Yeah I'm with Sugarbear. You know the teacher lied. The director knows the teacher lied. You're going to be standing there when they open Monday. Where does it go from here?
So what happens now? The teacher is on vacation, but director got him on the phone. He lied to her, which you know and the director agrees with (that he lied).
Shouldn't he just be fired? What else is there?
Well, she said they will continue to look into it and sit down with him when he returns on Monday. I do pick up at 4:30pm, so I am sure there will be more for me at pick up.
I know that I would not fire anyone over the phone while they are on vacation (I am a manager too) so I think they would fire him before they would tell me that they are going to fire him. Does that make sense?
Totally makes sense. Rationally, I know they can't fire him until they actually speak to him, but in this situation, I would have a hard time being rational (and I applaud you).
So what happens now? The teacher is on vacation, but director got him on the phone. He lied to her, which you know and the director agrees with (that he lied).
Shouldn't he just be fired? What else is there?
Well, she said they will continue to look into it and sit down with him when he returns on Monday. I do pick up at 4:30pm, so I am sure there will be more for me at pick up.
I know that I would not fire anyone over the phone while they are on vacation (I am a manager too) so I think they would fire him before they would tell me that they are going to fire him. Does that make sense?
Yeah good point. Bet his vacation is pretty much gonna suck. If it was me, I'd just come home if I could drive back.
EDIT: I was reacting to the OP. I see now that things got weirder. Carry on.
I don't think I'd be upset if my kid dropped his snack and couldn't eat it (or something like that, though they should have extra food lying around...).
But any time that food is used as punishment makes me uncomfortable. We have enough issues, as a society, with food. We don't need to perpetuate them like this.
What the fucking fuck? Who the hell does he think he is withholding food from your son? That is seriously fucked up! Time out? yes, that is fine, withholding food from a child? Fuck No! I would totally want to stab him in the face for this! Just stand your ground.... I am irrationally ragey over this!
But if my kid said he got his snack taken away as a punishment, I wouldn't blink. It's not like they took a meal away.
My kid doesn't go to half day school like yours.
He is there 9 hours. I need to know he will be fed - properly.
There is a reason it is illegal Stellas.
Food, in no way, shape or form can be used as punishment.
You would really be ok with someone taking discipline it into their own hands with your child? And making him sit there and watch other kids eat while he was hungry?
Post by snipsnsnails on Apr 17, 2014 13:00:45 GMT -5
Did the teacher mean that DS spilled his juice on his snack intentionally, possibly? So, he had to get a TO for that and then was offered a replacement that he didn't want after TO was over? It all seems nutso, I guess it's whatever seems the least nutso? Sorry, bud, you have to deal with it.
I pay twice my mortgage payment every month for my kids to attend this school.
Even if he dropped the snack, I would expect them to give him another.
That is my child. No one but me gets to decide when he does or does not eat.
I have a signed document on what is agreed upon for my child to spend 45 hours a week at that school. It is 2 snacks and one meal a day. Time out is an appropriate punishment.
If anyone thinks they want to change that agreement they better fucking consult me first.
Did the teacher mean that DS spilled his juice on his snack intentionally, possibly? So, he had to get a TO for that and then was offered a replacement that he didn't want after TO was over? It all seems nutso, I guess it's whatever seems the least nutso? Sorry, bud, you have to deal with it.
I pay twice my mortgage payment every month for my kids to attend this school.
Even if he dropped the snack, I would expect them to give him another.
That is my child. No one but me gets to decide when he does or does not eat.
I have a signed document on what is agreed upon for my child to spend 45 hours a week at that school. It is 2 snacks and one meal a day. Time out is an appropriate punishment.
If anyone thinks they want to change that agreement they better fucking consult me first.
Listen, to be honest - the two of you in here that do not agree with me - I don't really care.
It is not like I am in the minority of thinking this is a big deal. Not to mention, the owner and directors are taking it seriously too and ya know, it's a law and all that.
Ok, I get being upset if the teacher is lying (which is not certain at this point). I do not think that depriving a child of a snack is a good idea.
However, I think this is a major overreaction. Your son was hungry for a few hours. No child has ever died from being hungry for a few hours. He'll live. It's not like they beat him or locked him in a dark closet or something.
Ok, I get being upset if the teacher is lying (which is not certain at this point). I do not think that depriving a child of a snack is a good idea.
However, I think this is a major overreaction. Your son was hungry for a few hours. No child has ever died from being hungry for a few hours. He'll live. It's not like they beat him or locked him in a dark closet or something.
Ok, I get being upset if the teacher is lying (which is not certain at this point). I do not think that depriving a child of a snack is a good idea.
However, I think this is a major overreaction. Your son was hungry for a few hours. No child has ever died from being hungry for a few hours. He'll live. It's not like they beat him or locked him in a dark closet or something.
WRONG.
Not a particularly compelling response. Why precisely do you disagree?
