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.

We don’t have a nursery class , but start our school in reception (so 4 turning 5 ) six children have started this year not toilet trained ( plus one that hasd at least four accidents a day to start with , strongly suspect she wasn’t trained, mum had just shoved her in nickers and hoped for the best )
year 4 have lost their ta to help facilitate this.
honestly ridiculous.

There's loads of parents of NT kids who cba to potty train for the initial effort. It's relatively cheap to buy nappies, they don't make a mess really apart from pooing. Wipes are cheap too, makes for an easier day out to not plan in toilets everywhere.

This. I'm potty training my 2 year old and the first time they did in the potty I vomited. Nappies are so much easier.

Nappies in nursery is fine, but absolutely not in primary school. Having occasional accidents in primary is to be expected and the child should be helped by staff to change, but staff shouldn’t be expected to change nappies!

Yes, 20 years ago, when I was a Reception class teacher, a child soiling themselves was a rare occurrence. Perhaps once or twice a term. And usually due to an upset stomach. I am not including children with additional needs in this.

If it did happen and a child didn't have an LSA, our admin team would call the parents and ask them if they would prefer to come in/send someone. We would explain that most children would prefer to be changed by a family member (which is true).

Almost all children would be changed by a family member. Promptly as most families lived very close to the school and had extended family around. If that couldn't happen, then we would change. Always at least 2 fully qualified, permanent members of staff. Not only the TAs.

In my 5+ years in Reception, I probably changed a soiled child once a year. Wee accidents we could simply help the child access clean clothing, wipes etc.

The difference is that it was fully expected that children were toilet trained before starting Reception unless there was an identified reason or investigations ongoing.

My reception age child has a condition called Encopresis where he doesn’t get much or any warning so he keeps soiling himself, the nerves have been damaged down there. So the school have to keep changing him.

these kind of policies worry me because there isn’t much the doctors can do to help my son right now, we’re already doing what we can. Should this mean he just can’t go to school anymore? It’s concerning because I can’t always get there to change him but can happen multiple times a day.

It's illegal to say a non toilet trained child can't start school.

It's illegal to say it?

Unless a child has special educational needs then it's their parents responsibility to ensure they're toilet trained by 5 years old.

Your child has an additional need, so that is accounted for.

You may well be right, but I know of friends of dd who simply couldn’t be bothered, and were still saying their perfectly NT child ‘wasn’t ready’ at 3 1/2 +.

As per my pp, having to wash and dry terry nappies with no automatic machine and no drier, was a great inducement to get on with it. I don’t suppose I’m only older MNer who remembers a clothes horse draped with steaming nappies in front of a coal fire - no central heating, either.

Great post.

But for your dc, this is an identified reason so yes, school should continue to change.

This is more about the children who are sent to full time school in pull ups because the parents have chosen to "wait until they are ready" to toilet train.

It shouldn't be.

If child isn't able to toilet themselves by 4/5yo, then they cannot go to school and the parents should then have to do classes on how to look after their children, at their own expense, failure to attend, fines and if on benefits, sanctions.

Teachers are there to teach, not clean up shit.

The school still can ,t exclude the child wether they are toilet trained or not it's unlawful.

That's irrelevant there is the small matter of Equality act .

Every year we see this, reception kids aren't potty trained, they can't talk, they can't use cutlery etc etc. I never see this in reality at work so I'd like to know the actual figures and details behind obtaining them too.

But what about the children where there is a reason but it hasn’t been identified?

It’s a pretty lazy approach to put everything down to lazy parenting! It’s much more complex and many parents are desperate for help but the help isn’t there.

There are also a sizeable amount of children with SEN (both diagnosed and awaiting diagnosis) entering mainstream reception classes, far more than were seen pre-Covid (at least in my local area). Maintained special schools are full with long waiting lists, LAs don’t have the money to pay for places at independent special schools, even for children whose needs very clearly can’t be met in a mainstream school and can’t get a place at a maintained school. They are building new special schools but not quick enough. Just over 3% of school children have an EHCP, but obviously in the younger years many children won’t be diagnosed yet and there will also be lots of children with SEN or a medical condition who don’t qualify for an EHCP but still may be delayed in some areas.

Is there any evidence that there are large numbers of children who have not been toilet trained for no reason other than parental laziness? I genuinely have never come across a child who was in nappies at four who didn’t have difficulties in other areas and wasn’t either diagnosed or awaiting diagnosis for a disability. I have obviously known lots of children who were toilet trained have accidents from time to time, but that can happen to most children and is unlikely to bring about a policy like this.

It seems very unlikely that, if there are a lot of children who are starting school not yet toilet trained, the majority of these children just have lazy parents. It’s far more likely the majority have a disability, medical condition or other SEN but at 3/ 4 many won’t be diagnosed yet. It’s easy to say this policy is fine as long as it’s not followed for children with SEN, but realistically how can that be the case when most children won’t have a formal diagnosis or EHCP yet? Even if in theory the policy doesn’t include children with SEN in practice it will, and the few children who don’t have SEN or a medical condition will almost all be disadvantaged in other ways as good, attentive parents do prioritise toilet training. If a parent is too ‘lazy’ to toilet train their child it’s likely they are too lazy to care for their children in other ways, that child is probably already being neglected. The worst thing that can be done for a child at risk of abuse is give the parents reason not to send that child to school, just look at what happened to Sara Sharif. Do you really want another reason for neglectful parents to take their child out of school and away from the eyes of adults who are able to safeguard that child?

What is going on that kids that age, without SEN or other medical problems, are not able to toilet themselves in such large numbers that this is an issue? 🤔

This already happens at our school. If a child requires cleaning up over and above what they can manage themselves then a parent will be called. They are supported to clean and change their clothes if they are able to manage solo.

What numbers exactly are we talking about ?

Why on earth is there a photo of a baby attached to this article?

I have no idea of the numbers but obviously it's enough that there needs to be discussion and policies around the issue.

My own children, some with SEN, were all toilet trained by three. I know that's not possible for all, of course.

And no, I don't think teachers should have to deal with poopy messes. Help a child who has an accident and needs a change of underwear, sure, they've always done that. Guide a child to clean themselves up, sure. Clean them up like they're working in a nursery? No.

I can remember asking my HV about Ds as he showed no sign he was ready to be toilet trained at around 2-1/2 (was the late 80s) and she said not to worry, no child goes to school untoilet-trained. (!)
However, she was absolutely right about DS, we went on holiday to a farmhouse with stone floors a couple of months later and it was all done in a fortnight.

Parents that don't parent, that's what's going on.

Why on earth shouldn't we have the same rule? As an ex teacher I cannot imagine having to deal with shitty nappies as part of my job and would have refused. Parents should be called in, or have to stay there to deal with their own child