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?

"Her view was that the school were totally over reacting and the office staff just wanted to get rid of him as they didn't want the resonsibility of having to look after him. (It is the school office that look after 'sick' children by sitting them on a chair in the office)."

But of course the school don´t want to be looking after a sick child.
And they might have been overreacting, but she´d be bloody pissed off if it was the other way & the school hadn´t called & the little boy had been miserable all day.

Sounds like she was pretty pissed off at having to leave work tbh.

x posted with you at 14.39, it sounds like this isn't an uncommon scenario and parents are right not to rush to the school when they call.

I'm a SAHM and live close to the school, I still wasn't to impressed to be called up to the school and, more importantly, for dc to miss a day of his education.

actually I think this is part of a wider problem in society which needs addressing

there seems to be a tendency for people to try to shave off the bits of their jobs that they don't like or feel are beneath them

this is why we have shit on the floor in hospital toilets for hours because the nurses say "I'm not a shit-shoveller, I am a highly trained professional"

and reception children sitting in their own shit all afternoon because of teachers saying "It's not my job to mop up vomit or clean up a child who has had an accident"

But somebody needs to do these things. If you work with children or ill people or the elderly, you have to be able to get on with the things you don't enjoy as well as the things you do. Teacher training should make this clearer, IMO. If a child in your care is ill and the pareants are an hour away and don't have a jetpack or a tardis, then it bloody well IS your responsibility.

I don´t think that anyone is saying it isn´t the schools responsibility.

But it seems that a lot of the time the child is left &/or there is no sick room.

In which case the child is better off out of there ASAP!

Diddl - my friend is really lovely. She is 7 months pg and she said she was really really worried on her journey back to the school. She was really pissed off that, in her opinion, they had obviously over reacted. Not because of leaving work but because they had worried her over her son (all hormones etc).

From her description, her son was totally fine but their insistance on 10 mins pick up was for the school office benefit, not for her ill son. To be frank, I totally believe her. I have seen it myself 3 years ago (although not because my ds2 was ill, but I was unfortunately late).

At my state primary/middleschool there used to be a sick room with a bed and comfy chairs and a kindly welfare lady. This was back in the 80,s and it used be packed

saidthespider that is a really good point - not just about teaching staff but in so many areas people are obsessed with their 'job description' and what is or isn't in it. I was describing a problem we had experienced in a work situation once and a friend said 'but was it in her job description?' and thought it quite reasonable that the employee had not done something which in all honesty should have just been common sense whether or not the specific task was in a 'job description' - when I started work it was so long ago that job descriptions didn't exist .

The school is just following normal policies ime.

The little boy was poorly. He had a rash and a temperature. he schopol did not know what was wrong with him. He could have been contagious and thus spreading whatever it was to other children and staff. He could have been feeling really poorly and upset and waniting his parents, as many children do ime in such sitations.

All parents shoud have an emrgency contact who can get there asap. Not necessarily 10 minutes, but I would expect within haf an hour and definitely within an hour.

I work in an infant school and there is no sick room. Poorly children have to sit on chairs near the main office. The office staff keep an eye on them whilst doing thei work, but they are not tended to as such, unless in obvious need. We don't have spare staff to sit with sick children as such, again unless a proper emergency.

We would of course hang on to any child for as long as is needed. But we would expect parents to collect asap. I wouldn't think an hour and a quarter too be soon enough tbh. Especially for the poor child who as feeling ill and probably just wanted to be in the comfort of home.

I agree with saidthespider. How can anyone seriously think it is acceptable to let a child sit in its own poo? I remember a thread on here where her child had phyisical problems and would poo without knowing. The teachers were not prepared to 'remind' her to go to the loo every 2 hours or so to limit the times an 'accident' happened. But worse, the school TA and teachers wouldn't clean the child up either.

How can that not be part of the teachers/TAs job? What happened to every child matters? The child needed to go to school but the school were not taking care of even its basic needs.

Hulababy - the boy wasn't that ill. His rash was 5 bites - like flee bites. The office just wanted to get rid of him so they didn't have to take care of him.

Sadly this may happen ccassionally. t shouldn't but MN suggests it oes. However I have never known it to happen. We have children not potty traied yet at school and there one to one does change them or clean up after accidents. Allt he TAs or teachers do this as required. Fortunately I isn't something that has to happen often, but if it does - we sort it.

Similarly if a child is upset or distressed, we comfort them. We hold them, cuddle them, pat their back, soothe them. If they are being sick we hold their hair back and help clean them up.

No, it's not always pleasant - but pretty much all the primary shcool teachers and TAs I know and have known do these things for the children in their care.

However, we don't have spare staff to go and sit with a child for over an hour. There's another 29 children in the clss that need support too. So, yes, we can manage shorter times and in an emergency we would do for longer obviously, if needed.

But to not have back up for when you can't get there is short sighted imo.

I worked in a prison over an hour from school (seeing as it was one of the examples used) when Dd was first at school. It was really hard for me to be contacted. So I had my DH as one number, DD's name, but also a friend too, who could also go and get her in an emergency. Likewise I am an emergency contact for two of my friends as well. I personally think this is essential - for the child's sake mainly.

I agree about the point of people wanting to stick to their job descriptions and seeing some parts of the job as beneath them. I also remember a thread on here about a pa who objected to being asked to make tea for people as apparently she didn't think it was a good use of her skills!

I employ people and try hard not to employ anyone like this.

pingu - did school know what the temperature and rash was caused by? In your op it says that the child was presenting with a rash and a temperature - both of these are things that would concern a school. IME school don't jsut send children home willy nilly. They assess it and have trained first aiders check before making the decision. The decision is bsed on lots of factors, not least the child themselves. The school have to take into consideration the child and also ny risjk to other children - a temperature ad rash are warning signs for schools as could mean contagious child. Obviously if they think that is a real possibility then they will need to have the child go home.

