New nursery expects all potential pupils be potty trained, even the 2 year olds.

[FundraisingPTABitch]

That's it really. I'm new to this part of town, and so is this nursery.

When I enquired with the admin about this policy, they said every potential pupil must be potty trained.

AIBU to think this nursery can just fuck off? I will potty train my little child when both the child and I are both ready.

Ludicrous. Irresponsible! Elitist!

So what is the oblique message posters are trying to get across to parents whose DCs take a while to 'get' potty training?

That we are just plain lazy? Even if the rest of our parenting or lives generally do not support this?

That we are overly permissive? Even if again we are fairly firm in other dealings with our DCs?

That we missed a tiny unknown unknowable window for training around 16 months & hell mend us, we deserve to be judged?

That we are wrong to be out the house whether it be working or gadding since this means we are not enslaving ourselves sufficiently to the potty?

Or do we have a fixed delusion centred solely round potty training that means we don't see the need for it? If that were the case surely pity & help would be more appropriate?

I spent 18 months per child dealing with accidents simply to try & avoid the feeling of being judged & found wanting. More fool me.

I still think 3.5 or later is not normal for children to be untrained by, there's no need for it (unless SN). "In my day" with toddlers (mid 80's-mid 90's) you got to their 2nd birthday and seriously started potty training, it may have taken a few months before they were in knickers full time. There was no being tied to the house, you managed, plus no way did they sit on a potty all day and had no fun. It just became part of the daily routine. All this letting the child decide, please. No doubt these are the same 3 year olds in nappies who have to be breastfed to sleep in their parents beds. Whatever happened to common sense. 3 year olds don't need to be in nappies.

Jason I quite agree that some people claim their children are toilet trained, when in fact they are still having multiple accidents. But most do not. I certainly did not.

It is quite remarkable how on this thread the majority of older posters are saying, "This is how it was", and being accused of "Rose coloured spectacles" or being mistaken, or simply of making it up. Is it the infamous Mumsnet ageism in action again? Or simply a lack of imagination to look outside the current state of play; a sense of, "this is how it is, therefore it has always been like this"?

i meant most will be trained by three and a half some will two and a half etc but the vast majority will have cracked it by three and a half

"No doubt these are the same 3 year olds in nappies who have to be breastfed to sleep in their parents beds. Whatever happened to common sense. 3 year olds don't need to be in nappies."

Oh well, DS2 is clearly doomed to a lifetime of infantilization as he's still breastfed as well. :)

Why the scorn for children and parents who are at the late end of "normal"? In what way would the world be a better place if I "got tough" and "normal" and forced the issue, rather than waiting until DS2 is actually keen on the idea and getting it over with quickly (as per above, DS1 essentially trained himself and it only took a couple of weeks. Very few accidents.)? I am not a lazy or particularly permissive parent, I would love to be free of nappies, I just can't see the benefit of weeks of tantrums (he is monumentally stubborn), shitty pants, and wet trousers over waiting another month or two and hopefully getting the same results with less effort.

And, as I said above, "in my day" when I was an actual toddler in the early 70s I wasn't fully toilet trained at two, or anything near it (checked with my mother and I wasn't fully dry at night until I was four, still in day time nappies at 3). I seem to have somehow survived this crushing neglect by my lazy permissive hippy parents to become a productive adult member of society. I can even go to the toilet all by myself like a big girl.

I tried to toilet train my first son from 2, it ended up being 9 months of hell. He wasn't ready and ended up with constipation for 2 years. Second boy wasn't ready to start at 2, let alone done by 2. He toilet trained as soon as he turned 3 and was done in a week, stress free for him, me and nursery.

It makes more sense to say they will only take toilet trained for Pre-school age, which is around 3 years old.

Interesting Effie. Personally I think late training is expensive, harmful to the environment, cannot be pleasant for the child sitting in wet nappies and a bit misguided, since early intensive training at two and a bit or so, seems to be quicker and more effective than messing around with pull ups for years.

