Is it legal for a teacher to deny a child access to a toilet?

[NotTheMrMenAgain]

I have a friend whose DC, age 13, recently soiled themselves in class because the teacher repeatedly refused to allow them to go to the toilet (and were fairly dismissive about it, by the sound of it). It wasn't a small mishap - the rest of the class were dismissed and my friend called to collect DC.
Understandably, DC is mortified and horrified and my friend very upset and angry. There's been a verbal apology from the head of year to my friend, who said how upset the teacher involved was - but no apology from the teacher to the DC - the teacher had since ignored the child/incident.
AIBU to think this simply isn't good enough? My heart goes out to the poor kid, who knows what kind of mark it will leave and what sort of bullying/mockery it will set them up for.
Is it against a child's basic rights to deny them access to a toilet? It seems like cruelty to me. It this a common policy at secondary school? Apparently they aren't allowed to pop to the loo in between classes, only at break/lunch. When I was a teenager my periods were heavy and I wouldn't have made it til break without an accident!

And no I have not got all unreasonable and uppity about it. I have had enough on my plate trying to care for DD to do that. I am the one who has had to write all the referrals to everyone because the SENCO has never even met DD and so can't do it. We can't have an EHCP because the school has put exactly nothing in place to support her and has refused all adjustments from having a 'feelings book' and feelings cards, allowing her to stay in at breaks, accessing a music player to listen to meditation when stressed and at breaks all the way up to a late start (15mins) to avoid crowds and a reduced timetable as recommended by CAMHS when things got really bad. They have only now accepted that she needs reasonable adjustments but it is too late because various professionals have now assessed that it would be cruel and detrimental to her mental health if she returned to school for any reason without having any preparation.

No, apparently they had put her in a cupboard for the assessment and that was why she got stressed and the therapist had to climb over the chairs and move them before she could get out of the cupboard and she had already been let out by the time she got out because the receptionist met the therapist on her way out to tell her they had buzzed her out.

I would think this is a rule at most secondary schools that it's at least up to the teacher's discretion, if not a blanket 'no toilet breaks'. Anyone who thinks high school children don't routinely say they want to go to the toilet unless they really need to go probably doesn't have much recent experience in a high school classroom!

However, I always assumed the rules were with the implicit understanding that a child who really needed to go would just leave after asking a few times. It would be worth the risk of detention. The same way that a child who is really "dying of thirst" would go get a drink, no matter what the consequences were.

I can't say whether or not it;s legal as I'm not trained. However, it sounds like school rules/policy, respect for authority and/or implicit consequences kept the child in the room, not that she was locked in or was physically restrained/had her exit blocked. i.e. although she didn't have permission to go, it wasn't made physically impossible for her to go.

Having said that, if she was in the U.S. were there's more often legal action about this sort of thing, there may well be a settlement. e.g. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4158696/Jury-awards-1-25-million-school-bathroom-break-lawsuit.html

I recognise that haux which is why I would never demand a teacher's head, why I think it is better for staff who have designated roles to liaise with parents to liaise with them and why I haven't questioned the receptionist re my dd but rather the head because it is, as I see it, a managerial failure.

Offred:

What did the Head say happened?

The head has now said that he has listened to and recorded my suggestions and concerns and they will take various action including retraining the people involved and that he hopes we will all be able to work together to make things better for DD. He has taken the deputy head who replied to the LA off anything to do with her and made the SENCO responsible for everything going forward. Which is TBH just about acceptable as a response as these things have already happened and neither me nor the school can make it better on our own and I am tired of complaining and trying to find support for dd.

But no, as far as I am aware there has been no investigation, there won't be and I haven't been given any explanation and I am picking my battles.

I know the last receptionist as an acquaintance and she left the school when her affair with the head was exposed to the LA (both married) so I already didn't have much faith in him though.

And would you believe the school was deemed outstanding by ofsted!

Offred:

It may just be me but I am finding your responses a bit evasive. It's a simple enough question: when you complained to the Head, did he or did he not tell you how it came about that your DD was let out of school?

But TBH most of the time he just listens to me with a sad face and says nothing.

What you've just said there about what the head is planning to do/is doing sounds fairly comprehensive Offred. Is your daughter still not attending school and what plan do you and the school have to resolve that?

No, he did not. I'm not being evasive. I have not been given an explanation from anyone and I have limited ability to cope with both helping DD and pushing the school for adequate explanations for things, particularly when they are really reluctant to explain or really talk about anything because they seem to find it very difficult, not just with me but when other people from SS, EW ask them things. Most meetings they end up just listening to me or others and not responding. And yes I know I could write to the governors but it would take time and quite a lot of effort emotionally and mentally to do that and for various reasons I have chosen not to prioritise that.

I am pushing for the LA to fund temporary complimentary ed and I requested the school fund wellbeing support for her. I have phoned various people to find out about how to get complimentary ed and requested supporting evidence from paed, wellbeing worker and ed psych and requested school full in the referral and I will have to go into school to fill in the referral under supervision of the SENCO before it is sent.

I'm thinking Offred needs a whole thread of her own...

I'm still at someone forgetting a pen when they were in uni!

And yes I know I could write to the governors but it would take time and quite a lot of effort emotionally and mentally to do that and for various reasons I have chosen not to prioritise that

I'm not even going to ask.

The Head is accountable to the governors. If you choose not to escalate the issue to the appropriate people, that isn't a lack of accountability, but a lack of action on your part, isn't it?

Anyway, I'm out.

Well yes it is partly because I have not written to the governors but TBH I shouldn't need to write to the governors about this. The only reason I need to write to the governors is because the school has failed to actually deal with it effectively themselves, that is usually why parents need to write to governors - because they are not satisfied with the school's response and in fact before you write to the governors you have to have first allowed the school to deal with the issue. If a school is working properly the governors shouldn't need to be written to.

Offred:

I know I said I'm out but...

That isn't a lack of accountability. It might be shit, but he is still accountable.

Well no it isn't a lack of accountability but what I was criticising was specifically a lack of accountability to the pupils and parents. Having to write to the governors because the school has not adequately dealt with the issue when they could have done is specifically an example of a school not being accountable to parents and pupils and needing to be held accountable by their superiors.

Offred:

No, it isn't. The job of the governors is to hold the Head accountable on behalf of children and parents. He can't be directly accountable to you - you are not his employer and neither is your DD, so you can't discipline, direct or dismissal him, but that doesn't mean he isn't accountable to you.

*dismiss

You described some of the things the head has said he will/is doing. You said you've had meetings with him and that the SENCO will now be involved which is what you wanted. How is that not being accountable to you?

Yes on behalf of children and parents when the school has failed to deal with the issue itself. If you read the complaints policy of every school I have ever seen it is along the lines of teacher, head of infants/juniors/year, head/deputy head, governors. You can't to just complain straight to the governors.