Article in the Telegraph about kids starting school and not being potty trained.

[wintera]

I read this in the paper this morning and thought it was an interesting article.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/primaryeducation/5956231/Pupils-start-school-still-in-nappies.html

Perhaps putting yourself in the shoes of the parent who's child's education is continually being interrupted while the teacher goes to change someone's nappy ....

A big problem is that there are no development reviews now. In the past a child who was three and half years old and not potty trained would have been spotted by a health visitor. The health visitor would have been able to spend time with the parents.

The logic of getting rid of development reviews is that most children attend nursery. In theory nurseries should be able to spot development problems. The problem with this is that nursery nurses/ teachers aren't medically qualified. Unlike a health visitor they cannot visit the child's home.

I think its too simple to blame late potty training on disposible nappies. Many of the children seem perfectly happy to wet their pants. I think that some way needs to be found to strengthen these children's pelvic floor muscles. Prehaps childrena are later training because they are less active than children were in the past.

Well mrz you do now, our school. Won't do nappies for anyone or provide an area. We did provide a changing mat in the end but but that was the extent of their help- a cupboard space- until we involved the LEA and authorities.

If inclusion is expected, and it is, then every school must have a suitabkle area to change nappies and a system in place. What's the alternative? More aprents stuck on carers allowance after giving up work (answer: yes, it's cheaper for the Government even though it ruins the lies of real humans)

Presumably acceptance of kids reacting to serial soilers then exaccerbates the reactions of kids with other needs- acceptance of a different is abd ideology?

Peachy - If parents are happy with it, hmm that's a difficult one for me to answer, I suppose I would point out the environmental impact of the number of potentially unnecessary nappies, their manufacture and their disposable. Even washable nappies have a large enviromental impact.

mrz, when my son started reception the school bought a soundfield system to help him. There were three children with hearing aids including my son. The school made sure that the necessary kit to give my son an education.

No one expects a teacher to change nappies. Its not unreasonable to expect an LSA to change a nappy though. Surely disgusting bodily fluids is part of the experience of working in an infant school.

'Perhaps putting yourself in the shoes of the parent who's child's education is continually being interrupted while the teacher goes to change someone's nappy ....
'

We3llt aht assumes thoose of us with wetters don't have non-wetters

However what would you suggest? Seriously? There will always be ssome wetters fromedical reasons if not anything else, should those parents be dragged in from potentially large distances and important jobs (I am sure some will be teachers, nurses, etc) or should a system be set up that prevents teachers being used as nappy changers and aprents being penalised? At our school an Admin Assistant volunteered for a payrise (covered from SEN budget). Fab.

who are all these children who aren't toilet traine d by 5?

that's extrememly rare. and if they're not trained by 5, there'd have to be a reason.

My son was finally trained at 3 and a half. I knew when he was ready. it's not just a string of words. my mum was so sure she could do it. several kilos of shit later, she admitted, er, no you were right, he's not ready.

when a parent says their child isn't ready, they know their child better than the smug person on the sidelines

Belgo- yes ther's an environmental impact but that's only part of the picture. I don't beleive for aminute most children (bearing in mind I have only experience of boys who are genrally accepted as ready later) can be dry at 15 months, ds4 certainly couldn't be (he is exactly that age and uncaring about anything much other than food /play / ducks / iggle piggle). My general experience of friends familoy etc is that most aprents train thier children in a summer (frodrying etc as advised by laods of sources) when they are ready for it to be done quickly- I know it wroked for us, and was far easier than asking childminders / granbdparents etc to battle with prolonged training beforehand ( and ds1 was both undiagnosed and had 'failed' training before that ge)

The situation is completely different when a child has special educational needs as they will have a learning support assistant who will be able to take care of their toileting needs and able to take the child to the disabled toilet to clean them up not an option when you have another 29 children in your care.

Actually I find children are very sympathetic towards children with special educational needs and very supportive.

What I found with serial soilers was the other children would move away from the smell... not nice for the child but not done out of any malice either.

Neither of my children were trained in the summer, bother were in the middle of winter, and both in less then a week. I think it's a fallacy for parents to believe they need to set a summer aside for potty training - again it's making potty training into some huge big thing that it's not.

Well said MaggieVirgo

maggievirgo there is a thread on the TES forum from a teacher asking advice as she has FOUR children in her class in nappies.

countingthegreyhairs- you missed the belgian meet up last week - hopefully you can come to the next one!

