To agree with this mail article

[fourmeatpies]

It's written by a fellow teacher and is nappy at school related, so those that find these things a touchy subject might not want to check it out.
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2617186/Why-I-blame-middle-class-mothers-six-year-olds-sent-school-nappies-one-teachers-left-change-them.html
Why is it increasing, when will it stop? These subjects really need to be talked about instead of swept under the rug.

Goodness me, Our talk guidelines seem to be needed. A reminder that if there's one thing we can ALL do with, no matter how old our DC, or whether they are NT or have SN is some moral support. Thanks ever so.

I am so sorry that people are upset, OP what say you?

It is quite a hideous article, a bit ugly.

But but but....

It has definitely become more accepted to be in nappies longer.

And that is partly to do with a change in parenting ("The child will potty train himself when he is ready"), paired with much better nappies (compared to decades ago). It does mean children are often in diapers much longer than previous generations.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I am not sure. It seems from this thread it is at the very least deemed acceptable by almost all. (bar OP)

It must be shitty (literally) for teachers to have to deal with many kids in nappies in reception and year 1. But is this truly the case? Is it all a bit of a storm in a tea cup? And aren't most NT kids in reality potty trained by age 4/5?

Hullo Oliva. Yes indeed.

BabyGanoush, in children without any extra needs (which could be disability or a very chaotic homelife or medical reasons, or undiagnosed as yet additional needs) there may be a tendency towards toilet training at a later age than our predecessors. The general view being that child led,might be better for the child than the parent trying to introduce it at a time when the child isn't ready.

I toilet trained my dd1 at 3.2 (I think around 3 is the norm now), we had had several attempts where she clearly wasn't ready, and then when she was 3.2 it was sorted over a week.

Does anyone really think this is a problem? For children to toilet train when they are physically, emotionally and cognitively ready? Surely not.

What the article and op is saying is not this however, what they are saying is that there are a whole crowd of middle class feckless mothers who are too lazy and distracted to toilet train their own child, not taking into account that there may be many reason (as listed above) why a child may e in nappies later.

The article then goes on to talk about,what I can only assume are a bunch of made up lies and examples,where 5 or 6 children in a class are in nappies due to their mother's crapness.

Why are you into adult babies, OP? Do you think it stems from issues in your own childhood?

They go to swimming lessons and have faces made at them because they are wearing swim nappies.

Rink I'm assuming you know already but if you don't splashabout.com do a range of reusable swim nappies that look like normal swimmers, even for adults.

four

I think you need help with your maths...you seem to be struggling with this whole percentage business

99% of the posters on this thread have supported any such thing

You possibly need help with the reading bit as well...or is it just comprehension?

1,600 per year? There are 750,000 children in each year group. That would be, what, 2 in nappies per 1,000 school starters? Doesn't seem a huge problem and is probably almost entirely explained by sn, diagnosed or otherwise.

I need help with my typing

Have not supported any such thing

1,600 per year? There are 750,000 children in each year group. That would be, what, 2 in nappies per 1,000 school starters? Doesn't seem a huge problem and is probably almost entirely explained by sn, diagnosed or otherwise.

Apart from the magical school featured in the Mail, which has had 11 children over 2 years.

Considering you have linked to the daily fail, where is the house price comparison of those toilet trained and those who aren't?

I've just reported your latest post, OP.

I don't care if this post of mine gets pulled - I normally sit on my hands but I think you are one of the most extreme GF's I've seen in a long time.

Do have any evidence (proper evidence not a daily mail article) of all these children with no additional needs who aren't toilet trained by the time they start school?

I have worked in schools for years and can hand on heart say the few children who have not been toilet trained have all had varying levels of additional need.

I think the main question that needs to be asked / answered is:

Why are those two elephants up thread in nappies?

I can't get my head around why anyone would call nappies the lazy option. Nappies are much harder work than toilet training a child who is developmentally ready to be trained.

I've never understood this either!

Actually, your title just draws people in, with the idea, 'ok what bullshit has the mail come up with this time'

Then you link to the 'why I blame blah blah, pile of misogynistic, it's Middle Class bashing this week, blah blah, back in my day.....' crap.

With a nice piece of throwing your hand's in the air at how rife this is, oh the poor teachers...

As others have said I would like to see the figures, and I'd like to know, out of the fictional 11 children in 2 years that were in nappies in years R, as per the article, how many had medical needs, additional needs, or ended up having a diagnosis?

Why are goady cunts allowed to continue to post goady shit and MNHQ pop up with a half hearted "play nicely"?
The Op is clearly goading and causing hurt and offence why aren't posters like that at the very least given a bit of "time out" where their ability to post is suspended even just for a short period.

Well said, Hobs.

Let's not get derailed by SEND issues or children with incontinence problems. The issue is that children who are not potty trained being sent to school even though there is no physical reason for their incontinence. Children are being sent to school with very poor communication and social skills. This is nothing to do with the Daily Mail. This is everything to do with parents who don't want to put effort into bringing up their children. I am incensed on behalf of all Reception teachers and their TAs who have to put up with this.

1600 children a year (says the mail)

Asking how many of those children have incontinence issues or other SN is not derailing at all

In fact it's railing...absolutely keeping the thread on track