AIBU in thinking this could spread rapidly to other schools? Parents have to come into school to change NT DCs if they soil themselves.

[CwmYoy]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/schools-tell-parents-if-your-34349942

It's been a long time coming but I can see it will spread now there are fewer TAs.

As long as SEN needs are taken into account I think it's a good idea.

If push comes to shove I'm not sure schools will really exclude children, so I'm honestly curious how far this situation will go and what impact it'll have, it'

If push comes to shove I'm not sure schools will really exclude children

How on earth do you know that? It isn’t uncommon for DC to be unlawfully excluded.

@Italiandreams and @BrightYellowTrain
Fair on both accounts, this is basically a ugly situation with no good solution, so teachers and school are taking the only action they belive they can, try to force parents to potty train their children.

All we can do is wait and see how it goes.

Marginalising some child is not the only action they can take.

How could I know that when I can't see the future? I simply said I don't think they'll do it, this situation affects a lot more children and is already getting backlash, if school try to exclude every single child who soil themselves frequently they might suffer consequences, so it's quite possible this is more barking than biting, just try to scare enough parents into potty training their children.

All we can do is wait and see how it goes, only thing I think is sure is that if they enforce it long enough they'll get sued sooner or later.

Well you seem to know enough to post “If push comes to shove I'm not sure schools will really exclude children” which shows such little understanding of how many pupils are unlawfully excluded.

When it's a minority it's easy for them to get away with it, they can always find loopholes justify it, harder to do that if the number get too big, because then the backlash will get too big, which will force people to take actions.

There is never a loophole to justify an unlawful exclusion.

And yet they do it without actual consequences no? That means they did find some sort of loophole, if not they wouldn't be able to get away with it at all.

Ensuring the children who are only taking up an equal amount of the teachers time is every bit as important as those with extra needs. If that requires schools to make hard decisions that they do not have the staffing to teach as well as be carers for some pupils, then so be it.

I don't think a school would be found to be illegally discriminating if they could show it would be unsafe due to staffing numbers. As I said upthread, I'm confident most parents on here would be extremely upset if their child was hurt in a room with no teacher as she was cleaning the nappy of another child.

And yet they do it without actual consequences no?

Not when parents enforce their child’s right, they don’t.

That means they did find some sort of loophole, if not they wouldn't be able to get away with it at all.

No, it means, for a variety of reasons, parents don’t know the school shouldn’t be excluding as they are/that it is an unlawful exclusion or parents know it shouldn't be happening but don’t know they can challenge the school on the matter or they know it shouldn’t be happening and that it can be challenged but for a multitude of reasons don’t feel able to challenge the school/advocate for their child/enforce their child’s rights and don't receive support to challenge the school. That doesn’t mean the school has found a loophole which justifies unlawful exclusions. It means the system as it is fails the most vulnerable children.

Equality and equity are not the same thing.

@BrightYellowTrain
Is there any law that the school has to tell the parents what are their rights? Cause staying quiet and taking advantage of the parents ignorance could be in itself a loophole.

Same for taking advantage of the fact that some parents don't think they can fight and win against the school.

Though you're right, I did say loophole to justify excluding the child instead of saying loophole to just get away from the situatuon in some way.

I admit that I don't know if legally that is outright a loophole, but I do feel that taking advantage of the parents in that way feels like one, purposely taking advantage of the parents ignorance about their rights sounds like the kind of thing that should be illegal.

As I understand it schools can refuse to have DCs in if they "cannot meet their needs". That's not illegal.

If no member of staff is willing or available to change DC who persistently needs changing then the head could say his needs can't be met, surely?

When I was teaching we could opt out and most of us did.

That's how one of the local schools got rid of a newly diagnosed diabetic child. Great stuff.

Sure, the mum could've fought it and the school would've been in deep shit, but that takes time ,knowledge and strength. So instead she went for the school 5 minutes away where not only was her kid supported, but also accepted.

Now we(and she) are lucky because there is plenty of choice in primaries around here. What about places where there isn't? There's one, maybe 2 primaries and that's it. What happens to the child then?

Would it be easier for everyone if only "healthy, normal , well adjusted, cared for " children that meet all their milestones children went to "our" schools? Be in "our" children's class? Sure. That's not how this works though. Nor should it be.

@CwmYoy
You said something that caught my attention

If no member of staff is willing

Some posters basically insist if a child soil themselves the teacher has to help them, but in practice nobody can really force the teacher to do it.

Yes, generally teacher's do it part because it's rare accident and part because it would be wrong to not help, but schools are making this policy because supposedly it's happening too much due to some parents not potty training their children.

