to think a school should be able to look after a child for over an hour?

[pingu2209]

More of a "is my friend being unreasonable" or the school?

A mum friend of mine has a career job but can't afford a nanny. A nanny would cost all of her salary. She uses the before and after school club. She works 1 hour away and her husband works 1 1/2 hours away from school. She was phoned up and asked to come and collect her son as he had a temperature and a rash.

She said, "okay I will be there in about 1 1/4 hours." The school office said, "well we need you here asap, can you get someone to come in the next 10 mins?"

My friend said, "no, I don't have any family living near by and I am uncomfortable asking a friend to pick up my son who is ill and may be contagious."

The school said to her, "you need to have an emergency contact who can get here in under 10 mins."

She replied, "well that would be great in an ideal world, but we are not from here and have no family. A friend would pick up if I was running late, but as all my friends here have children, I can't ask them to pick up my son who is ill. I am just over an hour away but the longer I am on the phone to you the longer I will be. I need to make a couple of calls to cancel meetings etc. I can't just run out, I need about 15 mins just to close up my desk etc."

I understand that a school is there to educate our children, it is not childcare or a 'sick room'. However, surely they need to understand that if both parents are working and they don't have a nanny, one of them will be along as soon as possible.

Who is being unreasonable?

If a child had an emergency style head injury or a broken leg wouldn't they call an ambulance?

I don't understand this thread.

People are saying that schools "enforce" a "you've got to stay nearby" policy - but they don't, do they.
People are saying that the schools "aren't able to do it" but AFAIK schools aren't ejecting ill children onto the street after then 10 mins are up.

The schools might get shirty about it, but there's nothing they can actually do about it, surely? Especially given that over-subscription means that many children have to go to schools miles away in the first place.

This is all silly.

Also like the idea that it's not OK for mum to go out to work but havne't seen anyone saying she shouldn't ever go into town shopping. There's no difference. A child without underlying health conditions won't be getting taken hom ill very often, just as likely that even a proper, unselfish 1950s mum might have gone for a day out somewhere.

This is WOHM/SAHM mothers argument in disguise, isn't it.

I understand you have a lack of resources, I know if you have a member of staff out dealing with this kind of thing there is a knock on effect through the rest of the school

So therefore it shouldnt be used for i have a sore tummy. But if you have a suspected head trauma/meningitis for example then I would like to think the school would do what they can to help my child

I dont work in a school and dont understand how you work etc... so forgive my niavety .. but surely if a child is in a bad way the head could make this call or cover for a teacher to allow them to make this call

we all have jobs where the unexpected happens.. you deal with it as best you can

I have done brownies for years and we had a case where we had to break the rules of kids to adults ratio because a child fell out a bunk itn the middel of the night . We were out in the country and the ambulance was going to take too long

2 guiders went to the hospital and that left us short at the weekend accomodation but these things happen.. sometimes you just got to deal with it

was it wrong to leave the kids with not enough adult.. on paper yes..but if we had waited god knows what might have happened. We did the right thing and I am certain if you have to stick 2 classes together for half an hour to deal with an emergency all your parents will think you did the right thing

Planetearth - I couldn't agree more with you. However, the reality (as I'm sure you're aware) is that school budgets are being squeezed, and schools are being asked to do more with less money. My partner's school is so "finely tuned" in terms of staff covererage (and other teacher friends tell me a similar tale) that it's impossible to look after children who are ill. There definitely should be a facility but "in the real world" which is where we all live unfortunately, there simply isn't. Again - blame Cameron..!

"frasersmummy, and who exactly is supposed to call NHS direct, have that conversation, make a risk assesment blah blah blah?"

So if someone is going to be there in under half an hour, no-one bothers to do that stuff?

LOL @ blame Cameron.
So everything was fine until the election last year?

The school is being unrealistic if they expect someone to get there in 10 minutes, ffs! In this day and age, people are miles away from family and often work a distance away. The school is responsible for your child during school hours, and they have to understand that you will get there as soon as you possibly can. I have worked in schools and they generally tend to understand this.

So tell me what to do, Smiler10. Are you honestly saying I shouldn't go to my psychotherapy group because one of the dses might get ill, and I don't have any emergency contacts apart from dh - who might well be in a meeting and unable to take the call?

Or what about when I was in hospital following emergency surgery, and dh had to go to work. Perhaps I should have refused to have the surgery, and carried on getting bouts of intense pain (that on at least one occasion required me to be taken to A&E in an ambulance), just in case one of the dses had been ill. And clearly I shouldn't have gone to the gym on the day that ds2 broke his wrist - how very dare I have a social life or an illness or attempt to get fitter.

It's all well and good you laying down the law about what 'should' happen, but we live in the real world, and most people cannot spend every day standing outside the school gates on the offchance that their child is injured or ill.

Schools are 'in loco parentis' which means that they are responsible for caring for the children until their parents take over. The fact that budgetary concerns mean that schools are running on a bare minimum of staff is not the parents' fault.

Frazersmummy,

But the problem here is that you're almost "expecting" teaching staff to diagnose a problem "So therefore it shouldnt be used for i have a sore tummy". They're not doctors, and whilst (as a parent) I can probably tell the difference between a severe illness and a run of the mill upset tummy - i wouldn't expect a teacher to make that call. A doctor yes - but not a teacher.

