Every child deserves to feel safe, respected, and dignified at school, including when it comes to meeting their most basic physical needs. Yet many pupils are being told, explicitly or implicitly, that using the toilet is something that must be restricted, delayed, or even justified in front of others. For some children this is an inconvenience; for others it is a source of anxiety, embarrassment, and real physical harm. Parents and carers are increasingly concerned about the impact this is having on health, wellbeing, confidence, and inclusion in schools.

 

Please add your name to this open letter to call for a fair, evidence-based approach that protects learning without compromising dignity or wellbeing and ensures no child is made to suffer for a basic bodily need. 

 

Open Letter to Wade Deacon High School: Toilet Access, Pupil Health, Dignity and Rights 

 

We, the undersigned parents, carers, students, and members of the wider community, are writing to express our serious concerns regarding the school’s policy on restricting access to toilets during the school day. 

We recognise that schools must balance many competing demands, including behaviour management, safeguarding, and maintaining an effective learning environment. However, policies that restrict access to toilets, particularly blanket or inflexible restrictions, raise significant concerns in relation to pupil health, dignity, equality, and fundamental rights. 

 

This is not a minor operational issue. Access to a toilet is a basic biological need, and any policy that restricts this must be proportionate, evidence-based, and responsive to individual circumstances. 

 

From a clinical perspective, the urge to urinate is a physiological signal that the bladder is approaching capacity and needs to be emptied. It is not an early warning that can safely be ignored. Adolescents typically urinate around 4–8 times per day depending on hydration, activity, and individual physiology. There is no medical basis for restricting urination to fixed or “permitted” times. 

 

Repeatedly delaying urination can contribute to bladder dysfunction. Children who are routinely required to “hold on” may develop urinary retention, urgency problems, incomplete emptying, and in some cases incontinence. Chronic withholding is also associated with constipation, which can further impair bladder function. These risks are well recognised in paediatric continence care, including guidance from ERIC. 

 

Withholding urine also increases the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs), as retained urine creates an environment in which bacteria can multiply. UTIs are among the most common infections in children and a significant driver of antibiotic prescribing. This has wider implications: antimicrobial resistance, identified by World Health Organization as one of the most serious global public health threats, is exacerbated by repeated antibiotic use. 

 

These risks are not evenly distributed. Females are more susceptible to UTIs due to anatomical differences, meaning restrictive toilet policies have a disproportionate impact on girls. 

 

In addition, girls and menstruating pupils have needs that cannot be delayed. Menstrual flow cannot be controlled, and access to toilets may be urgently required to change sanitary products, manage heavy bleeding, or deal with associated symptoms such as pain or nausea. Denying or delaying access risks visible bleeding, humiliation, and distress. Requiring a pupil to explain this publicly is inherently undignified and may prevent them from asking at all. 

 

There is also clear evidence that pupils with restricted toilet access often reduce their fluid intake to avoid needing the toilet. This behaviour has direct health consequences, including headaches, fatigue, reduced concentration, dizziness, constipation, and increased risk of urinary infections. Over time, chronic dehydration may contribute to kidney problems. 

 

Evidence from school and clinical contexts shows that restrictive toilet policies are associated with increased rates of wetting and soiling incidents, urinary symptoms, constipation, and anxiety. These are not hypothetical risks, they are predictable outcomes when normal biological needs are constrained. 

 

The use of “toilet passes” or exemption systems does not resolve these issues and may worsen them. Systems that require pupils to identify themselves, ask publicly, or justify intimate bodily needs create stigma, embarrassment, and anxiety. This particularly affects pupils with neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism or ADHD, as well as those with anxiety or trauma-related difficulties. For many, the requirement to draw attention to themselves is distressing and may result in avoidance behaviours, including not drinking fluids, not asking to go, or avoiding school altogether. 

 

Such systems may also result in indirect discrimination, particularly where pupils’ needs are not formally diagnosed or visible. Inclusive practice should not require pupils to prove or publicly justify their need to meet basic bodily functions. 

 

More broadly, treating toilet access as a privilege or behaviour-management tool is inappropriate. Access to a toilet is a fundamental need. While misuse can occur, it should be addressed through targeted, individual behaviour management, not through policies that affect all pupils. 

 

There are also clear human rights considerations. Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, schools are required to act in the best interests of the child and to protect their health, dignity, and access to education. Restrictive toilet policies risk undermining: 

• the right to health,
• the right to education,
• and the right to dignity and privacy.  

Similarly, under the European Convention on Human Rights, such policies may engage protections relating to dignity, private life, and non-discrimination.

 

We recognise that concerns about toilets often relate to behaviour, including vandalism, bullying, or lesson disruption. However, evidence and practitioner guidance indicate that blanket restrictions are not the most effective or proportionate way to address these issues. 

 

Behavioural concerns are typically limited to a small number of pupils. Whole-school restrictions disproportionately affect the majority who behave appropriately, while failing to address the root causes of misuse. 

 

Guidance from ERIC and wider school practice supports more effective alternatives, including: 

• increased staff presence in known hotspot areas. 
• staggered break times to reduce congestion.
• maintaining clean, safe, and well-managed facilities.
• clear expectations with targeted consequences for misuse.
• restorative approaches where issues occur.
• allowing flexible, needs-based access during lessons. 

Evidence from school settings suggests that improving supervision and the condition of facilities reduces antisocial behaviour more effectively than restricting access. Conversely, limiting access can increase congestion, tension, and rushed or covert behaviour.  

 

Restrictive policies may also increase lesson disruption. Pupils who are denied access may become distracted, distressed, or disengaged. Requiring public permission or justification can escalate situations unnecessarily and damage relationships between staff and pupils. 

 

From a safeguarding perspective, restricting access does not remove risks associated with toilets and may simply shift them to less supervised times. A more effective approach is one based on supervision, visibility, and trust. 

 

The issue is therefore not whether toilet access should be managed, but whether it is being managed in a way that is proportionate, evidence-based, and consistent with pupils’ health, dignity, and rights. 

A blanket restriction on toilet access is a disproportionate response to a manageable issue. 

 

We therefore call on Wade Deacon High School to: 

• Review its current toilet access policy as a matter of urgency.
• Engage with pupils, parents, and relevant health guidance in that review.
• Replace blanket restrictions with a flexible, needs-based approach.
• Ensure that all pupils can access toilets safely, discreetly, and with dignity.  

This letter reflects the shared concerns of the signatories below, who believe that school policies should support, not undermine, the health, wellbeing, and dignity of all pupils.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

The undersigned