in high-school in the first place. I don’t see why attendance should be compulsory. Some kids really are better off just starting their careers and won’t gain anything from high-school.
… Actually, no-one really gets anything from high-school (except maybe from the shop classes). After four years of high-school I realized that I’m going to walk out of this building with pretty much nothing more than I walked in with. It’s more of a test of patience than anything. Wade through four years of tedious non-sense and if you can manage it, you are awarded the privilege of doing the same thing again at a higher level (assuming you’re okay with taking on a mortgage worth of debt…).
Anyway, my point is that if teenagers don’t want to be in school, then fine. I say let them leave. The class is better off without them.
And before some idiot fails to put this together himself; No, I don’t think the teacher should be held liable if the student does something retarded and gets hurt after he leaves the class. [/quote]
If a student takes a class and does not learning anything from it, that is one the student far more than the teacher. There should be new material unless the kid is in the wrong class, as in repeating it. I am sick of this attitude that students passively learn, that it is the teacher’s job to force the information into the kid’s mind and make him or her think. If a student takes a course and learns nothing I agree they are.wasting their time-they are not the teacher, not the school, the student is fully responsible.
It is impossible to decide in the moment what will be useful, information, skills, etc., in the future.
Hell I took a course where the teacher used my test as the answer key. But what I learned in the course was how to teach and create a classroom with lots of people participating -yes, I ended up teaching the course. Very important skills.
I do agree that high school and college may not be for everyone. I, however, know several people barely graduate from high school who went off to college and bloomed as a student a couple years in. Sometimes it takes maturation of the student, sometimes the right class can trigger the desire to learn. Those I know who bloomed late all have advanced degrees, a couple being professors now.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
To address the point of “bad” kids lying about needing to use the wash-room << these are typically the same kids who are wasting their time and everyone else’s time by being in high-school in the first place. I don’t see why attendance should be compulsory. Some kids really are better off just starting their careers and won’t gain anything from high-school.
… Actually, no-one really gets anything from high-school (except maybe from the shop classes). After four years of high-school I realized that I’m going to walk out of this building with pretty much nothing more than I walked in with. It’s more of a test of patience than anything. Wade through four years of tedious non-sense and if you can manage it, you are awarded the privilege of doing the same thing again at a higher level (assuming you’re okay with taking on a mortgage worth of debt…).
Anyway, my point is that if teenagers don’t want to be in school, then fine. I say let them leave. The class is better off without them.
And before some idiot fails to put this together himself; No, I don’t think the teacher should be held liable if the student does something retarded and gets hurt after he leaves the class. [/quote]
Engineers, doctors, IT architects, regular architects, financial analysts, accountants, pharmacists et cetera would all disagree and would tell you that the information, especially math and sciences they learned from grade school through graduate programs, put them where they are.
And the “mortgage of debt”, which is a gross overstatement, is nothing for a petroleum engineer, surgeon or even financial analyst to handle in a couple short years and then spend a career earning way above the national average.
The only people who don’t believe in higher education are the people who don’t have one and it’s because they don’t have one and not the other way around. [/quote]
Not everyone is going to be an engineer, architect, scientist or accountant though. Those jobs are really specialised and usually require degrees which not everyone is inclined to get. What about the taxi-drivers, shop owners, call centre workers, builders, binmen etc. They don’t need a lot of education that high school provides, yet we still need people to fill those roles. If a kid doesn’t want to learn then its the parent’s job to make them learn, and not the school’s to chase up on the child.
[quote]Waylander wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
To address the point of “bad” kids lying about needing to use the wash-room << these are typically the same kids who are wasting their time and everyone else’s time by being in high-school in the first place. I don’t see why attendance should be compulsory. Some kids really are better off just starting their careers and won’t gain anything from high-school.
… Actually, no-one really gets anything from high-school (except maybe from the shop classes). After four years of high-school I realized that I’m going to walk out of this building with pretty much nothing more than I walked in with. It’s more of a test of patience than anything. Wade through four years of tedious non-sense and if you can manage it, you are awarded the privilege of doing the same thing again at a higher level (assuming you’re okay with taking on a mortgage worth of debt…).
Anyway, my point is that if teenagers don’t want to be in school, then fine. I say let them leave. The class is better off without them.
And before some idiot fails to put this together himself; No, I don’t think the teacher should be held liable if the student does something retarded and gets hurt after he leaves the class. [/quote]
Engineers, doctors, IT architects, regular architects, financial analysts, accountants, pharmacists et cetera would all disagree and would tell you that the information, especially math and sciences they learned from grade school through graduate programs, put them where they are.
And the “mortgage of debt”, which is a gross overstatement, is nothing for a petroleum engineer, surgeon or even financial analyst to handle in a couple short years and then spend a career earning way above the national average.
The only people who don’t believe in higher education are the people who don’t have one and it’s because they don’t have one and not the other way around. [/quote]
Not everyone is going to be an engineer, architect, scientist or accountant though. Those jobs are really specialised and usually require degrees which not everyone is inclined to get. What about the taxi-drivers, shop owners, call centre workers, builders, binmen etc. They don’t need a lot of education that high school provides, yet we still need people to fill those roles. If a kid doesn’t want to learn then its the parent’s job to make them learn, and not the school’s to chase up on the child.[/quote]
I agree not all kids have the ability or inclination to study and fill specialized roles, I disagree that this makes college a worthless endeavour. The only scenario I can imagine making college a poor decision would be to study education at Harvard and become a public school teacher when you could’ve gone to any local college for a tenth of the price and the same credentials.
Nurses, construction project managers, physical therapists, and a litany of similar jobs can all be studied at second and third tier universities for minimal cost compared to the difference of life time earnings over a call center or general laborer.
I’m not saying one can’t be successful without a degree, Bill Gates is the poster boy for this sort of harping, but to say education is worthless is fucking stupid and frankly begets a “career” mixing concrete for minimal pay while peers better themselves, pay off a loan with their higher level of income and then enjoy a higher quality of living for the rest of their lives with their cash surplus; a scenario far more likely than some yahoo complaining about school becoming the next Bill Gates.
[quote]Waylander wrote:
Not everyone is going to be an engineer, architect, scientist or accountant though. Those jobs are really specialised and usually require degrees which not everyone is inclined to get. What about the taxi-drivers, shop owners, call centre workers, builders, binmen etc. They don’t need a lot of education that high school provides, yet we still need people to fill those roles. If a kid doesn’t want to learn then its the parent’s job to make them learn, and not the school’s to chase up on the child.[/quote]
…and parents aren’t doing that job. They are yelling that it’s the teacher’s job to push the information into their kid’s head even though he just asked to use the restroom for the 50th time that day and people keep yelling at the teacher for trying to teach his dumbass.