Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

cant start playgroup as he's still in nappies????

46 replies

mckenzie · 07/01/2004 22:17

My son, who is 2 and a half, was due to start playschool for 2 mornings a week on monday but as our attempts to toilet train over the holidays have failed and he is still in nappies the playschool will not take him.

Is this usual? The lady in charge has been very nice about it and has agreed to keep his place open until the february half term but I'm a tad disappointed. DS isn't the most confident of children when mixing with others his own age and I was keen for him to socialise a bit more and he was so happy on his trial session that I feel the sessions would be good for him (not that I'm a child physcologist or anything).

Do children normally start playschool at this age?

OP posts:
charliecat · 07/01/2004 22:21

I know the nursery my dd goes to wont take kids if they arent out of nappys. Not sure why. They take kids from 2 and a half, but only if they are out of nappys.
If he liked his trial session so much it could maybe help bribe him to use the loo??!!

coppertop · 07/01/2004 22:23

Ds1's playgroup accepts children whether they are potty-trained or not. Are there any other playgroups you could try?

suzywong · 07/01/2004 22:23

Yes they can start playgroup at this age, but don't break your neck trying to meet a deadline. 8 weeks is going to make no difference to his potential to socialise

You could a) fib and tell nursery that he was OK recently and must have had a relapse - you won't be the first or last

b) postpone until after half term and make lots of playdates with his friends and try local library story sessions, drop-ins and hanging around the park when the weather permits

HTH

Original poster
mckenzie · 07/01/2004 22:28

thanks guys. Unfortunately no amount of bribery seems to be helping with the toilet training charliecat (I reckon he's just being downright lazy, he is male after all)

I think I've left it too late now Coppertop for different nursey, people seem to be their childrens names down really early.

Suzywong, you're right of course but what if I cant get him toilet trained in the next 8 weeks, then he loses the place completely (then I mihgt have to fib huh)

I'm thinking of putting some Thomas the Tank stickers all over the wall in the downstairs loo to make this 'his special toilet' to see if that might help. Does anyone have any views on whether this is a good idea or not (the stickers come off really easily and he is a HUGE Thomas fan.)

OP posts:
zebra · 07/01/2004 22:41

Friends solved this problem by being available say, in the Mum+Tots group upstairs for nappy changes, just in case. Only works if there's a concurrent activity for you to attend on the premises, though.

fio2 · 07/01/2004 23:05

they have to take them in nappies now

fio2 · 07/01/2004 23:07

they really do HAVE too apparently, i will ask my friend tommorrow - she is a playgroup top person (or whatever they are called!)

zebra · 07/01/2004 23:07

I think we'd all like to know,if that's true!

sb34 · 07/01/2004 23:12

Message withdrawn

Utka · 07/01/2004 23:16

I was under the impression that a playgroup can't refuse to take a child just because they're not fully potty trained.

When I checked with my DD's playgroup prior to last summer about this (we were intending to train her over the summer, but I was worried it wouldn't work), I was told that they couldn't refuse as it was against their equal opps. policy. Not quite sure how this applies, but I didn't quibble.

It seems a bit much when you're only talking about probably one nappy across a typical playgroup session - particularly if he's in the minority of children in the group.

It's a difficult one though as you might feel a bit odd pursuing this one if you want to maintain a good relationship with the place for the future.

fio2 · 07/01/2004 23:22

it IS true zebra!!! I will ask her tommorrow, i think its a bit late to ring her tonight!

No, but seriously though my mainstream council nursery would not take my dd (because she has SN) but i have since found out they have too. They just dont want to deal with changing nappies.

Also my friend has had to send her 4 1/2 yr old to school without being properly trained - they have to deal with it i'm afraid

nutcracker · 07/01/2004 23:56

I've had the same problem. Dd1 was due to start at playschool when she was 2 1/2 but she wasn't quite potty trained so they refused to take her and she lost the place. About a week later surprise surprise she was hopping on and off the potty every 5 minutes, but by then all of the places at every playgroup had gone and it was another 3 months before i could get her in.

littlerach · 08/01/2004 08:24

I believe that this is to do with staff child ratios - if there are children in nappies, then this removes the staff from the room at different times and for longer periods. At this age, there are fewer staff to the number of children than in a younger age group.
Agree with SB34, that it would be worth sending him in pullups.
Good Luck.

SoupDragon · 08/01/2004 09:43

Definitely fib and send him in pull ups. This only really works if you're pretty sure he won't need a poo whilst he's there.

150percent · 08/01/2004 10:07

There has been a change in law - the relevant law is the Disability Discrimination Legislation. Under this law I understand schools, nurseries etc need to make provision for dealing with incontinent children.

