One in 10 parents say children ask to miss school over concerns about toilets
Nearly a third (31%) of families said they have raised concerns about the toilets with school staff, according to a survey for charity Parentkind.
One parent told the charity that the toilets were so dirty that their children 'felt like they were stepping into a horror movie', while another parent said their child had seen cockroaches in the school toilets.
The Censuswide poll suggests that 11% of parents said their child had missed school, or asked to stay at home, because of worries about the toilets at school.
The charity is calling on the Government to prioritise funds to improve 'disgusting' school toilets as part of plans to improve the school estate.
It comes after the Chancellor announced around £2.3 billion per year for fixing 'crumbling classrooms' and £2.4 billion per year to rebuild 500 schools.
Some surveyed parents suggested their children had wet themselves at school, or suffered constipation, because of avoiding the toilets at their school.
Jason Elsom, chief executive of Parentkind, called for Government funds set out in the spending review to be used to make school toilets 'fit for use'.
He said: 'With a million children facing humiliation because of the disgusting state of school toilets, we need to shine a light on the health and well-being of our children who are refusing to drink during the day to avoid going to the toilet and the millions of children suffering constipation because their school toilets are so dirty.
'Parents tell us that we need to set aside the cash to clean and upgrade school loos.
'Parents tell us their children have seen 'cockroaches coming out of the floors' and toilets 'covered in poo and urine'.'
Pepe Di'Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said: 'Schools understand the vital importance of toilets being clean and in good order, work hard to ensure this is the case, and will be dismayed at the findings of this research.
'Many schools are struggling with old and outdated buildings which require a great deal of maintenance because of years of government underfunding, and this may play a role in the perceptions reflected by respondents.
'We urgently need improved investment in upgrading and modernising school buildings.'
A Department for Education spokesperson said: 'We're investing in excellence everywhere for every child, which is why this government is dedicated to fixing the foundations by rebuilding crumbling school buildings.
'Despite inheriting a schools estate in disrepair, the government is creating safe learning environments through condition funding and ramping up the School Rebuilding Programme to give children growing up in our country the best start in life.
'We have increased overall capital budgets by over a billion pounds a year on average, the highest since 2010 – showing this government's strong and unwavering commitment to the maintenance and renewal of the education estate.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
25 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Public ‘will not forgive' strike action by resident doctors, says Streeting
It comes after a British Medical Association (BMA) ballot in which resident doctors in England, formerly known as junior doctors, voted to strike over pay, giving them a mandate for action until January 2026. The Health Secretary wrote in The Times that walkouts would be a 'disaster' for BMA members and patients, saying the Government 'can't afford' pay rises. He said: 'I urge the BMA, even at this late stage, to reconsider this deeply damaging course of action. 'Work with a government that actually wants to work with you: to improve working conditions for staff and care for patients. 'The public will not forgive strike action in these circumstances and nor will I.' Some 90% of voting resident doctors backed strike action, with the BMA reporting a turnout of 55%. The union has said that resident doctors need a pay uplift of 29.2% to reverse 'pay erosion' since 2008/09. BMA resident doctors committee co-chairs Dr Melissa Ryan and Dr Ross Nieuwoudt said: 'All we need is a credible pay offer and nobody need strike. 'Doctors don't take industrial action lightly – but they know it is preferable to watching their profession wither away. 'The next move is the Government's.' A Number 10 spokesman said: 'We aren't going to reopen negotiations on pay. 'Resident doctors have received the highest pay award across the public sector for two years in a row, and we've been clear that we can't be more generous than we already have this year.' Previous strikes by resident doctors and other staff groups saw some 1.5 million appointments, procedures and operations postponed as a result. The waiting list for routine hospital treatment in England is currently at its lowest level for two years, according to the latest figures, with an estimated 7.39 million treatments waiting to be carried out at the end of April. Danny Mortimer, chief executive of NHS Employers, which is part of the NHS Confederation, said: 'Further strikes are the last thing health leaders wanted and could result in tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of operations and procedures being delayed or cancelled, leaving patients in pain or discomfort.' Daniel Elkeles, chief executive of NHS Providers, said: 'A return to industrial action would be a huge setback – bad for patients, for staff and for the NHS.' In September, BMA members voted to accept a Government pay deal worth 22.3% on average over two years. And the 2025/26 pay deal saw resident doctors given a 4% uplift plus £750 'on a consolidated basis' – working out as an average pay rise of 5.4%. The BMA call for a 29.2% uplift is based on Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation, the measure of average changes in the price of goods and services used by most households.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes
