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?

It may well not jeopardise the child's health to be sitting on a hard chair in a school office if they have flu. But the parents in their workplaces miles refusing to move don't know that they've only got flu, do they? Suppose it turns out to be early stage pleurisy or meningitis? And it's hardly going to help them to recover from that flu quickly, is it?

Why would the parents be better at spotting pleurisy or meningitis than the school? Quite possibly the school would be more likely to spot it so maybe the child would be better staying there.

"unless you are someone like a surgeon half way through a complex operation, you undoubtedly will be allowed to leave work "

Ici, PPs have said that they haven't been allowed to leave wards until cover arrived as it would make ratios illegal.

Who's advising a parent to rush, kim? Expecting a parent to arrive within five hours of being called doesn't come within that category, does it?

And how many jobs are there where you can't get away at all within that sort of time period? Yes there are some, but the chances of both parents having that sort of job, and both parents being unable to get away, are even smaller. And if that is is the situation, then maybe those parents need to rethink their work arrangements. Sometimes - in fact always - children come before careers.

What I am saying is that, as a parent, you cannot decide not to have a reliable back-up in place simply because you will instead dump the problem on the school.

I don't think that parents decide not to have reliable back up. Who would decide that fgs? People don't have it it's because it's not possible for them because they don't have non working friends or family who will take a sick child and they can't afford a full time nanny on the off chance that they might need to pick their child up from school one day.

Aknickerful, I've said upthread that in my view the whole 30 minute thing is a red herring; of course many parents will work further away than that, and of course schools would allow leeway for that, for traffic jams, for work emergencies etc etc.

But two parents wholly unable to get to their ill child for several hours two days in succession is way beyond what any school should be expected to cope with.

children come before careers the people who can't leave their jobs probably don't have careers. They probably have low paid jobs and no security.

I should have said that many of the people who can't leave their jobs don't have career, just low paid jobs with no security.

Why would the parents be better at spotting pleurisy or meningitis than the school?

My point precisely. So parents are equally not in a position to tell themselves that it's just flu, so it won't hurt their child to stay sitting on that hard chair for another five hours.

Quite possibly the school would be more likely to spot it so maybe the child would be better staying there.

I'm sorry, but that is quite spectacularly absurd. If you got the call from school to say your child is ill and please would you collect them, would you seriously say to yourself "No, I'd better not, because it might turn out to be quite serious, so he's better off there because the unqualified school secretary or teaching assistant who barely knows my child stands a better chance of spotting that than I would"?

There is no indication in the OP of how long before pick up on day 1 the parents were called.

But my point is that you would need consistent rules, and those rules might of themselves exclude pupils (including possibly those who were allocated rather than chose the school) - child suspended for a week if on two occasions in one term no one collects within two hours, say?

I'm sorry, but that is quite spectacularly absurd. If you got the call from school to say your child is ill and please would you collect them, would you seriously say to yourself "No, I'd better not, because it might turn out to be quite serious, so he's better off there because the unqualified school secretary or teaching assistant who barely knows my child stands a better chance of spotting that than I would"?

Again, based on my unrepresentative experience, yes - there are some parents who lack confidence and fear their child being unwell and would rather someone else took responsibility. In an ideal world, there would be social support to help them, but there isn't.

I'm sorry, but that is quite spectacularly absurd. If you got the call from school to say your child is ill and please would you collect them, would you seriously say to yourself "No, I'd better not, because it might turn out to be quite serious, so he's better off there because the unqualified school secretary or teaching assistant who barely knows my child stands a better chance of spotting that than I would"?

If I got a call from my children's school I would collect them straight away as I work nearby for the public sector so not usually an issue but we're not talking about me. We're talking about whether another child's health would be jeopardised because their parents hadn't collected them quickly when they were ill. As I said if it was flu their health wouldn't be jeopardised by late collection. If it was something more serious like meningitis then it depends on who would be best at spotting it. The school could quite possibly be better.

