Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Keir Starmer "sick and tired" of hearing about children who aren't school-ready

615 replies

Kirova · 28/09/2025 14:08

I get the point he's trying to make, of course, but it seems like a stick to beat parents with (and particularly mothers, of course). There's no sense in saying you want all children to be in the same place when they start school. Apart from anything else, some are nearly a year younger than others in their cohort, so clearly they are not going to be in the same place.

My youngest daughter was born premature, has a significant hearing impairment and various other difficulties. She will soon be two, and while she's doing brilliantly, I doubt she'll be "school-ready" by the government's current definition when she is four.

Not sure what my point is exactly, it just seems like another absurd over-simplification on the theme of failing our children, state of the country, etc.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
Puregoldy · 29/09/2025 18:31

Maybe Keir needs to look at the education system and wonder about expectations. Children now start school at 4 not the term of their fifth birthday. The jump from reception to year 1 is huge.

BertieBotts · 29/09/2025 18:30

AngelicKaty · 29/09/2025 18:19

This is precisely what Sir Keir Starmer said to Laura Kuenssberg about children yesterday (28.9.25):
"We said that we would roll out childcare. This is childcare from 9 months to 4 years - for parents and carers, that's thousands of pounds saved. For children, it's a game-changer. I'm sick and tired of stories about 4 year olds arriving in Reception - some reading quite well, others virtually in nappies. So, we're going to change that and make sure every single child gets to the starting line in education in an equal position."
Hardly controversial is it? The truth is, it doesn't matter what he says as far as the people who don't like him are concerned - they won't like him no matter what.
He hasn't yet said how they will do this, but the desire to improve the situation really isn't one he should be criticised for when Labour has only been in power for 14 months following 14 years of Tory austerity. No doubt his Govt's plans will have to include increased funding, but given the Tories decimated funding for all public services (e.g. SureStart from 2010) Labour have got to find a lot of money to stop the rot. It just seems that so many people have very short memories and aren't prepared to give them the time.

I don't know if childcare is necessarily helpful though, is it?

It seems to me that what is lacking is not childcare. It's parent support (as in sure start) and proper screening and support for any child who needs help to catch up with development such as speech and language therapy.

Maybe I'm remembering wrongly but back in the 00s it seemed like loads of children had speech therapy for a short time and then they continued on into nursery/school as usual and some did continue to need further support because it turned out they were autistic or had some other issues, but many of them only ever needed a bit of support with speech and then they were fine. MN was full of these stories of 2-3 year olds who were biting/hitting at nursery or toddler group or throwing ginormous extended tantrums, and then when they got help with their speech the communication improved and so did their behaviour.

Now it seems like MN is full of stories of children who have had concerns raised but been told they must languish on a waiting list sometimes for years. This is unacceptable. Of course it causes problems for them starting school.

Rewis · 29/09/2025 18:29

Would increasingly the school start age to 6 (average in europe) help? Would maybe give more space to develop at different times snd individual needs to take in consideration. Ive felt that kids in uk go to a school so young.

user1471538283 · 29/09/2025 18:28

The problem is this has always happened. When my DS was accepted for state nursery he had to be clean and dry, know some numbers and have decent fine motor skills so he could eat a snack independently like cut up apple and take off and out on his coat. He had an interview of sorts at home. I was shocked that there were some children that didn't have any of this. Then some of those weren't ready for school to the extent of regularly having accidents (they didn't have SEN) which takes the teacher's time away from teaching everyone else.

BertieBotts · 29/09/2025 18:26

Sorry, that was in response to the poster who asked for percentages on how many children are "not school ready" and the person who replied with two articles claiming 24% are not toilet trained.

Namechange2700000 · 29/09/2025 18:26

Kirova · 28/09/2025 14:31

I do get the point. It's just when you're the parent of the child who has delayed speech, digestive difficulties, slow growth and generally is "behind" on everything, it's easy to feel a bit shit about your parenting. But she is doing well and exceeding everyone's expectations. And hopefully by the time she's at school, she may have even discovered the concept of sleep 😭

YABU.

In a class of 30, many children will be at different stages for different reasons. Every policy, procedure and practice has variables.

A Reception child in nappies for NO reason other than they haven’t been toilet trained is not acceptable.

This isn’t about you and your parenting.

