Teachers and ta's. Are you expected to go into work when your own children are sick

[cassgate]

Just that really. I am currently working at my dc's school as a paid ta at lunchtime. I also volunteer a couple of days a week whilst I study for the level 3 diploma in specialist teaching and learning in schools. I am also used as supply ta cover as and when required. My problem is that my ds is currently off sick with a sickness bug. Started early hours of this morning and last episode of sickness was at 8.30 this morning. I am supposed to be working this week to cover sickness but obviously I called in this morning to say ds was ill and neither of us would be in. I am not however sure what I should do about tomorrow. Ds can't go in even if he is well as per the 48 hour rule but I am in two minds as to whether I should try and get child care so I can still go in. Normally, I would only be working lunchtime so I would go in and get someone to take ds for me for an hour but I am supply this week so not sure what is expected really. What happens at your school?. Are you expected to get child care in place to look after your sick child or is it just a given that you will be off until they are better. Any guidance appreciated.

No, Lily, my husband usually takes time off for a poorly child. But his work specifies 24hrs only, after which you should have sorted out alternative childcare. So what I was trying to ask is - what can you get sorted out if both parents and other family work and employers are so restrictive about it? If, as is likely at some point, we have a child with chicken pox for example , how will we cover this for the week or so they are infectious? What can you do? In particular, a teacher is stuck because we can't take it as annual leave as our holidays are fixed. It's an impossible situation!

My school is very supportive I am fortunate as my DH works from home so I have not had the need to take time but taking time is never questioned and to my knowledge always paid, I took 3 days Once to look after very ill MIL- was told go, family is important! Lucky me after reading these posts. Of course I am sure it will change at some point. One member so SMT is often off looking after her children! it just cannot be helped.

I am expected to be in but that's because we are a private school so if my own children are ill they can spend the day in the school sick bay with the nurse.

I'm a single parent with no family nearby. There are so many things I couldn't cope with if I wasn't in the independent sector.

uptheanty - DD has gone into school today. Don't think school would like it if siblings who are not yet showing signs of being ill are kept off on the off chance they might become ill. I of course checked that she didn't feel sick or had, had upset tummy without telling me before sending her in this morning. Same for staff. Just because ds is ill doesn't mean I am going to catch it and spread the germs. I had a bad sickness bug about 4 years ago yet no-one else in the family caught it from me.

I used to be a TA and would just call in and tell the truth if one of the DC was sick. Other TAs and teachers did the same. We didn't get paid for it (don't know about teachers) but could use time off in lieu or overtime if we had any spare.

I do think your DH should do his share. DH earns 4 times what I earned, he would still take it in turns to have time off when DC were ill.

Its not always that easy though for dh to take time off at short notice. Today for example he is interviewing 4 candidates for a senior management position. What is he supposed to do exactly. Cancel the interviews. Tomorrow he is travelling to company offices in Manchester and staying over night. He is travelling with two other colleagues. Again, is he supposed to cancel the trip. Some of you may say yes he should cancel the interviews and the trip but realistically its not going to happen is it. Because if he did he probably wouldn't have the job for very much longer and a ta's salary isn't going to cover our outgoings. Perhaps I should just forget about working altogether. It would be a shame though because like I said before I have been told I am good at it and the school would be losing a hardworking member of the team just for the sake of a couple of days here and there where I might need to take time off to look after a poorly child.

I too think your DH should do his share - not cancel his whole week but he could easily interview candidates by skype - it happens all the time in our workplace as we're a global business and candidates are often in other countries and cities. It's a bit different for a business trip I agree but if you commit to a job, like him you commit to taking responsibility for being there. I can't take time off any time I am ill and either of my dc are ill - then I'm covering sickness leave for three people instead of one. That's not fair on my employer.

i was a teacher (secondary) and now a HLTA (priary).

If DD is ill I have taken time off - either to collect her from school or by phoning in to school in the morning. We get some paid days for this.
DH (not a teacher) and me try and share any time off between us - DH tends to try and work from home if he can.

Every HT I have worked for has allowed this btw - and no disapproving looks, etc. Not just for 1 or 2 days. Current HT isn't a parent herself but still understands these things happen.

Obviously unlike other professions there is no way of using holiday leave to cover child's sickness.

It was always part of teachers pay and conditions in each school i worked in is it not still?

Hulababy it isn't part of the pay and conditions, no. You have been very lucky. We get time to set up cover and that's it. Anything else is unpaid, including taking children to essential hospital appointments.

Sorry but I think regardless of status/earnings each parent should do their share. Otherwise you ate basically saying his job, and therefore employer and clients, is more important than your job and your employer (school) and clients (children). Not a great message to send to your Head.

