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?

I think that's fine Kitty.

It's not the law that you can't be alone with a child, it's not the law that you can't comfort a child who has fallen over or who is upset. You just need to think a little about what you're doing. I ask another adult to be with me if I'm checking a child for a rash - ie lifting up the clothing, I ask a child if I can feel their head for a temp but don't need supervising to do that. It doesn't need two members of staff to accompany a child in an ambulance - the paramedic is there too. Just needs a bit of commonsense.

But I've been berated for ringing parents who come to collect a child who miraculously recovers - you know like they do when you've pleaded with the GPs receptionist for an emergency appointment and then they're swinging from the light fittings in the waiting room when you get there and I've been berated for not ringing a parent when a child who fell in the playground and was laughing and joking but with a sore wrist turned out to have fractured his scafoid.

I stand by my decsion in most cases but I think in some instances we've become paralysed by the 'what ifs' and we don't trust ourselves to make a sensible decision.

Feenie - what if you or his Dad are more than a couple of hours away? That's what this thread is about.

It isn't all that the thread's about. We've had ridiculous statements bandied about that have little to do with parents who are a long way away:

The school deem an emergency to be when the child can not be in class. A parent deems an emergency to be a life threatening event or where the child requires hospitalisation

and

ill children are an inconvenience to the school

and

a vomiting child is not an emergency

amongst others.

So what does this tell us? 30 years ago mummy would walk to school and pick up her sick child. Some even went home for lunch, anyone here remember that? Even then schools had a room with a little bed for a poorly child to rest on with a bowl if necessary and yes, the hard pressed secretary to dart in and out. Common sense. Care. In today's world there are greater demands on families and basically nothing has changed regarding need.
Children need the same care, parents need support and understanding, it's inevitably going to take some a long time to get back to the school and it's not the way they would wish it. No one is blaming the frontline staff. Why oh why has it come to pass that less care is shown to the average family? It is not progress.

Alot of people are putting their faith in a member of staff to decide how ill your child is. We all know when our child is genuinely ill but to a stranger they may seem totally fine.

I only say this because when I was ill at school I was put in the medical room with a hot water bottle as I had stomach pains..... 3 hrs later when they remembered I was there (i was in too much pain to talk let alone move to get someone) they finally called my mum, who took one look at me and rushed me to hospital where I promptly had my apendix out.

Its ridiculas to expect someone to be there within 10 mins but I feel its also important to have emergency contacts who can get to the school and make a more informed decision about the childs health. Feeling uncomfortable about having an emergency contact incase they have something contagious is not a good enough reason to leave an ill child waiting longer than necessary.

Well AbigailS, a lot of people are saying that the child can't sit in the secretary's office because he or she wouldn;t be able to nip out to the toilet. If the child was home with their mum then presumably that might happen??

What is becoming clear is that schools cannot supervise - they do not have the staff. Parents cannot always make it back in under an hour. Something's got to give and I suggest a dose of common sense. Presumably the child also would go to the toilet unsupervised? What solution would you suggest?

Yes I know parents leave their children unsupervised while the adult nips to the loo, but school staff can't. Also any child that goes to the toilet, ill or not, asks the teacher and if they don't reappear after a couple of minutes we go or send someone to check they are OK. I'm lucky the toilets for my year group are right by my door so I can stick my head in to the toilets (not literally!) and still see in my classroom while I check they are OK.
I agree the situation is tough and that is why we send for parents to take responsibility for their child as soon as possible, but in the meantime we do the best we can for the ill child, but this can compromise the education the rest of the class receive.
I don't think there is an easy solution. Society has moved on from the days when I was at school and schools are expected to take on more and more responsibilty for the children so parents can work. There were no after school clubs, registered childminders, etc. when I was at primary school so either your mum was a SAHM or you had extended family or friends that looked after you.
In an ideal world schools would have a medical room and someone qualified to assess the medical needs of the child and care for them until a parent can take over. But this will take money, so I can't see that happening. As a previous poster has said part of the problem is parents who take the p##s and expect schools to be free childminders. It's just a few parents, but it can be enough to cause a school problem and sometimes they respond with blanket statements. But is the case of a minority spoiling it for the majority of sensible parents.
PS There is also a misconception that the secratary sits in the office to do their work all day and can keep an eye on a child for an hour or two. Ours has admin jobs that mean she frequently needs to leave her desk and move around the school.

but why can't school staff leave children unsupervised fir 5 minutes? Is it the law or just what is expected?

edam - yes, Manchester def not doable quick, esp through Glossop!

We are pretty lucky these days. Home is 10 min drive away, DH's work about 10 mins drive and my work aout 5 mins, plus a bit of sorting out time at work. Have to admit that when DD first started and I was working over an hour away (DH was still very close) I hated it. I knew that if DD was ill it;d taeke me ages but knew that it would be me she wanted - real daddy;s girl, but always me if ill.

If I found out that the school had left my vomiting 5 year old unsupervised I would go completely ballistic!

Or my vomiting 10 year old, actually.

Children can be in school unsupervised - for example, they do go to the toilet alone.

But we aren't allowed to leave the classroom unsupervised, or a group of children.

We do leave a sick child unsupervised but only ever in an open space with passing traffic, but wouldnt't do so if the child was distressed or at risk. I would never leave a child on their own who was being sick - ow awful would thtat be anyway?

well presumably they wouldn't leave a child who was actualy vomiting at the time
But if you have an ill child, do you never go to the loo or in the shower?

but who says "Not allowed"

because it is precisely this that I am saying needs to change

YANBU you are doing the best you can.