However the law has not yet been tested in this precise area! Can a 2.5 year-old who is not yet toilet-trained be defiend as a child suffering from the "disability" of incontinence. I understand that no-one has yet brought a test case, and due to the length of time it would take there may not be one for some time as the child would be out of nappies/playgroup by the time it was heard by a tribunal. Most LEAs seem to be accepting that if a 4 year-old isn't yet toilet-trained then they do have to make provision for them though. Which leads to the bizarre conclusion that playgroups etc could insist that a 2.5 year old be toilet-trained, but not a 4 year old!

I think that most playgroup leaders have been advised to take a practical approach, and in your shoes would proably follow SB34's and SoupDragon's advice!

Jimjams · 08/01/2004 10:14

My son's in mainstream school and not exactly reliable. Hasn't been a problem. I send him in in incontinence pants then if he wees he gets wet but noone has to clean up a puddle.
In fact feeling a bit guilty this morning as after I dropped him off (we were very late) I heard him saying "da da mmdan" which means I want toilet. it was only after I left and was half way home that it occurred to me that his new LSA isn't going to know what that means. Whoops. It's one of the phrases people learn quickly. Poor woman has had a bit of a baptism of fire he's been awkward this week.

coppertop · 08/01/2004 10:40

We wanted ds1 to go to playgroup to help him to learn how to socialise without me being there to act as his interpreter (he has
AS). The progress he has made over the last 6 months or so has been truly amazing. I'm sure that a lot of the credit should go to the playgroup, At 3.6yrs old he is still in nappies. If the playgroup had insisted on all children being dry then ds1 would have missed out on so much. Their policy of not insisting on being dry applies to all children in their care - SN or not,

dinosaur · 08/01/2004 10:42

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

marialuisa · 08/01/2004 12:53

I think for 2 mornings a week you just stick him in pull-ups and hope he doesn't poo.

I have to say I'm quite surprised that so many people seem to think that playgroups etc. should have to take kids in nappies, I appreciate that there may be SN cases, but as a general rule??

dinosaur · 08/01/2004 12:55

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

ponygirl · 08/01/2004 13:14

I would have thought 2.5 is probably the majority, but not by much. My ds1 was dry by then, but dd (3 on Saturday) is still not. Our PG is taking her although their policy is not to. But then I'm their treasurer, so they're probably making an exception in my case. Even so, I'm crossing my fingers that they won't need to change her. Was thinking about sending her in pull-ups but worried it might confuse the issue(?). I was hoping that seeing all the others use the toilet would be an encouragement - would that be diluted by pull-ups? Aaaargh! This is causing me major anxiety at the moment.

I'm very interested in this being law - I didn't know that. My understanding was that it was a matter of policy for the playgroup rather than the law either way. I think the adult/child ratio required changes at 3 rather than 2.5, but certainly, in our case, its taking staff off the floor that's the main issue.

adell · 08/01/2004 13:17

I feel quite strongly about this one. All children develop at different speeds and it will take some a lot longer than other to be potty trained. To my mind, not allowing them to go is to discriminate against them for being slow to develop, which I really can't see is a child's fault so why should they be excluded ? Despite my best efforts DD was well past her 3rd birthday when she became reliably dry. I just stuck her in pull ups and hoped for the best. If I'd have waited she would have missed out on a good few months of play-school, which she really enjoyed and helped build her confidence.

Furball · 08/01/2004 14:01

I heard a rumour from our PG that someone somewhere took a PG to court for discriminating against their child for not being potty trained, so ours said yes it will take DS in nappies, but if he poops they will call ME to come and change it. He doesn't start until Easter so hopefully we'll have at least started to potty train by then.

marialuisa · 08/01/2004 14:35

Have to say furball, that seems fair enough to me! Seems like a good compromise for kids who are only there for a short-time, but DD does a full school day so at her school it wouldn't work to have non-trained kids. They will deal with accidents of course, DD reported that one of the boys wet himself and the teacher wore gloves like the dentist!

Jimjams · 08/01/2004 14:40

I hate the way schools and nurseries get so over precious about cleaning someones bum. God we all do it. My friend's little boy started a private school when he was just 3 and the fuss they made over his slightly dodgy toilet training. I think its disgusting that they would expect a child to sit in a dirty nappy/pants to wait for mum to come and clean them up. Talk about singling a child out.
My friend's dd (4 and a half) has continence problems with poos, there is a reaosn for this which I won't go into, but does that mean she should only attend state schools as they have to take her, and private ones wouldn't. In every other way she is developing totally normally.