BertieBotts · 29/09/2025 18:25

Those figures are a bit misleading though, they come from this study (the 2023 version):

https://kindredsquared.org.uk/school-readiness-survey/

In particular, the question about whose responsibility toilet training is was incredibly poorly worded, this is taken directly from the parent survey:

Who do you think is most responsible for a child's development of each of the following skills?
[...]
Toilet training (that is, toileting 'mishaps' occur frequently rather than occasionally)
Completely Parents: 50%
Mostly parents: 36%
An Even Split: 11%
Mostly school: 2%
Completely school: 1%

Then the question about the numbers of children not able to do certain things, again it's worded similarly. This is from the teaching/school staff survey:

Thinking about the following behaviours, what percentage of children starting in Reception in your 2023 class (teaching staff)/in a typical 2023 class (non-teaching staff) Are not toilet trained (that is, toileting 'mishaps' occur frequently rather than occasionally )

The results group percentages as 0-10%, 11-20%, 21-30% (etc) - it's not clear whether the survey respondents could respond with an exact percentage or just tick one of these boxes. 24% is given as the mean (average) response, although if you just look at reception class teachers, it's 20%. There's also a bit of a weird spike with teachers with between 2-10 years of experience reporting much higher rates than teachers who are newly qualified or have more than 11 years experience, which makes me think the teachers' perception of this issue is themselves skewed by the media obsession with children supposedly starting school in nappies.

There is another section of the survey which gets reported in the press all the time as "OMG parents don't think this thing is important!!" but again it's misleading. I will try to find it.

MellersSmellers · 29/09/2025 18:24

They're aiming for 75% of children to be school-ready by 2028, so I read that to mean they will accept that 25% won't be and will need extra help.
I think it's completely reasonable to have this as an area of focus, those PPs who work in early years education have clearly set out the impact of non-readiness, and OP I don't think you should take this as parent-bashing. You're clearly aware and are doing everything you can - I'm sure the intended audience is those who just aren't.

Mischance · 29/09/2025 18:21

Well that's just daft. UK children go to school far too young anyway ...

Judecb · 29/09/2025 18:20

He never used those words, you are misquoting him

AngelicKaty · 29/09/2025 18:19

BertieBotts · 29/09/2025 17:46

Does he or anyone else think that those parents are listening to this speech thinking "Oh right, oops, better get a move on then hadn't I" ?

Parents who can't be bothered to parent don't think like that, do they? They are probably more interested in whatever the latest tiktok trend is or where to get their next fix. Or perhaps they're neck deep in conspiracy theories and poised to distrust anything that comes out of a politician's mouth.

I don't buy this idea that there are swathes of parents who are interested and invested in their children enough to not be total deadbeats but they are lazy and stupid (aka making the wrong choices). It sounds much more like a convenient scapegoat than anything else.

So it just comes across as criticism of parents who are interested and invested but their children have additional needs or other difficulties relating to development, and therefore haven't met milestones for reasons other than parenting (let's remember there are years-long waiting lists for basic interventions like speech therapy FFS) and as OP said, being a parent to a child with developmental issues is brutal in the guilt stakes as it is.

HV check ups have been halved since my eldest was tiny and scrapped altogether in some areas. The UK is already way behind in developmental checks compared to other countries - it's mad. When DS1 was tiny we had a home visit at about 10 days, the 6w check, baby jabs and then a 9m check, a 2 year check and then they had a preschool check. We live in another European country now and there are check ups (outside of jabs/newborn checks) at 6 months, 12 months, and then yearly until age 5.

As far as I am aware the UK doesn't do a preschool or 2 year check up any more. It's one single check at about 10-12 months after the newborn period and then the jabs, which are usually given by a nurse with no medical examination of the baby other than a general are they well enough to be vaccinated. And many of the most vulnerable babies have parents who opt out of vaccinations anyway.

And it sounds to me like the UK is still following a "wait and see" model for developmental interventions rather than the US-style refer anyone with any slight concerns to early intervention and some of the EI children will catch up whereas others will continue to need support longer.

Wait and see is fine if, like what happened with me a couple of weeks ago - I took my 4yo to his check up and said I'm concerned his speech is still not that clear. The doctor agreed and said yes, find him a speech therapist but not before October (October is the fourth "quartile" so starts a new insurance funding block). His first appointment is this week, so we've barely had to wait at all. It means a bit of running around for me to get the insurance slip in time but not a huge issue. I don't actually think DS3 has huge issues with his speech, I don't think he'll need long in speech therapy at all. A bit of a targeted approach which we can follow up at home, and he'll be great.