'The situation is completely different when a child has special educational needs as they will have a learning support assistant who will be able to take care of their toileting needs and able to take the child to the disabled toilet to clean them up not an option when you have another 29 children in your care.'

pardon?

Ds3 as a non verbal wet child got 16 hour support, he couldnt hold it in the other 16 you know (we did pull him out for that for a while much to the anger of LEA)

A friends child has epilepsy and realted incontinence yet can't even get school to back an assessment

mrz you make me giggle- if only the world were so well ordered then you would be right, a browse through SN proves otherwise

I just wanted to say that I have trained DD 4 to be potty trained by the time school starts in September and then when DS starts in 2011 I will make sure he is potty trained by then.

My Dad who is a secondary school teacher (sorry about spelling) says it is amazing how many 11 year olds wet themselves at secondary school because they haven't been taught to go to the toilet in break times rather than during lesson times.

It sounds a bit petty or anal I can't decide which but am planning on making our regular toilet times during the day with DD and DS similar times to break/lunch times to help the DC's.

At the moment DS is coming up 3 and i keep being told to potty train him but he's not interested really so am not in any hurry to push something that is going to fail straight away.

What part do you not understand PeachyTheRiverParrettHarlot ?

I also have a SEN child and am well aware of the difficulties but still say the situation is completely different. If only children without special needs arrived at school able to use the toilet my world would be well ordered indeed and I could get on with the job that I am paid to do.

And perhaps if resources were not being used for children who have no reason to be in nappies then they could be used for those children who really need the support.

[Thanks Belgo. Would love to!]

No I actually do get that mrz

What 'gets' (gets impliesfarmore emotional value than reality would ascribe) me is the assumption that a child with SN would get definite access to a TA, that simply is untrue. As you know.

I do not believe for one minute the LEA would allocate resources as such, that simply isn't a priority to them.

They are far more concerned here about crap posters of locals everywhere saying how fab an area it is to live, or sending duplicates of every leaflet to houses rather than notcing there are two kids on the register or whatever. Indeed I am truly wondering if they spend more on battling statement requests than the request would cost- or indeed on silliness such as having ds1's amended just to allow him soya milk.

It's not YOUR atttude I have a problem with, just the reality of what many kids face. And yes that includes some teaching staff- ours stated there was no space for a changinga area but could find extra space for plenty of other things including a PTA area when I asked for it.

The idea of one TA allocated to care for a childs needs is spot on, absolutely. It's just not going to happen short of a miracle or me being elected (). The truth is that children without the very severest of SN will be a massive drain becuiase of the lack of infrastructure for such basic and predictable needs. In turn, if those kids needs were addressed many of the issues with non SN children (remembering obviously that its a continuum- absence of DX or definable SN after all is not necessarily the same as being issue-free, and a parent who doesnt care about continence could be arguably SN under a wider definition) will be resolved, such as there being a changing area, schools having addressed the policies around CP that ours used as an excuse not to change ds1. Maybe not the whole solution, but part way there at least. And perhaps not having to battle such stupidly obvious lack of provision will free up teachers to address other continence issues- whether its a don't care family, a family with wider problems (either benign such as a bereavement or more malignant such as neglect) or sometimes just pick up on continence exclusive issues.

But the sit as it stands lets down everyone.

PeachyTheRiverParrettHarlot I am not naive enough to assume that LEAs allocate adequate funding to schools for children with SEN to meet their needs (far from it). And while I firmly believe inclusion is the best option for most children that inclusion should come with the same level of funding it would cost the LEA in a special school but I do believe that many many schools use the resources and staff available to them (out of school budget not SEN) to support children as best they can.

For my other sins I am also a SENCo and believe me it is the interest of the school to support parent's requests for statements but the reality is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get the support from LEAs schools recognise children need but it is wrong to suppose that we ignore those needs just because funding isn't forthcoming. I repeat is it fair to use staff and resources for a child who hasn't been toilet trained (without any medical reason) when it means removing them from a child with SEN?

There are a lot of children with special needs who have formal diagnosis. Prehaps a four year old who is in nappies has special needs that are undetected.

If it is poor parenting that has resulted in a child being untrained then surely the sooner the child starts school the better. Delayed incontinence should be no more shameful that any other delayed development.

mrz I have been careful only to refer to my schools as an example- which is well known to the LEA as being terrible with SN and has an agenda of its own due to its unique set up as a funded religious school with a rep for academic success.

I am sure the sit must vary in other schools but sadly we didn't get to find out. DS3 is now very happily placed in an SNY attached to a great MS school with a fab attitude though.

