For refusing to change a 6 year old?

[Bernie6678]

So I’m 20 years old, at uni and working as a TA. I want to be a KS2 teacher. This is my first year working with children, I have no past experience, no children of my own etc. Posting here to get opinions from mums.

Anyway I’ve recently been moved from the year 5 classroom (which I loved) to year 1 and there’s multiple children who wet themselves and one of them actually poos himself quite regularly. No SEN. I understand the odd accident but this is happening a few times a week…
I’ve said I don’t feel comfortable changing children as this isn’t in my contract or job description and I’ve had no intimate care training. (Personally for minimum wage I’d rather not be dealing with poo and changing children).
I also think when a child wets themselves at this age they should be capable of going and changing themselves. We have lots of spare clothes and baby wipes here.

I’ve refused so the teacher or another TA changes the children.

Apparently the teacher has now complained about me because she’s having to do it when her previous TA would do it no questions asked. Previous TA has now had to go off on sick leave.

AIBU? They’re 6 years old?!

The school have to, it's considered against the Disability Discrimination Act if they don't.

I agree with you that she needs to be given the training. But, once she has, if a child in the class has an Individual Health Care Plan in place and the TA refuses to deal with what's on that Health Care Plan, then what do you suggest happen? Sack the TA? Move the TAs around? I used to be a TA btw before I had children and I was happy to deal with all and any needs the children had. If someone is unable to do that, there are plenty of other jobs out there. She could be a TA in a secondary school and deal with all the behavioural issues instead.

Do you understand what case law is?

Actually, the school is required to provide intimate care, but cannot require a staff member to support with intimate care. They absolutely can't sack someone for refusing, unless it is in their job description and that person has agreed.

If this were happening several times a week- as in is the situation in the OP, and the parents were - eg at work- and the child was left to sit in poo while waiting for them- again several times a week- of course that would be discriminatory. it would be a health/ infection risk to the child, distressing and humiliating, interfere with child’s learning, interfere with parents’ ability to work…
You are being frankly ridiculous.

Yes, I know it is, and I am sorry you had to deal with it all, and sorry for what your son has been through.

But that's not the same scenario as the OP raised. Anyway, I do have to go now. Good luck with it all.

I'm incredibly grateful that they went above and beyond to include him in the meeting and actually ask him what would make him comfortable.

This. Unfortunately. Many schools now strive for inclusion to such an extent that no one is going to have difficult conversations with parents or can signpost meaningfully towards support. As a teacher I agree that it is not in my job description (but wouldn't leave a child in a mess) however as long as schools and mainly women employees keep agreeing to do everything nothing will change. If there are many children who need support in toileting then government should be equipping schools with proper facilities and staff to deal with this. So people pushing back and saying no is the start.

If rainbow pots of gold grew wings and leprechauns came to visit we could write a fable about that too.

Trying to force untrained minimum wage workers to risk their health and do a task very few wish to do is indeed discriminatory and can pose a risk of infection to the TA.

You are, indeed, being ridiculous. And still cannot link to the law you claimed because you are, indeed, incorrect.

Maybe time to just let it go now.

Then you'd probably also ensure a lot less applications for said roles.

That's strange because my child has a bowel condition. When she was younger she'd have accidents. School refused to help her they said she had to sort it herself, which she did. Then I'd bath her straight after school. How come they're allowing help for non SEND now? They should be calling parents to come take them home.

What do you suggest? Personal care nurses for school? Summoning parents, sounds time consuming for all parties?

Right. Good for the OP. I honestly think it will take a mass walk out of all school staff and a refusal to work under unacceptable conditions for the sort of parents who would be happy to force a minimum wage worker to clean up faeces and urine with no training to finally get it.

If rainbow pots of gold grew wings and leprechauns came to visit we could write a fable about that too.

I didn’t understand this. I’m talking about the situation in the OP in the context of majority circumstances (eg working patents, taking at least some time to get to school).

You’ve been told the law- it’s the Equalities Act which also extends to protection of children with undiagnosed SEN.

Requesting that parents come to the school attend to their child's issues is the only way forward. It is an important conversation to have and lazy parents - yes there are indeed some who are just lazy - must be made accountable.

By the same token, some children may have genuine needs that are not being addressed and a call from the school to come straight away can begin important discussions.

But the bottom line is this - the OP is perfectly within her rights to refuse to do this job without training or safeguarding in place.

Nope, you're trying to deflect away from the actual discussion about the OP with increasingly irrelevant straw man fables.

And you've been told you're wrong about the law - because you are. So that's that, really.

They're sent to the bathroom, with their clean clothes and instructed to start changing and cleaning themselves. Most 6 year olds should manage that just fine. Teaching staff member waits outside.
Are you living in a parallel universe or something?

Yes, sorry, I see now.
You're not one of the entitled gang. ✌️

I think this is exactly what has happened that schools have strived for inclusion and rightly so. Now it's the unintended consequences catching up where it has created entitled lazy parenting. Something will have to give as this is becoming a huge issue where increasing numbers of children are starting school without being toilet trained, toilet training is just one example of lazy parents neglecting their children.

Of course you and he were happy.
The named staff quite possibly, and understandably, less so.

How am I deflecting ? The conversation is about whether it would be lawful to repeatedly leave a 6 year old child sitting in faecal matter at school while the school calls the parents to deal with it.

This would clearly be:

• a health risk
• distressing
• compromise equal access to learning / education
• interfere with parents ability to work

It would clearly be unlawful discrimination under the Equalities Act with includes children with undiagnosed SEN.

The complete insanity of some of the posters here never fails to amaze me. Imagine thinking that you can FORCE a minimum wage worker to clean up shit and piss she has not agreed to clean up, is not her job to clean and with zero training and no safeguarding in place.

Imagine pretending that the school calling parents to come and deal with their OWN CHILDREN's issues is in any way abnormal or strange or illegal 😂😅😀

What a bunch of unpleasant bullies the "I will force you to wipe my kid's arse and deal with their piss and shit covered clothes if it's the last thing I do" brigade are.

So glad the OP has the sense to say no to this crap (no pun intended).

I'm off, tired of repeating the facts over and over and over and honestly I do have things to do.

You've been proven wrong repeatedly. You are deeply and sincerely embarrassing yourself. I give you permission to keep doing so, I won't be reading it, got things to do. Ciao!😘

'Summoning' 🫣

The problem with people discussing this is that it becomes very polarised.

Of course, children with SEND deserve to be educated and it would be discriminatory to suggest that their disabilities/needs should prevent them from an education.

But.

Not every child who enters mainstream school in nappies has SEND. Yes, sometimes additional needs won't have yet been diagnosed but there are usually clear signs in other areas that there is something else going on, some children have physical disabilities, some children might only have issues in this area. And some childen really do just have poor parents.

We had 6 childen start school in Recpetion this year in nappies. 60 children in the year group so 10%. Four of them were toilet trained by the October half term break by the teacher/TA (so not SEND related). The remaining two had obvious additional needs and will likely have lifelong issues in this area or not be toilet trained until significantly older at least.

Of the four who were toilet trained, one returned after half term in nappies again because the parents said it was 'easier' for them.

How have I been “proven wrong”?