You decide what is the best job for you to take, for your family's best interests, it's out of scope for the school to be telling you that kind of thing.

An hour to get to the school is not unreasonable or unacceptable, it's likely that SAHMs would have that turnaround time too, or those working closer to home. What if you were at a hospital appt or at the dentist, with your phone turned off? Or in the supermarket etc? It can all easily take an hour. These things are not ideal, but we are all doing the best we can, it's all we can do.

I know for certain the "Don't leave unsupervised" is from our local authority, not sure if its also from higher levels. If that child has an accident or we failed to notice / care for the child if they became more seriously ill while we were not supervising them we could be liable to disciplinary or legal proceeding.

So it's more likely to be a safeguarding requirement than the law?

As far as I understand it, we have to be careful, vigilant and responnsible. As a parent with an ill child, I would take that to mean being within earshot and/or eyeshot 99% of the time - toilet breaks are 'reasonable'. I would extend that to the school acting in loco parentis.

As more schools become academies, the opinion of the LA is going to hold less and less sway. This government wants decision making at a local level and a healthy dose of common sense. This seems like one of those situations to me - but everyone has it fixed in their heads that leaving an ill child alone even for a second is "not allowed".
Again, I will stress - common sense. I would never leave my vomiting child alone for a second. However I do sometimes leave him with a bowl and go to get something fron another room, racing back if I hear any noise. I refuse to believe that is an issue.

But if my child tells me they ahve a headache but is showing no other symptoms, I will leave him and go for a quick shower.

No-one has yet told me what I should do about my situation.

I don't know anyone locally well enough to ask them to pick up one of the dses in an emergency.

Dh is often in meetings with his phone switched off. He may be in London or Germany on business.

I am the first emergency contact - so my question is this:

Am I allowed to go out of the house at all? Can I go to the gym, or swimming, or to a doctor's appointment (where I would have to turn my phone off)? What about going out shopping?

From what some people have said on this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that I shouldn't try to have a life at all, just in case one of the dses needs picking up from school.

Sorry - that last post was a bit unfair. Plenty of people on this thread have said that we do the best we can, and no parent can be expected to be stationed right outside the school in case of an emergency, and I shouldn't have worded my question so it looks as if it is aimed at everyone. It's not.

Some people have been very forceful about the fact that the child's well being must be the parent's first priority, and nothing should get in the way of collecting a sick child - my question is aimed at them.

I assume children can be left alone at secondary school if they are feeling unwell as my son's records have the specific notation "not to be left alone" on there.
This is because he has genetic condition which meant he did not grow out of febrile convulsions at the age of 6. He then had a fairly spectacular febrile convulsion at school in yr 8 caused by pneumonia giving everyone a really nasty shock and year head feeling very guilty. He had gone to her not feeling well and she had said the standard "if you are still not feeling well at lunchtime you can go home" He didn't quite make it to lunchtime. I didn't blame the school as it was 3 years since he had the last fc and I thought he had grown out of them and everyone around was so upset about what happened.

He had a febrile convulsion in primary at one time as well and it used to get on my nerves as they used to ring me if he so much as sneezed! Thankfully that was when I was working from home.

30 years ago mummy would walk to school and pick up her sick child

40 years ago I was a latch key kid and my mum worked in the City, my dad usually worked a bus ride away. My sister (then aged 10) had the same genetic problem as my son and had a febrile convulsion in the middle of the road in front of a lorry, luckily just outside the corner shop opposite our house. Not sure how they got hold of my mum or anything. I was in hospital as well at the time having my tonsils out.

we live more than 10 mins drive from the school our emegency past myself and dh contact is my MIL she is 35 mins away twice the school has needed to call her once becauase where I was there was no call signal and once because I was up in London (i tell them if anything wrong toay I am in London cant make it back on time) there has never been a issue

your friend is NOT being unresonable

Giddy - so what is the solution then? Do you not think the law would come down on the side of the concerned teacher who had held the vomiting child's hair back but then nipped out to get them a drink? How much of this is law and how much is parental expectation, school staff fear of "the rules" and a general blame culture?
Could I be held legally responsible as a parent if something happened to my child while I wa sout of the room gettng them a drink? Because the only thing I can see is negligence, which I think wouod be laughable. I'd extend that to a member of school staff as well.

SPB, it's not your job or your livelihood at stake if you make a mistake with your own child. You won't have the Furies after you if you make an error, but a frightened and aggressive parent looking for someone to blame will frequently attack the nearest soft target and that's usually a teacher.
I was reminded firmly the other day that if I was dealing with a nosebleed, I should be wearing gloves.
But I'd reacted to a panicking infant first, rather than heading over to the First Aid box.
Nipping out to get them a drink? What about that thread where a teacher did thatin Norway (I think QS was asking for her teacher friend) and the child wandered off home? Had SN, not discussed with the school.
A lot of parents were frothing about that.
I won't risk my job just so that a parent isn't inconvenienced.

'Could I be held legally responsible as a parent if something happened to my child while I wa sout of the room gettng them a drink? Because the only thing I can see is negligence, which I think wouod be laughable. I'd extend that to a member of school staff as well.'

You might be reasonable, thousands of others aren't. It's a risk I choose not to take.

I've been screamed at because I didn't call a parent when her son grazed his face very slightly (how dare I, she would have come immediately from work, etc, etc) and had a very poorly vomiting child wait for 4 hours before one of his parents could even be contacted, let alone collected. Often cannot win.

The first parent was contacted at the slightest sign of injury/illness after that, believe me. Once bitten, etc.

I am not a medical professional, and different parents have different thresholds of concern.