No, Marynary, there's a difference between "can't leave their job because they might lose them" and "can't leave their job at all" And the ones who absolutely cannot leave their job are in the surgeon-doing-complexc-surgery league.

I am baffled by this argument that it's the school's function to protect a parent's job security. And it's the height of arrogance to decide that your job is more important than the needs of a child whose teaching assistant has to be taken away to look after your child; or more important than the jobs of other parents who might lose them when they have to look after their children who catch your child's bugs; or more important than the education of other children whose teacher is off because she's caught the illness when it might have been avoided.

Aknickerful, OP says that on the first day "his parents were called early, but they didn't come till normal pick up." Doesn't that sound to you like it was quite a long time?

I'm really not interested in being drawn into some scenario where you want me to set up some sort of hypothetical rule under which a child will be excluded if his parents didn't pick him up, because that is not what I have advocated. As I've already pointed out, all I have said in that connection that the poster who said no child could be excluded because education in England is compulsory was in error; and that it is not impossible that some schools might start excluding for that reason.

kim, yes, I'm focussing on this case because that is what this thread is about.

If you want to know at what point it is advised that schools should call parents, go and ask a headteacher. If it is absolutely impossible for a parent to leave immediately when told that their child is ill, sobbing and feverish, they should leave as soon as they can. They should not put themselves in a situation where on day one they take at least a couple of hours, shove the ill child into school the following morning, and then still be refusing to leave work five hours after they were called by the school. Why is that such a controversial concept?

Ici, no but its equally absurd to assume all parents can diagnose all illnesses/menigitus, quickly.

Dd had a rash but seemed fine - was it CP i dont know ive never seen CP. It wasnt it was a viral rash from the end of a cold.
Ive also never seen menigitis (thank god) whooping cough, slapped cheek, hand foot and mouth or even ear infection , uti.

I am baffled by this argument that it's the school's function to protect a parent's job security. And it's the height of arrogance to decide that your job is more important than the needs of a child whose teaching assistant has to be taken away to look after your child; or more important than the jobs of other parents who might lose them when they have to look after their children who catch your child's bugs; or more important than the education of other children whose teacher is off because she's caught the illness when it might have been avoided.

No one said that it is the school's function to protect a parent's job security. That said, parents of school-aged children do have to have jobs so schools do have a "childcare" role whether they like it or not nowadays. Personally if I heard that one of my children's friends parents hadn't collected them one day when they were ill because they would lose their job, I would sympathise as it must be awful to be in that situation. I wouldn't think they were arrogant and felt their child's needs were more important than mine.

Both my parents worked in the 70's/80's when my siblings and I were at school. So did all my friends parents. There wasn't an expectation that school was a crèche/childcare facility/triage unit though. This thread makes me despair as both a mother and as a teacher, it really does. Maybe because I've been on both sides of the story, but I need to hide this thread now as drink is being taken and I'm bloody annoyed.

Not necessarily, his parents might've been called at 1pm or whatever - impossible to tell on the info given.

Fine if you don't want to define policy, but if you think a policy is a good solution, someone will have to define it. And if free schools define such policies and exclude as a result, it doesn't take away the LA's obligation to provide that child with an education, AFAIK.

So you would advise every parent to rush to school the moment school rings up to say they are feeling ill?

Yes. Because schools are not hospitals or surgeries and ill children need to be at home.

There is no job that cannot be left. People may choose not to leave but that's different. If you developed violent D&V you'd leave work straight away. Your school phones to say your child is ill - you leave work right away.

Not necessarily, his parents might've been called at 1pm or whatever

That's still over two hours. Combine that with shoving your ill child into school the next day and then refusing to leave work 5 hours after being told he is still ill, and it's totally unacceptable.

My goodness - do you think schools are actually looking up GP records and calling for advice? Of course not! If the child takes a turn for the worse and the parents still won't come, the child is taken to hospital by ambulance and the booking in / triage procedure there will require GP details to trace the child's notes.

Not at all. I just wondered why they do ask and as they do know why they couldn't ring the GP for advice in certain circumstances.