Maybe this school is incompetent - I don't know it. But ime schools wouldn't just try and get rid of a child for the sake of it.

And regardless - the mum at leats know knows she needs to get some emergency contat/back up sorted.

pingu2209 Wed 25-May-11 08:37:00
Actually I am being deliberately contentious. Of course if my friend had phoned me I would have picked her son up; it was her who felt it was wrong to pass off her sick and possibly contagious child on to me when I had a 3 year old at home.

But clearly appy to have a potentially contagious child remain at school and possibly infect many other children and staff though?

BTW, sorry re typing. Keyboard on laptop playing up it would seem.

Hulababy - I can't make any comment re how the boy got to the office. I assume he said to his teacher I don't feel well, the teacher felt his head and he felt 'hot'. The teacher would then send the child to the office, where the office staff look at him and call the parents.

However, I guess by the time my friend got to school her son was a lot better. There was no rash. The office staff pointed it out to my friend, which was on the boys tummy. My friend said there was no rash, all that was there were 5 flee bites.

The reality is that schools have no resource to look after children that fall outside of the normal day to day running of the school. If they can't be in class where can they go? Who will look after them?

My nephew broke his ankle and his school didn't want to take him because he couldn't do PE or go out into the playground at break times! He could sit in class, go to the loo by himself etc. But as he was a problem they didn't want him.

However, more and more mums need to work - not because they want to - they have to. You go where the work is, and that may be over an hour away or in the local high street.

Totally right saidthespider they managed in the past they should be able to now. Yes when you work with children and the elderly there are unpleasant sides too it's not all good.

Pretty much yes. The people with responsibility were the school (loco parentis - or something similar). They are responsible until the parent can get there, which happened to be over an hour.

I am not responsible for a sick child. My friend did not see it as my responsibility, she saw it as the schools responsibility.

School is being unreasonable

even if the parents are lucky enough to be SAH AND live next door, they might be out and about and simply cant alway remain within a 10min journey away just in case the child might get sick.

Yes someone should come and collect ill child ASAP (as your friend was) But they cant be expected to appear within a few minutes

I am aware of all this pingu. But what is the answer? Extra funding for schools to create medical rooms and employ someone to supervise them?

I am also a working mum too, I know how it all works. My DD is 9y. I still have to be on call for her, as well as my DH and our emergency back up contact.

And not all schools react so negatively. IME they don't.

This year in my Y1 class we have had 3 broken bones. One girl broke her foot and was in a cast. Another broken the top of her arm - in a sling, no cast. Currntly have a girl with a broken wrist - in a cast with suport over it. All three have been in school, partaken in most activities. In nice weatehr they sit outside during lunch and break, with books or colouring, in less nice wather they sit near the officewith books or small toys - both times with a frend or two.

This past term my DD broke her foot and badly sprained her toes. I ddn't know and sent her to school that day. I got a call later on and obviously collected her asap. It was not put in a cast and was very painful. Some of the time she went into school. It was difficult as her classroom is upstairs and everything else bar art and science is down. But the school accomodated this. Her dyslexic support teacher came to her. She missed most breaks and assembly, but got help to use the stairs at other times. There were a couple of days when DD was found it too much, and when we knew she had sport all afternoon for example, so she stayed home.

So, in my recent experiences - some schools, teachers and TAs do react well to ill or injured children, but yes - if a child presents as sick or ill and need to go home, they do prefer children to be collected asap and not over an hour later.

Im not sure of this has been said.

There is a term called "Loco Parentis' for a reason, and that is, that the school is the parent until a adult can collect the child, its not just any adult either, its a adult that has been given written consent on the parents "emergency contact" list.

There are two statutory provisions that relate to the role of teachers acting in loco parentis: first, the Children Act 1989 provides that teachers have a duty of care towards the children under their supervision, as well as promoting the safety and welfare of the children in their care. The level of this duty of care is measured as being that of a ?reasonable parent.?

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 puts a further obligation on the school as a whole to safeguard the wellbeing and safety of pupils in its care.

So No, your friend is not being UR, the school has responsibility until a parent can get there. Legally they know this, however they try to push their own policy upon parents.

In a ideal world we would have a back up plan, we dont, simply because we dont have anyone except each other to watch our children.

YANBU nor is your friend. I'm a SAHM but we live 2 miles from school and I don't drive. DH does drive but is at work which is about 15 minutes away, but certainly couldn't leave work to collect as I'm at home. I'm lucky in that my mum lives a 10 minute walk from the school so could theoretically could collect in this situation. But more often than not she's with me during the school day, either at my house, or in town, supermarket etc. So is more than 10 minutes away. Luckily I've never been called to the school yet (yet!) dd1 is in year 3, but if I was I'd have to get a taxi to get there quickly which would still take at least 20-30 minutes before I got there with travel time, ordering a taxi and getting dd2 ready etc.

I do agree that 10 minutes is ridiculous and virtually impossible for many people. I do think 30 minutes is more reasoable, nd certainly "within the hour" is acceptable.

But of course schools should, and IMO do, look after children for longer if needs must. They won't just leave a child completely unattended or send them home alone.

But if the little boy had a temperature & what appeared to be a rash, surely the best thing was that he went home?

I do think that whoever spoke to the OPs friend was rude to her & obviously if there was someone closer they would have been suggested.

As for the little boy seeming OK when his mother got to him-that´s unfortunate.