But I stopped using nappies early - round about 2 without any success and then for good at 2.4 (despite limited evidence of success!) Accidents went on til just before 4th birthday.

It's hardly evidence of sloth is it?

No pull-ups here other than at night (which was much easier than day - distraction was a major problem for both my DDs).

For a combined period of 2-3 yrs between my two DDs I'd say I dealt with soiled clothes on average 2-3 times per day.

When lots of children were toilet trained by 2, the actual toilet training started much younger.
Apart from environmental concerns, I don't think it matters when you toilet train. I just wish all of us older MNers were not constantly treated as if we were lying.

I think those that have struggled with it resent being called lazy or it being implied. Similarly that we are permissive or don't care about the environment.

I used washables with DD1. Would have used them with DD2 more than I did but was losing heart by this point due to the lack of PT progress.

No doubt these are the same 3 year olds in nappies who have to be breastfed to sleep in their parents beds. Whatever happened to common sense.

You get this trophy, for the most people judged and insulted in one sentence on this thread.

I do think it's funny, adding everything together if your child isn't potty trained by 2 you are weird, lazy, extended breastfeeding co-sleepers who lack common sense.

Yanbu however they should Barr any children who are not potty trained by 3.5 unless they have a special need issue

they cant do that Tamponlady its illegal and discriminatory.

All this letting the child decide, please. No doubt these are the same 3 year olds in nappies who have to be breastfed to sleep in their parents beds. Whatever happened to common sense. 3 year olds don't need to be in nappies.
Rude much?
I know a lot of dc in pants after 3, I don't know any attachment parents or breast feeders of children. It's completely unrelated to any other area of parenting or development.

How do you know for sure which children have sn?

Not all special needs can be diagnosed as early as 3.5 yrs, so barring "any children who are not potty trained by 3.5 unless they have a special need issue" means that you'd be inadvertently barring some children with as yet undiagnosed special needs.

I'm torn on this issue - of course children shouldn't be punished for not being pottytrained, and if there is a medical reason or SEN then there should be an exception. That said, I was shocked when on placement recently that a lot of the 4 year olds weren't toilet trained, and it has definitely changed over time IMO. One of my flatmates is a teacher and she agrees - in her words 'some children come in now unable to do basic things like go to the loo, use cutlery, and they're four. Some (NOT all) of these children come from homes where parents expect the school to teach these basic skills.' I was considered quite a late starter in the 1990s, and I was dry through the day by 2 and a half, by 3 I was completely dry. Attitudes towards special needs have changed (thankfully). It is astounding though, at the amount of children who are not fully toilet trained by 4, when years ago the average age was 2. Not all of those children can have medical issues, surely? Genuinely wondering.

2xboys

Mores the pity

On a lot of parents part not potty training is pure lazy parenting i think it's shocking children Turing up at school at 4-5 still in nappies or unable to self care

To many parents very lazy and I don't give to figs about being judgy you pants I take mine in a size 12 in aqua blue

I think pull ups have a lot to answer for Even when potty training people still trying to use pull ups

You need 3 things for potty training
Potty
Pants/knickers
Sweets

Less than 0.3 % of children start school in nappies.

Maiden1995 the reason for this is squarely to do with schools not accepting children who are not potty trained

In my day my mum had to work the school wouldn't take me unless I was trained guess what I was potty trained by the first day I turned up

But I also blame the schools they are now not allowed to refuse children of lazy parents but they should be tackling them much stronger

If your can't use a loo or a knife , dress and undress themselves by 4 and they don't have Sen your a lazy fucker and the school need to book you on a parenting course.

I I don't buy people ont have time bullshit either people have time to watch X factor , come on here etc

But surely "not potty trained at 2" != "turning up at school at the age of four still in nappies"?

As people have repeatedly said, the average is somewhere between 2 and 3.5. Which still allows the child to be fully toilet trained by the time they start school while still having been the victims of lazy permissive parents like myself.