Ok, I get being upset if the teacher is lying (which is not certain at this point). I do not think that depriving a child of a snack is a good idea.
However, I think this is a major overreaction. Your son was hungry for a few hours. No child has ever died from being hungry for a few hours. He'll live. It's not like they beat him or locked him in a dark closet or something.
Nope. It's against state law, pre-school and kindergarten classrooms have mandates they need to follow for things like snacks and naps. Now, if you offer a kid a snack and they don't eat it? No harm, no foul. But to willfully deny the kid a snack as a punishment? That is illegal.
You're right, no kid ever died from being hungry for a few hours--but this child was forced to throw away his snack, sit in a questionable time out and watch his class eat their snacks. There is no real over-reaction here.
Ok, I get being upset if the teacher is lying (which is not certain at this point). I do not think that depriving a child of a snack is a good idea.
However, I think this is a major overreaction. Your son was hungry for a few hours. No child has ever died from being hungry for a few hours. He'll live. It's not like they beat him or locked him in a dark closet or something.
No. She's not overreacting. Withholding food to punish a child is not acceptable. And it doesn't matter if Laz showed up five minutes or five hours later. It's not ok.
Ok, I get being upset if the teacher is lying (which is not certain at this point). I do not think that depriving a child of a snack is a good idea.
However, I think this is a major overreaction. Your son was hungry for a few hours. No child has ever died from being hungry for a few hours. He'll live. It's not like they beat him or locked him in a dark closet or something.
It's a big deal to her. She already explained that.
I feel like if she posted this in a randoms and was all "DS had his snack taken away" and didn't react about it, people would be shaming her for not having this sort of reaction.
I don't think it's an overreaction. Withholding something "fu or "extra" like playing outside or whatever is appropriate punishment. Taking away the kid's food while he watches the other kids eat, is not. And lying about it to boot.
Ok, I get being upset if the teacher is lying (which is not certain at this point). I do not think that depriving a child of a snack is a good idea.
However, I think this is a major overreaction. Your son was hungry for a few hours. No child has ever died from being hungry for a few hours. He'll live. It's not like they beat him or locked him in a dark closet or something.
Are you fucking kidding me with this shit?
Food is a basic need. If Laz cannot trust her childcare provider to provide for a basic need, then something is seriously wrong.
Oh, for god's sake, missing one snack is not going to do permanent harm. It's not like she sent him to summer camp and they ddeprived him of meals for a week straight. Were this my child, i would have probably asked for a sit-down with the teacher to try to figure out what exactly happened (something that still is not known) and to let him know that withholding snack is not a punishment I agree with. oP's response simplly strikes me as out of proportion to the offense.
Post by happyholiday on Apr 17, 2014 13:44:50 GMT -5
I disagree because Laz's son is there full-time. It states in her contract that 1 meal, 2 snacks are to be provided. The state says withholding food as a punishment is illegal; snack counts as food. This teacher was all kinds of wrong.
I seriously cannot fucking grasp the mindset of people who think Laz is wrong or in some way overreacting here. I would lose my head over this (I thought any parent would?). Also, I am going to venture to guess Laz was not the first adult he told he was hungry after his snack was withheld, so presumably he was also ignored, as well. Overreacting she is not.
Ok, I get being upset if the teacher is lying (which is not certain at this point). I do not think that depriving a child of a snack is a good idea.
However, I think this is a major overreaction. Your son was hungry for a few hours. No child has ever died from being hungry for a few hours. He'll live. It's not like they beat him or locked him in a dark closet or something.
This is not their choice to make.
That is my point.
I will say it again, for the cheap seats in the back.
I am my childs advocate. I care for him like no one else. If I do not stand up for him when he is treated wrong, who will?
Also, again, I do not care if you think it is an overreaction. You are in the minority here, not me. And even if I was, I still don't think I would care.
I did not demand for the teacher to lose his job. I demanded the school take the appropriate course of action, as this was a very stupid and in my mind (and per the law's guidelines) unethical discipline.
Ok, I get being upset if the teacher is lying (which is not certain at this point). I do not think that depriving a child of a snack is a good idea.
However, I think this is a major overreaction. Your son was hungry for a few hours. No child has ever died from being hungry for a few hours. He'll live. It's not like they beat him or locked him in a dark closet or something.
No. She's not overreacting. Withholding food to punish a child is not acceptable. And it doesn't matter if Laz showed up five minutes or five hours later. It's not ok.
I don't know, millions of children were "sent to bed without dinner" as a pubishment for generations without it ruining their lives. It's certainly not something I would do, but it does not rise to the level of abuse. Also, I do not think it is at all clear what exactly happened, what the chronology was, etc., and until the teacher is able to fully respond I think it is premature to be sharpening the guillotine.
Regardless, take a step back and look at what hactually happened. The kid didn't have snack. He was hungry. Period. (Well, until his mother flipped out.)