The other point about the head teaching. Yes - it's possible at time but, most heads actually teach for two or three days a week anyway, and the rest of thier time is spent with paperwork and various other things. My point is that "these days" there is simply no "fat" in education. Quite the opposite. I was a school govenor for 4 years and we genuinely had conversations like "should we invest in 3 new computers or repair that window in classroom 4A). It's that bad. Which leads me to my next point about cover. Who pays for that? It's the school, and the school won't have any special budget for that.

I think we can both agree that - of course schools should have some resource to deal with this? But - the reality is that they don't.

sorry annielobseder, that is exactly why schools have had to impose such stringent measures because some parents do try to swing it. Schools are not even allowed to cuddle achild who is feeling ill fro fear of being sued. In the normal world a poorly child would be given a cuddle, calpol, lie down watched carefully and probably up and playing by tea time. For Gods sake the staff aren't even allowed to put on a plaster without risk of someone being sued.They are not allowed to treat sick children, they dont throw them out of school but do expect the parents to make every effort to get there as soon as possible. If you are ok with your child being left on their own in a quiet room until you get there, sign a disclaimer saying so and absolve the hard pressed teacher from responsibility.

I do understand the frustrations smiler .. I am not looking for a fight and neither are you I know that

There are no spare resources- fact I agree with the. All I would ask as a parent that when my child is ill and I am on the underground trying to reach him that common sense prevails to ensure that he doesnt get any worse by the time I get there...

how the school provides that common sense I dont know ..I would have thought that is a question for the ht.. what do we do if X happens

stayingdavidtennantgirl,

You're personalising the argument - and there's really no need. On a practical level (and I 100% sympathise with you), as cold and "uncaring" as it may seem, why should a school have to deal with the inability of a parent to collect thier child within 30 mins (and please let's not get too hung up on 30 mins - like it's some sort of sword of Damocles). All I can say is - from my perspective I think it's unreasonable to expect a school to "deal with it" purely on the basis they have assumed responsibility for that child (which I might add, does not include administering anything other than basic first aid).

So tell me what to do, Smiler10. Are you honestly saying I shouldn't go to my psychotherapy group because one of the dses might get ill, and I don't have any emergency contacts apart from dh - who might well be in a meeting and unable to take the call?

thats no concern of the school. Your kids, your responsibility to care for them adequately

Yanbu op. We have no one who could take dd and it would take me an hour to get there. Thats how it is so tough. What happenend to the sick room and school nurse? Thats the problem

In the real world children get cuddled in school whether they are sick or not.It's called common sense.

Do you ever leave your house then, Mrs Bunn?

oh my god .... we do care for our children adequately .. we send them to school to be looked after and educated fromn 9-3

if school really dont concern themselves with the families of the kids then the families shouldnt concern themselves with the school .. starting with not doing homework.. thats the schools job..

oh wait its a partnership is not ????

"If you are ok with your child being left on their own in a quiet room until you get there, sign a disclaimer saying so and absolve the hard pressed teacher from responsibility."

I signed a disclaimer for my child's nursery yesterday agreeing that if anything happens they can proceed as they see fit, including treatment etc.

I trust them to look after my child, to be able to tell if she is ill enough for ambulance, mum or to stay and see if she perks up. They are adults who work with children, it's not exactly a stretch that they do this. And they do.

They seem to be quite sensible though, unlike some on here

You can't expect parents to get there in 10 minutes. It seems ridiculous and old fashioned, like they expect one parent to be at home or other family to be around. Even if one parent was at home you could be more than an hour away during the course of the day! Sounds like they need to review their policy.

We are lucky in that I work 15/20 minutes drive away so could usually get to the school quickly and also have family who live five minutes walk from the school who would step in at the drop of a hat. But they could quite reasonably be away that day or otherwise occupied.

The school was being very very unreasonable in my view.

The reason children are not left on their own if they are ill is because recently one died.

There are plenty of places for ill people to sit where they are not by themselves.

This argument is ridiculous.

People are still talking about enforcement and sanctions. What enforcement? What sanctions?

Easy solution
Women stay at home all day
Schools impose a ten minute walk catchment area.

Perfect

mrsbunn you are quite mad.

You seriously believe that parents should not have medical treatment if it means that they will be more than 10 mins from the school. Don't be so silly.

Oh and how did schools manage this before mobile phones I wonder. Not so easy to get in touch with people then was it.

you do realise that teachers don't usually work in the same school as their children Mrs Bunn.....

Frasersmummy,

I know - and let's be clear, 99% of parents probably get to the school ASAP or scramle around trying to desperately arrange an alternative (that's certainly what's being echoed here), and it's not (i suspect) those parents the absurd 10 min rule is there for. It's for the "others" who probably find it inconvenient to have to pick thier child up early and string it out!! You can't blame schools for saying "Please try to be here within X time"? But 10 mins is impossible unless you live next door. To be honest, I've never come across a 10 min rule!! 30 mins is uusally about standard, which mean if you turn up at 40 mins - that's fine. I think anything over an hour is too long though...

In fact that has made me so angry.

So a parent has problems that mean they need medical treatment, automatically means that they are not caring for them adequately.

What a deeply unpleasant and personal and upsetting remark aimed at another poster. Really utterly mean.