Thing is even if we ignore why it's happening fact is that changing nappies is not in the teacher contracts, it's literally not their job, so people can't expect or much less force them to do it, so nobody can really try to push this situation into them.

I'm honestly just waiting to see if someone will try to add to the teachers contract, the shortage is already bad as it is and that will make it even worse.

We were the earliest to pt in our group, at just before 2. I must admit I don't really get the trend of waiting until 3/3.5 to even start and all these "signs of readiness" seem a bit ott. But even saying all that, I only know if 2 kids who were not reliably potty trained by 4.

Of those 2, one is autistic and none verbal (and summer born, so her parents have followed advice and deferred school until next year) and another has serious digestive issues causing constipation which needed medication which then caused incredibly loose stools to come on very quickly. Once this was more under control (after a small proceedure) the child was able to pick it up much quicker, in plenty of time for school.

I keep hearing about all these kids going to school still in nappies, but never met any in real life without a genuine medical issue or a disability. I certainly don't know where all these apparently really lazy parents are who apparently just can't be bothered to get their almost 5 year olds out of nappies.

That being said I also don't know what the answer if here to be honest. I get teachers changing nappies regularly is impractical and not sustainable but honestly neither does waiting around for a parent to arrive to change them, especially as they'll almost certainly have to commute which will take even longer.

As I understand it schools can refuse to have DCs in if they "cannot meet their needs".

That isn’t the case. In England, state mainstream schools cannot refuse to admit a child without an EHCP because they say they cannot meet their needs. With an EHCP, there are limited lawful reasons the LA can refuse to name the parent’s preferred school. If the LA cannot prove the high bar for one of the limited exceptions, and toileting needs would not meet that threshold, the LA can and must need the school even if the school objects when consulted as part of the EHCP process. Where a child has already been admitted, the statutory suspension and exclusion guidance makes it explicitly clear it is unlawful to exclude simply because the child has SEND the school feels unable to meet. The rules are similar in Wales with IDPs.

Is there any law that the school has to tell the parents what are their rights?

No, but it is unprofessional. Sadly, it is all too common in some schools, not just related to unlawful exclusions. There is, however, statutory guidance and legislation underpinning exclusions.

I admit that I don't know if legally that is outright a loophole

There is no loophole that allows a school to unlawfully exclude, whether the parents know the child is being unlawfully excluded or not.

@FiveWhatByFiveWhat
I have to say I also don't get that trend, it doesn't sound like something that would help the child unless they have problems to begin with.

I keep hearing about all these kids going to school still in nappies

My suspicion is that perhaps it's specific schools for some reason having that problem

I certainly don't know where all these apparently really lazy parents are who apparently just can't be bothered to get their almost 5 year olds out of nappies.

It's not just lazy parents, but supposedly also parents who wait for their child to be ready, and since doing that is trendy there might be quite a few of those

That being said I also don't know what the answer if here to be honest. I get teachers changing nappies regularly is impractical and not sustainable but honestly neither does waiting around for a parent to arrive to change them, especially as they'll almost certainly have to commute which will take even longer.

Well supposed the school started this policy due to staff complaint, so I can only imagine they'll try to force it and wait to see how it goes.

Unfortunately I suspect parents and their children might end up as the weakest link in the chain, so they're the ones who will suffer and be forced to take action.

And if someone tries to sue the school and loses? Other schools will definitely follow and adopt the same policy.

@BrightYellowTrain Schools have to meet the child's needs. But individual teachers can refuse to change nappies. I do not know how schools can square that circle given how little money most have.

And in terms of additional support, teachers are saying the children who get additional support are the parents who fight for it, not the children who need it most.

@BrightYellowTrain
There is no loophole that allows a school to unlawfully exclude, whether the parents know the child is being unlawfully excluded or not.

I'm not talking about being allowed to do it, I'm talking about getting away with it even if it's unlawful, the closest they have to a "loophole" is taking advantage of the parents ignorance.

It's still unlawful, but as long as the parents doesn't do anything the school still gets away with it.

But if it was true that due to staffing and budget constraints they could not meet that childs needs, it would be referred back to the local authority to find a solution. That doesn't mean the school made an incorrect or unreasonable decision.

I am not sure why you have tagged me in this since I haven’t said any individual teacher has to change a child?

Unfortunately, DC whose parents advocate for their child and enforce their DC’s rights get better support. It shouldn’t be like that and fails the most vulnerable. However, no child gets support via an EHCP unless they meet the legal threshold.