It doesn't make sense OTOH to have a wait and see approach and then a waiting list of over a year especially for things like speech which can affect their development of other skills like social/emotional/communication. It's completely bonkers. Wait and see plus a prompt response is fine but that doesn't seem to be happening.

If the government are saying we have this huge issue with children being delayed at age 4, does it not also make sense to look at the fact children's developmental checks and support are underfunded to the point of being non-functional?

This is precisely what Sir Keir Starmer said to Laura Kuenssberg about children yesterday (28.9.25):
"We said that we would roll out childcare. This is childcare from 9 months to 4 years - for parents and carers, that's thousands of pounds saved. For children, it's a game-changer. I'm sick and tired of stories about 4 year olds arriving in Reception - some reading quite well, others virtually in nappies. So, we're going to change that and make sure every single child gets to the starting line in education in an equal position."
Hardly controversial is it? The truth is, it doesn't matter what he says as far as the people who don't like him are concerned - they won't like him no matter what.
He hasn't yet said how they will do this, but the desire to improve the situation really isn't one he should be criticised for when Labour has only been in power for 14 months following 14 years of Tory austerity. No doubt his Govt's plans will have to include increased funding, but given the Tories decimated funding for all public services (e.g. SureStart from 2010) Labour have got to find a lot of money to stop the rot. It just seems that so many people have very short memories and aren't prepared to give them the time.

Bunny65 · 29/09/2025 18:19

GagMeWithASpoon · 29/09/2025 18:18

Where are the fathers?

Obviously they aren't bothered either.

Happyjoe · 29/09/2025 18:18

CoralPombear · 29/09/2025 18:11

I have no skin in this game as mine are teenagers now and could meet their targets by school age. But we’re blaming lazy parenting when the general public are anything but lazy. We’ve got both parents outside of the home working all the hours and having to outsource childcare. Picking their children up, food, bath, bed, start prepping for the next morning, waiting for a period annual leave to potty train for example and just doing whatever they have to do to get through the day.

Unfortunately that is the reality of parenting now, even harder.. Even with all that, it is still the responsibility of parents not the teachers to toilet train.

GagMeWithASpoon · 29/09/2025 18:18

Bunny65 · 29/09/2025 18:16

A child with special needs may have problems but it is quite possible your child will still be school ready as she is only two now. I can understand Keir's point of view - so many mothers of children without any special needs just can't be bothered to toilet train them, they apparently see it as a teacher's job. You can imagine how thrilled teachers are about that, changing nappies etc. It is a lack of discipline and education, previous generations were told that if their kids weren't trained they weren't allowed into school. Obviously with infants there is the odd accident but still being in nappies at 4 or 5 years old for no good reason is another matter.

Where are the fathers?

Bunny65 · 29/09/2025 18:16

A child with special needs may have problems but it is quite possible your child will still be school ready as she is only two now. I can understand Keir's point of view - so many mothers of children without any special needs just can't be bothered to toilet train them, they apparently see it as a teacher's job. You can imagine how thrilled teachers are about that, changing nappies etc. It is a lack of discipline and education, previous generations were told that if their kids weren't trained they weren't allowed into school. Obviously with infants there is the odd accident but still being in nappies at 4 or 5 years old for no good reason is another matter.

HereBeFuckery · 29/09/2025 18:16

I’d like them to be school ready by age 11. Not needing the toilet every fifteen minutes, unable to sit in a chair without endless reminders, unable to stop talking, unable to walk down a corridor without pushing or shoving or hitting display boards, not pushing into the queue in the canteen, not leaving rubbish all over their desk… I’d be bloody delighted, frankly. —I can dream, right—

CoralPombear · 29/09/2025 18:11

I have no skin in this game as mine are teenagers now and could meet their targets by school age. But we’re blaming lazy parenting when the general public are anything but lazy. We’ve got both parents outside of the home working all the hours and having to outsource childcare. Picking their children up, food, bath, bed, start prepping for the next morning, waiting for a period annual leave to potty train for example and just doing whatever they have to do to get through the day.

Blueytwo · 29/09/2025 18:09

A teacher is there to teach … not tho to teach how to do your cost up, how to go to the toilet and wipe your bottom, how to sit for short periods of time This is called parenting. It is a parents responsibility not the teachers. Very very few children in main schooling are “developmentally challenged”. I’m so sorry for the parents whose children are. But sadly the “developmental challenges “. a percentage of those labelled children face are their parents (Now wait for the outraged flak…!)

