To feel really upset that a mum sent her child to school ill again

[Yesitismeagain]

I work in a primary school. One boy (age 9) cried today because he felt so unwell. He was ill yesterday (temperature and feeling ill with it) and his parents were called early, but they didn't come till normal pick up.

Today he was back in, but was obviously very unwell from the start. The school phoned by 9.30am to come and get him. He was crying, shivering and just lying on the floor in the 'sick room' (a small room off the office).

By 2pm a parent still hadn't arrived. The office were told that the neither parent could come as they work.

Is it just me that this is neglect?

Aknickerful The OP says "his parents were called early, but they didn't come till normal pick up." It was on Day 2, after he'd been dropped at school and the parent had scarpered left, that "By 2pm a parent still hadn't arrived. The office were told that the neither parent could come as they work."

Let's not forget that there were other people who were aware of how ill the child was but refused to alleviate his suffering due to the risk of infection to their own DCs (who had, presumably, already been exposed?). The OP doesn't say the emergency contacts were unavailable, she said they refused. They refused in the knowledge that the parents were unavailable and thus leaving the problem for the school to deal with.

I love this idea that the emergency contacts and the school are somehow as much to blame as the child's actual parents; the people who actually have parental responsibility and a responsibility for meeting their child's basic needs (which I'm sure doesn't include leaving him suffering lying on a floor for several hours because they prioritised going to work despite knowing he was unwell).

it didn't stop me from putting my child's health and comfort first and everything else second. It really is a question of priorities.

For many parents,their child's health and comfort is a luxury they cannot afford. Health and comfort come lower down the priority list than basics like food and somewhere to live.

For a lot of children, the discomfort of being unwell at school is more preferable to their cold, inhospitable home environment.

If you were a teacher in the 1970s you would not have had those employment rights and you probably would be more understanding of the fact that some people are afraid of losing their job if they leave to pick up sick children.

I was a teacher in the 1970s. I was not in the least understanding if a parents expected me to nurse their sick child while trying to teach 34 others. And neither would teachers be so today. It's arrogant and neglectful to dump or leave a sick child with a teacher trying to educate other children.

How many more times? It is not our job to care for your sick child. That's your job. If you don't do it, for whatever reason, then it is neglect. Your child is ill, the school calls, you leave work and collect your child. That should be your priority. If your job is at risk that's sad but still no excuse for expecting the school to look after your sick child. We are teachers, not nurses and the parents of the other children expect their children to be taught, not kept occupied while we mop up sick.

t Mary you were impLying that as a teacher clam has it better than aLl the people whose employment right are stuck in the seventies

Ok, clam, I don't want to split hairs but we don't know how early they were called on day 1 and on day 2, I assume OP would've said so if they'd not arrived until pick up again.

Anyway, I think it's more productive to discuss possible solutions to the attendance pressure/job pressure/reduction in ancillary staff and space and how all these things might actually be balanced for the best outcome for all parents, children, schools and employers - and I don't think trading favours is a universally workable solution.

I love this idea that the emergency contacts and the school are somehow as much to blame as the child's actual parents; the people who actually have parental responsibility and a responsibility for meeting their child's basic needs.

So I ask again, what is the point of emergency contacts ? Why do some schools insist in them?
Even if a parent has such a contact in place, they still have to live their lives as if they don't, because they should be available if their emergency contact decides not to do what they agreed to.

Really peruvian, a child's health should be the priority above everything else. Having a child who has been seriously ill in hospital many many times has taught me that my child's health will always be the priority.
I can afford to look for a new job but I can't afford to neglect my children's wellbeing.

Really peruvian, a child's health should be the priority above everything else.

When you've lived in poverty, a child's health is a luxury. Hospitalisation of a child is obviously stressful, but for some parents alleviates the daily worry of feeding them and keeping them warm/clothed.

Many people live in relative poverty and manage to keep their children fed any clothed. Heck, people have periods of unemployment and manage to keep their children fed and clothed and healthy and warm. We live in a country where fortunately most people are able to keep a roof over their children's heads if they find themselves out of work for a few months. The idea that leaving work early a couple of Times a year to collect a sick child from school or having to stay home with a sick child rather than take them to school is suddenly going to result in immediate dismissal and abject poverty isn't something that washes with me.
I have been in the unfortunate position of being made redundant and it had nothing to do with me leaving work to collect a sick child, the dept I worked in was closed. I would have felt very foolish if I had prioritised that job over the health of my child.

Hospitalisation of a child is obviously stressful, but for some parents alleviates the daily worry of feeding them and keeping them warm/clothed.

And that is a ridiculous and offensive statement. I'm sure you wouldn't say such a thing to the parents of children in intensive care or in hospices. I'm sure those parents are not alleviated by having their children fed and kept warm for the night in their hospital beds. I can't actually believe that you typed such a thing. You are clearly and ignorant fool!