In my school you are expected to arrange for your children to be looked after and come in to work, unless in emergencies.

I think the head knows how much dh values the school both as a place of education for our own and other children and as an employer for me. He is a school governor.

BabyMummy - that works fine until they are 7/8. Then you find you are stuffed. This is why I have teacher friends who leave their 8 year olds at home, with a bucket by the bed, and the 'phone in reach (with orders that it is for 'phoning NHS Direct or whatever it is now), while they go off to work to teach other people's children.

Personally, I'm liking this idea of a school sick bay.

I'm sorry but in any job why on earth should you still be paid if you're off because your child is sick? It's unfortunate yes, but your employer shouldn't have to foot the bill.

cassgate - in our area we don't get paid (are on temp contracts ). I just take the time off unpaid and suck it up. I'm sure too much illness won't go down well, but I make the time up by going in even if I'm vomiting. I figure I can dissemble, while a child can't.

Otherwise you ate basically saying his job, and therefore employer and clients, is more important than your job and your employer (school) and clients (children).

I disagree. It's saying that family is more important than a job, and I should imagine that the vast majority of people feel their family is more important than their job. That doesn't mean they see their job as unimportant though.

TAs are not particularly valued by their employers. They might be highly valued by their colleagues and even the head of their school, but the local council and government don't value them, they know they could replace then at the drop of a hat. So why should TAs and other school support staff be expected to turn up at work in genuine circumstances where their child is sick when it will be detrimental to their family's finances?

If school support staff are that important, and I wholeheartedly believe they are, then they should be paid accordingly and there would be unlikely to be such a difference between their wage packet and that of their husbands.

Families do have to prioritise the main breadwinners job over the job that provides the supplementary income. I love my job and I'd probably do it for free if I won the euro millions, but like most people, I do it for the money and my family is more important. If it's a choice between losing a day of my pay or my husbands pay, then we will choose to lose mine simply because it's less than half that of my husbands. It is very much not because I think my husbands clients are more important than the children I work with!

This thread is so funny. In a really awful way.

People fought long and hard for the rights of women and poor children - all children - to receive an education - a free education.

It's intimately connected to the trade union struggle.

And here we have a T.A. angsting as to whether she will be OK taking unpaid time off work - to look after an ill child.

It really is fascinating in the way it fractures opinion about the roles of women and men, parents, and differently positioned labourers within the same work-space. It's the fault-lines of the modern labour and feminist struggles in miniature, really.

It's why I'll never work for a childless female head in a permanent role again.
They have always been the most unempathic, unsympathetic and hostile when it came to juggling job and family in my experience.
It's an opinion, not a judgement on all, but it's my decision and my choice.

I agree that it is ridiculous for ANY employer to just say you have one day max to sort out cover. If you don't have family available, or there are reasons why they can't help (eg my dad is in poor health and being exposed to a sick child would be very dangerous for him), CM and nurseries won't take them, so unless you have nanny, you're stuffed. One off agency care is VV expensive and not really suitable for a stranger to be looking after a poorly child you just wants their parent around. I'm not sure I agree that two parent families should split it 50/50, you do it in the way that impacts least overall. On any given day one person's job may be more "missable" than the other, in terms of what will be mucked up. We can't have truly equitable, family friendly working arrangements unless there are some fundamental shifts in thinking about working parents. Don't get me wrong, having kids is a choice and I don't believe employers should have to tolerate excessive absence but a few days here or there really ISN'T the end of the world, especially if, as in my case you set decent quality cover work.

but men are also entitled to take emergency leave for family issues. If they 'didn't have the job much longer' then that would be discrimination.

You have to work it out in the best way that suits you and sometimes on one day it will be hard, but this 'man's job more important' stuff really annoys me.

I dont think it matters what your job is, it should be shared between both parents. Most employers dont pay time off for dependants which is understandable. Not fair on one emloyer to shoulder all the dispruption just because the other partner feels too important to share.

And who should be looking after a sick child anyway, aside from their parent? I have no family less than 2 and a half hours away, and my childminder can't have a sick child along with other children for the same reasons the child is not at school.

Thankfully, my head is of the opinion that if I could be in school I would be, and is sensible. Which was useful when ds was in Reception, caught everything there was to catch and ended up with attendance of 85% Last year he had a single afternoon ill (was called to find him at the office with head in bucket) so it's not so difficult.

Just out of interest, what happens if you cannot find someone to take care of dc, are you allowed the time off unpaid without too much of a problem? For any job I guess, not just schools.