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?

tilliebob both my parents worked in the 70s and 80s too......before the erosion of employment rights that we have now.

In this situation the head teacher took a huge risk. The school is NOT qualified to differentiate between a minor childhood illness and serious illness.

The head should have done an emergency referral to social services. I am realistic about whether that would have got ANY response but if that child is seriously ill and their treatment was delayed by not being collected the head is now at serious risk of being accused of also not acting to protect that child as well. Their other options was to phone the child's GP for advice or even call an ambulance if the child is unwell and not being collected.

Appears to me that the adults in this picture were far too busy being professionally offended by the actions of the other adults to actually do anything to change the situation for a child lying on the floor shivering and crying...

I'd like to add that, as an emergency contact, I'd be really pissed off if I was called in to take a sick child simply because the parents didn't want to take time off work. Fortunately it's never happened because the parents are responsible types. I'm on the lists for those times when there are traffic jams etc, I've never been asked or agreed to taking sick kids. I would definitely pick up (if I was available) for something non-contagious though like a nosebleed. Just reading this thread and having posted/responded recently about people trying to scrounge afterschool care off those with part-time schedules/sahp instead of paying for formal arrangements, has only just made me realise I should never agree to being on the emergency contact lists for these types (although I suspect they'd add me anyway if they had my number).

Then WHY be an emergency contact at all Mimi???

Illness is the main reason a school would use those numbers so why agree? I assume that my emergency contacts would collect for illness - as i would for the children I am emergency contact for (and have done).

And for the record I don't work so its not me scrounging childcare but more that I am single parent with no family who can do it

An illness is not an emergency, it's an inconvenience.

Illness is the main reason a school would use those numbers so why agree? I assume that my emergency contacts would collect for illness - as i would for the children I am emergency contact for (and have done).

I have never assumed that "emergency contacts" must be people who would be able/willing to pick up the children if they were ill. The forms certainly do not state that this must be the case and I don't know anyone who could do that (my friends work). I always put down my parents because they are next of kin to my children (after me and DH). They would be willing to pick up the children if they were ill but as they live 200 miles away it could take some time to get there.

I assumed my emergency contacts needed to be someone who could take my children in the event of illness, simply because that was the most likely scenario when the school would need to make contact with someone during the school day. Perhaps schools need to spell that out.

Sounds like a massive overreaction. My mum used to send me into school sick for the same reason including wearing my hair down to cover up the fact I had mumps! It has taught me that you don't take lots of days of work for a sniffle. Hardly a child protection issue.

Permanentlyexhausted, You over-reacted and took me literally. As you saw, the word "list" was in inverted commas. That's an implied, not an actual meaning. Schools are a mish-mash of separate human beings - who judge differently from one another, of course. Just look at your average thread on here. So yes, people within the organisation will have mental "lists" of parents who have behaved or acted in certain ways on certain occasions. There certainly wouldn't (I hope) be a formal written list entitled, "Parents who can't be arsed to collect their kids when they're ill." That, I agree, would be cause for "a lot of trouble."

Flop your parents sent you into school with a notifiable disease?!

I do wish we would move on from the current fudge about whether school is ' childcare' or not, which could lead to some actual decisions being made.

So, if school is childcare, to the extent that you are required to find a job when your children are there to still qualify for benefits, within a 90 minute radius, and that there is a general government expectation that mothers should be economically active, then let's have a sensible conversation about the implications of that government decision. On what happens if a child is sick, before and after school care, holidays. Then add in the changes they have made to employment rights that are designed to allow employers to get rid of people more easily and cheaply. And a sensible conversation is not "your child, your responsibility" because that absolves the government and employers of addressing of the consequences of their policies. Without that, parents (usually mums) and schools are left to muddle through.

As an HT, if I became aware that a parent had knowingly sent a child to school with a noticeable, potentially serious disease such as mumps - and attempted to conceal the symptoms - I would be notifying social services.

Floppity...sadly I think your view has been skewed by having uncaring parents yourself :(
They sent you into school with a notifiable disease.
Let's hope there were no immunocompromised dc or staff!?
My fil caught mumps as an adult and was off work for 8 weeks. It also affected his hearing.

I assumed my emergency contacts needed to be someone who could take my children in the event of illness, simply because that was the most likely scenario when the school would need to make contact with someone during the school day. Perhaps schools need to spell that out.

They could spell it out but people who don't know anyone who lives nearby and doesn't work, and is willing to take the children if will aren't going to put a name down so it wouldn't make a difference. Maybe they don't spell it out because in the real world people realise that.

if will if ill

So, there are loads of people who won't collect someone else's child if they're ill in case they infect their own child, so that child remains in school infecting dozens of others, probably including their own if in the same class?

Icimoi and clam : Of course I would collect if the school had attempted to contact both parents and couldn't get hold of them. If the school rang up and said "We rang Icimoi's mum but she said she can't take the time off work. Would you mind coming and collecting her vomiting child?" is when I would have a problem with it. I assumed the emergency contact numbers were for the event that neither parent showed up at school gate due to accident etc and school needed another contact. Not as backup childcare.

And a sensible conversation is not "your child, your responsibility" because that absolves the government and employers of addressing of the consequences of their policies.

Precisely. The problem is that those with the loudest voices are the ones who aren't directly affected by government policy - hence the calls on this thread to "change jobs", "take employer to court" or "reassess priorities".

Those who aren't able to do these things are too busy trying to negotiate the minefield to engage in debate.

Apparently so Clam!

I am astounding that people can be so bloody heartless that they can leave an unwell child in an entirely unsuitable environment for hours on principle.

An unwell child needs to know they are cared about.

I would collect any of my friends children (and have) unwell - friends have collected mine when I couldn't immediately get of the ward and I was frantically arranging cover. It's not an issue

As for being sent to school with mumps.... Thank god for the HT who said she would report to SS... Unbelievable!

Very good point aayla

mimi I agree, I would have a problem with that too, I think. Although it might depend on the bigger picture and the relationship I had with that person. So, if it was an otherwise balanced relationship, whereby they had often dug me out of holes, then I'd go the extra mile of course, and make sure their vomiting child was kept well away from any of mine (e.g. pre-schoolers) who were in the house. Tricky, but do-able, and hopefully not a common occurrence.

Of course I would collect if the school had attempted to contact both parents and couldn't get hold of them. If the school rang up and said "We rang Icimoi's mum but she said she can't take the time off work. Would you mind coming and collecting her vomiting child?" is when I would have a problem with

I suppose it hinges on the use of the word "emergency". Does it refer to an emergency on the part of the parents (eg accident, public transport cancellation) or emergency on the part of the school, such as a parent unable to collect?

From the schools perspective, not being able to get hold of a parent has the same impact as a parent refusing to leave work.

tiggytape Maybe in your opinion, only parents and their families should suffer the consequences of being required to have a job (because they can't claim benefits anymore) while at the same time having few employment rights. In reality though parents aren't going risk being evicted from their homes, and living in poverty so that the schools are not inconvenienced. I agree with AalyaSecura that a sensible conversation is not "your child, your responsibility." It isn't going to help the situation.

So, there are loads of people who won't collect someone else's child if they're ill in case they infect their own child, so that child remains in school infecting dozens of others, probably including their own if in the same class?

I often collect non sick children after school (if their parents won't get there on time) but I wouldn't collect a sick child. They wouldn't infect other children if there was a separate sick room and it isn't my fault that the decision makers have chosen not to have one at the school.