I could argue its neglectful for schools to remove vital serices like sick bays ans nurses. And refuse to even give calpol. Knowing it will take many parents over an hour to get to the kids.
Its not like the parents chose to remove these.
And were they even made aware he was having to lie on the floor.
I always get a temp with a cold - i would never be at school, good thing im not a teacher, infecting all the kids with my- cold.
But of course i would be free to take paracetamol and carry on infecting people.

inthedark - did you work a zero hour contract via an agency for a firm like the well-known Americans who sell books online? Because if you tried leaving early, whatever the excuse, you would either be sacked or on a warning that if you did it ever again you would be sacked.

And unless the rules have changd, you don't get benefits if you are deemed to have made yourself unemployed.

It doesn't sound like you were sanctioned, either, ie left destitute and unable to pay any rent or buy so much as a tin of beans. Sanctioning is often irrational and unfair, so don't assume you'd avoid it - e.g. someone who had a new job but wasn't starting for a week was sanctioned for not applying for 25 jobs in that week.

Just because YOU managed in YOUR circumstances doesn't mean everyone does in their circumstances, which may be different from your own.

However, of course it is pretty shit if neither parent turned up to collect a sick child.

Most schools never had them in the first place, naty. And that's a really daft thing to say, frankly. You could argue it but it would be a stupid argument because it has never been the school's job to look after ill children.

The rooms were there for the children to wait in while their parents came to collect them in the days before parents had cars. The nurses weren't real qualified nurses, just first aiders.

They were mini hospital wards.

*weren't

naty you could argue that if you liked - you'd be talking bollocks though, as it's not schools who make those kinds of decisions.

And in 28 years of teaching, I've never come across a sick bay with a nurse in it anyway. At the very most, one school nurse might have been allocated to a number of schools, which she would visit a couple of times a term to weigh and measure kids, and possibly run a menstruation talk with the older girls. That was about it. Not a great deal of use in this kind of scenario.

Nor is it as simple as schools being able to administer Calpol. There are copiously detailed rules and regulations to be followed (from on high, not on HTs' whims) about medicines.

X-posted with kings there.

It doesn't sound like you were sanctioned, either, ie left destitute and unable to pay any rent or buy so much as a tin of beans.

No, it was before the days of sanctions. But I didn't try to claim benefits as I didn't actually know anything about the benefits system back then and dint realise that I would qualify so I just spent every spare moment looking for work and was lucky enough (yes I know it was lucky) to get another job within a couple of months. Redundancy can happen to anyone and being the person who never leaves work to collect their poorly child won't prevent it.

I'm sure those parents are not alleviated by having their children fed and kept warm for the night in their hospital beds

What does that even mean? I did not say that all parents with DCs in hospital should be grateful - I'm saying that for some, the hospital provides the child with the things they are unable to provide at home.

I may be an ignorant fool, but I'm one who has spent time with families who have taken their DCs to A&E with a cough/cold or similar and begged them to admit their child to children's ward, because it's cold/damp at home, and they can't afford to buy food for dinner, let alone tissues or medication.

Ive sent my own DC to school in relief that it hasn't closed due to bad weather because our home is so cold to be uncomfortable, and I've sent her for sleepovers for the same reason.

Everything is relative; many of the families I know have to reluctantly accept that treating minor ailments in their DCs, and meeting a pre-determined level of comfort, is a luxury they cannot achieve.

For some children, the grim description upthread of a chair in the office, with a bowl or bucket at their feet to vomit into and some blue-roll to wipe their mouths, is still a significant improvement on their home environment.

Inthedark, glad it turned out well for you. But leaving work early could get you the sack, if you worked for the sort of multinational tax-dodging corporation that employs people on zero hours through agencies. And avoids telling them about their rights to holiday or sick pay, into the bargain.

Hmm
Best you don't post online about children in a school you work at - even anonymously.
Your school will have procedures and policies. Are you responsible for carrying them through or just a member of staff onlooking and understandably concerned? If so, voice your concerns with your lone manager, not here.
Children can be the picture of health in the morning and then flail when school starts. It IS possible.

Line - not lone

t Mary you were impLying that as a teacher clam has it better than aLl the people whose employment right are stuck in the seventies

I do think that teachers and many other public sector workers have it better than some people in the private sector when it comes to employment rights (I work in the public sector). For example, I doubt that teachers ever get sacked for taking emergency family leave whereas it probably happens sometimes to those who work in the private sector. I'm not sure if they are right back in the seventies but they certainly have few rights if they have worked for a company for less than two years.

Nobody here is currently employed in the 1970's so whatever people's types of employment there is no point comparing with situations from 4 decades ago.

I am comparing it because schools were much more understanding regarding parents picking children up in those days perhaps because teachers were in the same situation themselves (they risked their jobs if they left due to a family emergency). Now that teachers jobs are more secure it seems some don't get the fact that it is not the same for everyone.

Op yanbu but I am surprised at the school tbh. When my dds school has rung me to say she is unwell they are very firm and say you have to collect her within 30mins. There is 4 people on the contact list and I guess they would work their way through that list until someone came and would be within their rights to contact social services if no one showed up.

However it would never be an issue as my dd comes first and although work would be a pita I would still go and get her!!