Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can see both sides of this. I think it is good that she took the initiative to put out the fire. However, I would feel uneasy with the fact that she smelled smoke and left sleeping children behind in another room to investigate the cause of the smoke.
If you felt uneasy, think of what those parents felt when they found out? Do you think their main concern was the Teacher "initiative"?
Not many take into consideration the parents' reaction and what presure they may have put on the director to axe [not ask] the Teacher.
Please re-read post #242. and DC's other points they are spot on.
What if's are useless. Worse case is she doesn't put out the fire and it ignites the gas stove sending the entire building into an inferno along with everyone inside.
How do you know there was a gas stove? Or are you engaging in "What-if's" now?
Policies are written, by the way, to address "What-if's"?
The policy was 100% supervision 100% of the time. What's wrong with that policy?
How do you know there was a gas stove? Or are you engaging in "What-if's" now?
Policies are written, by the way, to address "What-if's"?
The policy was 100% supervision 100% of the time. What's wrong with that policy?
Yes, what if's are useless, we seem to agree. It's been noted what is wrong. You aren't going to take a room full of kids into the rest room with you. You aren't going to take a room full of kids into the rest room with you when little johnny has to go either.
What if she didn't do anything and the building went up in flames killing all of them ?
Then you'd be saying she should have done something.
This "zero tolerance" is making us a nation of idiots.
The owner might not want to take a "zero tolerance" approach. But she may not have a choice, when it's her operating license and her insurance that is at risk.
The owner might not want to take a "zero tolerance" approach. But she may not have a choice, when it's her operating license and her insurance that is at risk.
I totally understand that. That's why I said this "zero tolerance" is making us a nation of idiots.
There are no exceptions to the rules.
Common sense and logic doesn't enter the picture here.
Reality is that she put out the fire and no child was harmed.
Those are the facts on the table.
If I had a child in her care I'd be hugging her and praising her for doing what she did.
To me that was a justified exception that worked out to everyone's benefit and physical safety.
I totally understand that. That's why I said this "zero tolerance" is making us a nation of idiots.
There are no exceptions to the rules.
Common sense and logic doesn't enter the picture here.
Reality is that she put out the fire and no child was harmed.
Those are the facts on the table.
If I had a child in her care I'd be hugging her and praising her for doing what she did.
To me that was a justified exception that worked out to everyone's benefit and physical safety.
The policy that requires children in a daycare center to be 100% supervised at all times is wrong because???
Well I'll bet there's no "what if" scenario of a room of sleeping children while chicken nuggets burn up in the oven next door.
It's statistically impossible to cover every "what if" scenario yet we implement zero tolerance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.