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.

I wonder how many posters on here would accept being told they were required to change a dirty nappy or soiled clothing when it was nowhere near their job description.

Would a cafe worker just meekly trot off and change an elderly man because their business attracts a lot of elderly and a third of them are incontinent.

The complaint and legal action would be against a school, not an individual teacher. The argument is that school would need to find someone willing to do it, not just accept discrimination against one of their pupils.

And then the school possibly proves they can't find someone willing to do it or have the funds to hire someone, which means a judge most likely would let the school get away with it

How do we pay for the support needed then? Magic money?

I'm tapping out before I end up in that stupid endless loop where you're living in planet fantasy, and the actual school staff are living in planet reality.

Not ruining my boxing day not being good enough for someone who thinks they're so fucking clever and us stupid school staff should be doing everything 20 times over to support kids when we're already doing our best and disadvantaging our own kids on a daily basis. Or we should "just get a lawyer" LOL.

Will the extra funding for these staff be in place? If not, then again the rest of the pupils are being short changed if this happens.

You remind me of some discussions I see once in a while, where a woman take her baby to work and expects the female coworkers to help her take care of the baby

Don’t know where you saw that!

schools can sometimes access early help funding before an EHCP is granted but that is hard. Getting a properly funded EHCP is even harder!

DS has an EHCP it provides him with full time 1-1, it also has the expectation he will supported with tube feeding amongst other things. That feeding still comes down to the goodwill of staff. Thankfully he has gone to amazing (mainstream schools) where staff members from Head to Receptionist have all been happy to be trained. Both primary and secondary have had at least 5 members trained but that isn’t part of their contract nor do they get paid any extra for it!

We are lucky that the funding ds get does pretty much cover the cost of what is written in (and his is a rare well written Ehcp) but I had to threaten to take the LA to court to get that.

By following any or multiple of the examples I posted in my pp.

It isn’t a fantasy to expect schools and LAs to adhere to the law and point out how the child’s rights can be enforced.

I didn’t say “just get a lawyer”. That wasn’t me. Neither have I said anyone is stupid.

Schools can pursue extra funding, yes. (Not saying it is easy, but yes, it is possible).

Their solution boil down to force the teacher to do it, pretty sure it would backfire if they really try to force it lol

Tbh, it would probably be a TA .

Children don’t start school at 3

The original article that the OP quoted says reception and nursery classes. Which start at 3.

Excluding them once have a place I'm not sure about, but they can definitely lawfully refuse to admit them. Schools are allowed to decline children based on it 'being incompatible with the effective education of the rest of the class' - which a teacher leaving class to change a child would definitely fit

they can definitely lawfully refuse to admit them.

No, they can’t.

Without an EHCP, state school places are allocated in accordance with the oversubscription criteria which must comply with the admissions code. See this IPSEA page which states “A school must not refuse to admit a child with SEN because it does not feel able to cater for those needs.” [their bold] A school cannot lawfully refuse a place based on a child’s lack of toilet training.

With an EHCP, for non-wholly independent schools, the LA must name the parent’s preferred placement unless the LA can prove:
“a) the school or other institution requested is unsuitable for the age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs of the child or young person concerned, or
b) the attendance of the child or young person at the requested school or other institution would be incompatible with—
(i) the provision of efficient education for others, or
(ii) the efficient use of resources.”
This is set out in section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014. If the LA cannot meet the high bar to prove one of the above, the LA can and must name the preferred placement even if the school objects when consulted. Not being toilet trained would not meet this legal threshold.

The cause of the need has to be established before funding will be provided. For education to fund, the child not being potty trained needs to be shown to be due to a learning need. If it's due to a health need, such as a bladder abnormality, then funding for support often comes from the nhs. That's why it's called an Education Health and Care plan. Education, nhs and social can all be asked to provide/fund various aspects of it. As an nhs manager, I have to sign off on an EHCP's which name support from my service to confirm we will fund/provide.
So if not being toilet trained is not shown as linked to an additional learning need, them the school/council are under no obligation to fund additional support

The cause of the need has to be established before funding will be provided.

No, it doesn’t. A diagnosis is not required.

Health care provision which educates or trains is actually deemed SEP (s21 of the CFA 2014) and should be in F of the child’s EHCP. Thus, ultimately, the responsibility of the LA.

And let’s not forget it is highly likely that before school places are allocated a school won’t be aware of the needs a child! After a place has been allocated then a school can’t just say “nope can’t do it”

I think having to change a nappy is a step too far and it is an absolute cheek

Perhaps someone from the LA should come and do it

I somehow don't think so

The dps need to sort this out and the parents need to be more pro active between 2-3

I did not state that it needed a diagnosis, but whether it's a health, social or learning need. The NHS funds a significant chunk of the school support needs of children with complex needs via individual ICB packages, funding of school nurses, commuinity nurses providing training to school staff. Attempts to get the LA to fund these have led to children not being able to attend school in our area. There are often protracted debates about who should fund, and in knowledge that children are the ones missing out, nhs services often agree to fund in best interests of the child rather than because they are actually responsible.

If this were just the case of the few children with medical or developmental needs, even if not yet formally diagnosed, showing up at schools, it likely wouldn’t be an issue. parents could be working out solutions with the schools on an individual basis.

the problem is that now there are
more children in the mix who could be potty trained, but aren’t. Personally I think the issue is the fact that many parents no longer change nappies after each use. Due to technology changes, the disposable variety are more absorbent so parents wait until they are “full”. It’s cheaper and better for the environment, but children lose the association of being changed after eliminating. We went a step further and used cloth instead of disposables. Potty training was very simple even with an ASD child.

The NHS may fund some support at school. Often as a result of discussions at the tripartite panel. However, HCP which trains or educates is actually SEP, so, ultimately, the LA is responsible. It is the LA with the absolute duty under s42 of the CFA 2014 and can be enforced via JR. There is plenty of case law on this. The cause doesn’t need to be established either, because, in SEN law, it is a special educational need and thus belongs in B even if it is also mentioned in C.

School staff are permitted to refuse without any disciplinary action. In practice most school staff would do this, but we have had situations as school where I am a governor where no one able to change due to person who was doing being off sick, another willing person had hurt back so unable to lean over to help, another had severe morning sickness and smell caused her to vomit , and parent had to be called. Luckily this parent was very reasonable and understanding and able to get there quickly, but it did lead to lots of discussions among our governing board about whether we could write it into contracts of new staff joining, however the union rep blocked this.

Sure schools probably can't exclude the child for that, but they sure as hell can't be forced to help the child if they really decide to not do it.

No. But anyone who is acting in loco parentis and who deliberately causes suffering and neglect to a child in their care should be prosecuted. Not sued, prosecuted.

@Bushmillsbabe

Glad the unions blocked the contract change

Really the parent shouldn't complain when it's their child.

Yes it must be physically hard to do the changing for staff