Putneydad7 · 29/09/2025 18:05

Fundamentally it's mainly a socio economic divide. If the parents are richer and better educated and have made career and financial sacrifices you can bet that (disabilities aside) their child will have been read to, probably can do some reading themselves and certainly be able to dress and go to the toilet. They may be precocious and self-entitled, but they will be school ready.
Most people don't realise that you don't have to send your child to school until their 5th birthday and your primary school has to hold your place until then. My sister's kids was late in the year and she kept him in his Forest School nursery until he turned 5 as he was thriving there. She is a bit of an outdoor nut though and felt "that he will spend most of his childhood indoors with books/screens" so why not be outdoors as much as possible. It didn't do him any harm and he could read, etc. by the time he went to school. So if your kid is late born don't feel forced to send them.

PerspicaciaTick · 29/09/2025 18:05

persephonia · 28/09/2025 16:13

In fairness. Nice middle class women can also suffer from mental health struggles/postnatal depression. And it can be hard to see from the outside how well someone is doing with the whole parenting malarkey. I had a lovely friend who became very unwell after her second pregnancy, but this expressed itself in extreme perfectionism- being beautifully put together, having perfectly dressed children, perfectly clean house. Even if it meant staying up all night cleaning (which just made her more unwell). Or having a huge emotional overreaction to some clothes getting dirty. On the surface of you walked past her in the street she probably would have fitted the description the other poster wrote. But once you saw a bit more it was obvious she was deeply unwell and needed help for her own and her children's sake.

That's not to invalidate the fact that having a space filled with smug middle class types could put off other service users. Maybe there need to be more spaces/more peer support. But it's not always the case that everyone who looks well put together isn't drowning.

The other problem is if you target groups (young mums, mums recieving benefits, lone parents or whichever group you want to reach), the support group will be stigmatized as being for bad parents who can't cope. And then the target groups avoid them.
It isn't true, but people bring assumptions with them.

MumTeach88 · 29/09/2025 18:04

I disagree. There were far more toddler groups and health visitor support in my area when I was a child (to quote my mother).

AngelicKaty · 29/09/2025 18:02

GagMeWithASpoon · 29/09/2025 17:41

Do you have some percentages available ( or approximately)? Sorry for asking . I’m not trying to be a dick.

https://www.netmums.com/child/more-parents-are-sending-their-children-to-school-in-nappies
Specifically: "Reports indicate that 24% of children in Reception aged 5 are not toilet trained, and 37% are unable to dress independently."

and

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvglrmg08kgo
Specifically: "Anne Longfield, founder of the Centre for Young Lives, said: "I have heard many concerning experiences from school staff about children arriving at reception wearing nappies, still using buggies, and unable to communicate at the expected level or to socialise with other children."

Child playing in a nursery with toys in foreground

Children starting school 'in nappies and wearing buggies'

Sheffield teachers among education leaders concerned about new starters' 'school readiness'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvglrmg08kgo

yaysummerisover · 29/09/2025 18:00

He is quite right. The parents these days havnt got a clue or frankly are lazy. It’s not rocket science get them dry get them talking spend time with them. Get them off iPads. I teach teenagers to drive and it’s just embarrassing how clueless they all are. It’s taking years as opposed to months for them to gain any level of understanding. Iv lost count of the number of them that can’t ride bikes can’t swim and have no common sense. All down to terrible parenting sorry but I dread for the future of this Country

persephonia · 29/09/2025 17:58

Is that true? I know countries like the Netherlands get held up as being examples where formal schooling doesn't start till 6. Children start at 4 but it's mostly just play for the first two years. But, even there it's expected they are potty trained etc. There's a difference between taking it slow on starting reading/writing and not doing basic things like toilet training.

Edit: sorry that was a reply to @freakingscared and I meant NT children.

Vroomfondleswaistcoat · 29/09/2025 17:57

If more parents were encouraged (whatever form this encouragement might take) to have their children 'school ready' then wouldn't it make it easier to pick up those children who might have SEN? Those parents whose children weren't 'getting it' could get more help, and if that didn't help then perhaps those children could be put on the diagnosis pathway?

Of course, that would be in an ideal world, of course. My DD was school ready as were all my kids back in the 90's. She has SEN, but undiagnosed until she was in her 20s, because her SEN didn't affect her academically or developmentally.