To expect my 11 year old to be able to use the toilet during the school day?

[bendy75]

Is this the norm? My 11 year old started in at secondary school last month and has had two warnings (or stage 2 - Low level disruptions) for asking to use the toilet.

I told him to try and go at break times but he tells me they are locked, confirmed today by staff when I asked, children who have a medical need can apply for a toilet pass but he does not, so has to try and go from 8.00 am until returning home around 3.00pm without using the toilet.

AIBU to be shocked by this?

It is very saddening to read how bad the situation is in British schools now. I talked to my DD about it today (we're in Finland) and she was amazed - at her school if they need the loo during lessons they just get up, say that they need the loo, and leave. They are never locked. Somehow that doesn't disrupt lessons but I expect that's because the children don't take the piss and keep coming and going, perhaps because schools aren't so authoritarian, perhaps because they're just better behaved somehow, but I think the better behaviour is linked to less rules and less micromanaging.

It's not about whether the students choose to be there though. If it was, the loos on the building sites I worked on before my career change would have been respected, and believe me when I say that construction workers have no respect for loos. Yet, the builders and sparkies and plumbers weren't forced to be there.

Some people - children and adults alike - have no respect for other people. That's why they shit in handbasins, wrench toilets off the wall, block toilets and act like twats on public transport.

That's why no one said it was about choosing to be there.

Why are you trying to draw a false equivalence?

How else would I interpret "those that have to be in schools" other than as a reference to the compelled nature of schooling?

I say again: How else would I interpret "those that have to be in schools" other than as a reference to the compelled nature of schooling?

You indicated that HE students don't have to be there and hence are more likely to respect the facilities than those who are forced to attend. So I described another environment in which people don't have to be there, yet don't respect the facilities.

Have you thought about whether the kids who get to uni might not in general be the type to rip toilets off walls?

I'm replying to you construction workers statement.
Although it does work for students vs pupils.

My point being that not having to be there doesn't make people respect the facilities, so having to be there shouldn't stop them from respecting the facilities.

What exactly do you mean by this

But you are happy to generalise about whole groups of people.

Depends on the university

In seriousness, that's a fair point. Other than reinstating borstals and the 11+ exam, how could we put the really challenging kids into special ruggedised schools so that the kids who know how to behave can learn in peace?

That the kids who are in schools ripping toilets off walls are generally not successful at school, and success at school is generally a pre-requisite for uni entry?

There are always exceptions, of course.

Based on observation, yes. As is Noblegiraffe, but you're not pulling her up.

Yup, utterly true. How do we stop them without engaging in what is effectively collective punishment of the whole school?

The most recent public transport twat I dealt with was a grown man. I asked him to stop swearing at the top of his voice and was invited to "just fuck off, bitch".

Some people have no respect and nothing will stop them.

Just to answer this they "have to be there" because schools are not allowed to get rid of them, especially in LEA schools.

HTH

It is interesting that you have never addressed the route cause of the issue which is the lack of respect that these people have.

If you could come up with a way of doing that we might just get somewhere.

I have only seen where noblegiraffe says in general, have you thought that maybe the difference?

@Natsku I think the demographic of Finland is different to England. I assume we have a much higher percentage of disadvantaged children. Free nursery places for 2 years olds were introduced here as some children were not getting the right social interactions they needed. We have children coming to school still not toilet trained, able to brush teeth (not including children with additional needs), some children have never been introduced to books.

You mention not being able to expel a kid. If there are no meaningful consequences for destructive behaviour, such as expulsion, criminal charges, or being sent to YOI, then the destructive kid has no reason to behave better.

So why is it a problem in some schools and not in others?

There is a strong correlation between family poverty and poor educational attainment and poor school attendance of the children.

There is vanishingly little alternative provision available these days.