The Bill, if agreed to, would roll out two different rates of benefit for claimants who cannot currently work. It would also freeze the limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCW and LCWRA) elements of the benefit until 2030. The PA news agency understands that a 'substantial number' of Labour rebels have agreed to vote to gut the Bill of these reforms, if they can trigger a division. When MPs debated the reforms last week, Government frontbenchers rolled back on their plan to reform the separate personal independence payment (Pip) benefit, vowing to revisit any proposed changes only after a review by social security minister Sir Stephen Timms. 'The Government for all the goodwill of pulling clause five on Pip, they've lost it over being so stubborn and obstinate over clauses two and three,' Labour MP for York Central Rachael Maskell said. Clause two of the Bill includes a framework for two rates of LCWRA, with claimants who are eligible for the benefit before April 2026 able to claim a higher rate than later applicants. Claimants who are terminally ill or who have severe symptoms of an illness which 'constantly' apply would also be eligible for the higher rate, regardless of when they become eligible. Ms Maskell has proposed a change to the reforms, so that someone who has slipped out of and then back into the LCWRA eligibility criteria either side of April 2026 would still be able to claim the higher rate. Approving this change would be like 'gathering up the crumbs rather than getting the full course meal', she said. Asked what the Government should do to tackle welfare costs, Ms Maskell told the PA news agency: 'We've got to put the early interventions in to take people off this path of ill health. 'We've got quite a sick society at the moment for all the reasons that we know, a broken NHS, you know, social care not being where it should be, and of course long-term Covid. 'All of that is having its impact, and the endemic mental health challenges that people are facing. 'But to then have the confidence that your programme is so good that it's going to get loads of these people into work and employers are going to have to fulfil their obligations in the future hopefully after the Charlie Mayfield report (the Keep Britain Working review) will make those recommendations – all of that, great, as far as it goes. 'But what we can't do is leave those people that can't work in poverty, because they would love to work and earn money, but they can't, so we have to pay for it. 'And therefore the people who've got the good fortune of earning money, whether it's through income or assets, they're the people that are going to have to support a wider society.' Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan proposed gutting the Bill through a series of draft amendments, to strike clause two and cancel the freeze in clause three. He and Ms Maskell were two of 49 MPs who unsuccessfully tried to block the Bill at second reading, when it cleared its first Commons hurdle by 335 votes to 260, majority 75. Amid fears the Bill had been rushed through Parliament, and referring to the Liberal reformer William Beveridge who published a post-war blueprint for the welfare state in 1942, Mr Duncan-Jordan asked: 'Beveridge didn't design the welfare state on the back of a postage stamp, did he?' Beyond changes to parts of the benefit specifically for people who cannot currently work, the Bill would demand an above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance each year until 2030.
Rhyl Journal
8 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Government suing PPE Medpro because of ‘buyer's remorse', court told
It began legal action after it said the company, linked to Tory peer Michelle Mone, breached a contract made during the coronavirus pandemic by failing to follow a validated sterilisation process. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) wants more than £121 million back from PPE Medpro, plus storage costs of over £8 million. PPE Medpro is also accused of supplying the gowns without CE markings, which shows if a product meets certain medical standards. Following a month-long trial at the High Court in London, lawyers for PPE Medpro said in closing that the Government had ordered 10 years' worth of excess gowns by December 2020. Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said in written submissions: 'That simple fact explains why, once the PPEM gowns landed in the UK, they were no longer needed or wanted.' He described the Government's assessment at the time as 'wildly and hopelessly wrong', adding: 'DHSC's obvious buyer's remorse was channelled into looking for ways to escape from a contract it wished it had never made.' PPE Medpro has issued a counterclaim saying DHSC owed a duty of care to the company to advise it on compliance with the contract. Mr Samek said DHSC approved the gowns without seeing a valid CE mark because they did not need one, adding that it is 'obvious' that PPE Medpro 'did not have and did not pretend to have a valid CE mark'. Testing of 140 gowns after delivery showed that 103 failed to meet the sterilisation standard, the court was previously told. Mr Samek said that after delivery to the UK, the gowns were kept in shipping containers for 'at least three months'. Contamination therefore likely happened 'subsequent to delivery, most probably during the subsequent transportation, storage and handling of the tested gowns', he added. Paul Stanley KC, for DHSC, said PPE Medpro did not follow a validated sterilisation process and did not keep sufficient records. He said the bioburden, or level of microbial contamination prior to sterilisation, was not properly assessed and that PPE Medpro has been unable to show evidence of this assessment. In written submissions, he said: 'The absence of such documentation is compelling evidence that the assessment of bioburden did not take place.' He continued: 'DHSC invites the court to find as a matter of fact that this fundamental step in a validated process for sterilisation was not done.' The barrister also referenced photographs that he said showed how the gowns were not manufactured in a way that would reduce microbial contamination. These included workers wearing short sleeves, gowns trailing on the floor and personnel wearing street shoes and working without hair protection, he said. Mr Stanley denied that DHSC owed a duty of care to PPE Medpro and said DHSC 'is entitled to repayment of the price, and to recover damages for storage costs'. He added: 'The gowns were not sterilised using a properly validated process and were not, as a result, compliant with the contractual standard or (in the true commercial sense) 'sterile' gowns at all.' Closing submissions are expected to conclude on Thursday with a written judgment given at a later date.
