*katiestar "any teacher who says mopping poo is not her job should perhaps find out outr what being in l;oco parentis actually mean and find out about some of the less savoury aspects of working withg children before deciding on a career in teaching."
I'm afraid that, whatever your personal opinion may be,Advice from the NUT shows that this issue should not fall as an expectation of a teacher's duties at all.
"It is not part of a teacher's professional duties to clean up children. Such a responsiblilty cannot, therefore, be added to a teacher's job description. Quite apart from the fact that such a task is not making good use of a teacher's skills and time, there are practical issues, too. Teachers cannot simply abandon their class to attend to a child who needs this kind of assistance. Members of support staff are better placed to undertake this role and some may have such responsibilities included in their job description.
Although the vast majority of teachers would assist in an emergency situation, as no child should be left in wet or soiled clothing, it is important that there is no expectation that routine and predictable incidents are dealt with by teachers."
It is absolutely appalling that the op's poor dd was left in this state; someone most certainly should have noticed, and it should have been dealt with appropriately. As a teacher, I personally would have no qualms about changing a soiled child, but I don't think that's the issue here - it's that staff at the op's school pretended not to notice.
But you can't decree that teachers sould consider changing children as part of their job, katiestar, because it quite obviously isn't. How can a teacher abandon the other 29 children to deal with one child, or why should they leave the teaching to a teaching assistant? Of course, working in a school as you do, you will know that. (But what do you actually do, katiestar?)