To be appalled that parents need to be supported by government to potty train their child

I dont think there's anything wrong with the state supporting parents by providing clear advice on things like healthy diets, potty training, screen time etc Its nothing new and is obviously far better than mopping up the pieces years later when it all goes wrong.

Only after there's clear support and guidance out there is there perhaps a role for shame and judgement (or peer pressure as its commonly known).

It's certainly the case that any school that I've worked in has used a Pupil Support Assistant for pupils who require this type of help.

In mainstream, we had to share one PSA amongst several classes and they were very stretched - the provided both educational and medical support. The only situation where a child had one-to-one with a PSA was in a Special School or Special Education Department. (That nomenclature is still used in parts of Scotland,)

Our professional associations would be telling teaching staff that they should not be dealing with nappy changes etc - teaching staff are not trained for this. (Before anyone comments that any competent adult should be able to do this, I'm talking about the health and safety aspects of personal care.)

There's also the fact that the class teacher cannot be expected to abandon the rest of the class while s/he takes one pupil to the toilet.

Schools can't afford enough paper and pencils to last the school year. How are they going to pay care assistants!

I agree that expectations need to be higher but this clearly isn't the outcome that lots of people wanted!

@laurini In a wider sense, it is the outcome of more non judgemental attitudes and the “be kind” brigade. There should be some judgement and some shame attached to not readying a child for school, but there isn’t. Every failure is met by the state helping out. It has to end and expectations must be higher.

@jumpingjohnny Not by a teacher! A care assistant is who should be employed.

A special school place where they'll be changed by... a teacher or TA!

Edit: typo

What do you mean?

I would say autism is a disability especially those on the more severe end.

there isn’t one but are they necessarily disabled?

Is it? I don't think "a lot of people" wanted 5 year olds in nappies 😂

Well what is your solution then? All disabled children stay at home until they get a specialist place or be home schooled?

Yes of course but I don’t agree with teachers or TAs having this to deal with

I completely agree with this. My son is 19mo and I've not gone full no nappies anymore yet but he's been using a potty part time at home since 12 months, I've just got my MIL a potty at hers as he goes once a week and will ask for no.2 (sometimes a wee). I'm doing nappy free chunks of time at home as well now, with joggers or leggings on so he sees what happens when he doesn't ask for the potty or go to it on the floor.

But I've even had lovely MIL tell me not to rush him, nursery has said they'll be supportive but if a child doesn't show "distress" at using the potty, he moves out of the baby room at 22/23 months anyway. I wanted to get some more evidence of him asking for and using the potty for wees at home before I asked nursery to do the same. And he's only there 2 days a week.

Wish I could be at home with him full time but we can't afford it and I also can't take annual leave (teacher). Best bet for the full no nappies might be over Christmas when we've got a bigger chunk of time off school and nursery. That is to say, I feel privileged compared to houses that have to have two full time incomes, but still feeling the constraints of getting childcare on board.

Also I've definitely noticed on here and parents of kids aged 5+ this idea of wait for readiness, age 3+ before you even begin potty training and they'll get it in a weekend.

It may not have been but the institute for fiscal studies believe that for every £1 spent on sure start it generated £2.05 in long term finance benefits. You can't force people to use the services but it obviously made a difference to some.

Same with this potty training initiative. They aren't forcing people to read the booklets or attend the workshops. But it has shown to make a massive difference. People are using it. So surely its money we'll spent and saves the public in the long term?

Sure Start was not well targeted. It didn’t prevent parents not potty training! Half the mums who needed it didn’t go!

But if outcomes improve with help then is it laziness? Wouldn't outcomes stay the same? The scheme gave out guides and put on workshops. None of the parents were forced to read or attend.

TikTok generation who already have a short attention span and can't do things for themselves having children of their own and not having a clue, i'd guess.

I am surewe have coped throughout our human evolution and without surestart. It's pure laziness. By the way i liked surestart, it did help people but it's not the reason.

I thought that is what you meant. The kindred survey doesn’t actually say that children are in nappies. I’ve read it before several times. It references frequent toilet mishaps and being able to use the toilet completely independently. So being able to undress/dress , wipe, flush, wash hands completely independently. It doesn’t necessarily/automatically mean that 26% of children start reception in nappies.

@KeepDancing1, it is easy to blame political parties. The Labour Party has been in power for over two years now and what moves have they made to reinstate these services? All political parties seem to be as bad as each other.

They had regular, easy access to a health visiting team.

In the past, it was common for reception aged children to have the occasional little accident. Even children who have been toilet trained for a long time can have the odd relapse if they are nervous or coming down with an illness for example. This was accepted and a teacher would have a few spare pairs of pants to hand and would quickly deal with the puddle on the floor. This is very different from having to change a child’s nappy on a daily basis, though.

In the late 90s, playgroup tended to be 2.5-3 hours a couple of mornings a week, run by a paid member of staff and a rota of parent volunteers. Did the children of FT working parents attend them? The work colleagues I knew back then with children tended to send them to the office’s on-site crèche for full days of care.

Our local playgroup is now a ‘childcare setting’, open 50 weeks per year, 7am - 6pm. The health visitors who were available in weekly open clinics from midwife-handover at two weeks to school age have disappeared. The sure start group in the local village hall was an early casualty of the 2015 conservative government. Parenting young children has become a service to buy in or a very lonely endeavour.

I agree but this support needs to be started at around a child’s second birthday so that the appalling situation we have now is prevented to a great extent.