Well, I have 3 children, 8,5&2.5, and I haven't potty trained any of them, and fwiw have no intention (at least atm) of starting any time soon with the youngest.

We tried training my 8 year old at just over 2yrs but my FIL became terminally ill and we were up and down the motorway every 5mins so we put it on the back burner. Then my second dd was born. Her 3rd birthday was approaching and I was well aware that most of her peers were dry by day and tbh I was starting to think I'd missed the window. Low and behold, a couple of days after her third birthday party, I was about to go out for my weekly shop and asked her to get her nappy on quick. She refused point blank, told me she was a big girl now and wore nik niks. I grabbed a bag of spare clothes and that was it. From that point she only EVER had 2 accidents - and that was including night time. She had loads more when we were "training" her (like a dog!!)

My second dd was just over 2 when I asked my elder dd to demonstrate on a potty (she was 4 at the time and found it hilarious). She had a few more accidents but not many.

My youngest will be 3 in Oct - he will use his potty in the house if he isn't wearing anything - put him in underpants and he wets himself. He has recently started taking his nappy off for number 2's. Honestly, I'm in no rush - nor am I lazy thank you very much. I have every faith that he will get there in his own time. Yes, "when he is ready"! Why put yourself through a week or more of stress, which may result in them being mostly dry but with their fair share of accidents?

There are very few children who start school in nappies - and even if they do it's not long term and are even more unlikely to be wearing them as teenagers. It's a developmental stage.

If someone was refusing to let their child stop wearing nappies, that, imo, is a completely different matter.

JMO, but I feel schools should have some written policy on this (whatever way) which is made available to parents before their children start school, and parents should have the opportunity to discuss these concerns well in advance.

'I repeat is it fair to use staff and resources for a child who hasn't been toilet trained (without any medical reason) when it means removing them from a child with SEN?
'

OK interesting question.

If a child hasn't been actively toilet trained then there's wider issues. Personally I wouldn't mind such a child (neglected) being helped whilst other action was taken- such as referrals etc. Indeed it has happened that unstatemented kids have been helped by ds3's 1-1 and whilst not ideal I'd never have refused it ( recognsiing that some children do need 1-1 to be there full stop and their parents couldn't make the same decision).

It's certainly not ideal and I would want to know other avenues were being taken of course.

From another perspective, I used to work for a charity that would have been ideally palced to go into those famillies and maybe help (HomeStart) if there was a younger sibling or the child was under 5. I don't think I ever received a referral from a school. Sadly my branch went under some time ago, bloody SS funding, but the more I look at it the more I think there are wider issues here- a complete and usual lack of joined up thinking between agencies to start with.

I do think that a child who hasn't been toilet trained through pure absence of guidance is a victim: either of neglect or of a parenting issue (maybe the parents have LD themselves). Whilst that's not strictly SN, it is nevertheless extra needs and if it's as common as is suggested absolutely I wish those kids in my area had been referred. Not everyone we helped got a volunteer, but I suspect this is exactly the sort of thing our parenting support group might have been well placed to help with.

Some of those parents would have been neglectful through pure crapness, but a lot would have had other stuff going on that could have either been solved or have necessitated a referral to further agencies.

One private school lost out on my custom as they would only take DD for the nursery class (aged 2 1/2) if she was toilet trained. She flatly refused to wee on the loo or potty (despite several attempts of a week in pants at which time she did no wees on potty AT ALL) until 3.3. At this point she asked to put on her pants one day and has never had an accident since. I think the schools policy amounted to discrimination as she was more than ready for nursery in every other way. She never poos away from home anyway so all they would have had to do would have been to give her a new pullup mid morning. In the end she has had a very happy time elsewhere.

I think by school age - 4yrs most children should surely be properly toilet trained in the daytime unless they have special needs or a medical problem.

Reallytired I really don't have a problem with children who have a real problem and as I have said a number of times any child can have an accident but I have had parents who come to see me prior to their child starting school who say " He/she isn't toilet trained ...I haven't got round to it..." I even had one tell me that "the house stinks because she squats wherever she is..." WHAT!!! I've had serial soilers sent to school without nappies pullups or pants .... and yes it does just drop on the floor or down the trouser leg or squash on the chair.

PeachyTheRiverParrettHarlot I'm really not sure that it is my role as a teacher to address other continence issues the advice from unions is that we shouldn't change children easier said than done because only the child would suffer if we refused to do so.

If the government accept the recommendation that children start school even earlier the issue looks likely to become more and more comon.