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?

I agree that other children's health shouldn't be at risk either and that is why schools should have a sick room so that children can go there immediately when sick.

So, when that room is being occupied for several hours by a child whose parents can't leave work: what should happen to the next child and the one after that? I'm not suggesting that there are queues of poorly or injured children, but in, say, a two or three form entry primary school of 420 or 630 pupils, how do you guarantee that children will obediently arrange to be ill or injured one by one?

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.....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.

I see the point of your post, but I shudder at the passage there is a general government expectation that mothers should be economically active. That's not true. There's an expectation that adults should take jobs where available if they are on benefits.

Therefore maybe those who don't (as in the case of the OP) are in the position of horrible boss, no job security and no family nearby.

OP says they both work in health care. It's highly unlikely that both have horrible bosses who would sack them for collecting their child.

well said, Mary.

I'm fortunately not in that position, but I have seen how a large online bookseller from the US treats their staff - most of them agency rather than employees - and someone definitely WOULD be sacked for leaving the premises, whatever the reason.

So, when that room is being occupied for several hours by a child whose parents can't leave work: what should happen to the next child and the one after that? I'm not suggesting that there are queues of poorly or injured children, but in, say, a two or three form entry primary school of 420 or 630 pupils, how do you guarantee that children will obediently arrange to be ill or injured one by one?

You have taken my comment out of context. It was in response to someone saying that I wasn't "charitable" for not being willing to collect other people's unwell children from school. They seemed to think that emergency contacts should collect unwell children so that they didn't infect other children. That shouldn't be necessary as schools should have a sick room so that infectious children can lie down and be separated from other children even if it only takes 30 minutes for the parent to arrive.

It might be the norm for that one poor boy though which is why the school will not tolerate it on his behalf

That's the point to high, isn't it tiggy - in this case, the school have tolerated it. And many other schools do as well, if this thread is anything to go by. Anecdotes by several school-based posters of similar situations, no general outcry that the school has failed the child and certainly no examples of when pupils have been deregistered as a result of parental failures like this.

Which leads to the question - if schools are unwilling to apply a zero tolerance approach and they choose to apply an "in loco parentis" approach, and remain responsible for sick DCs when their parents can't/won't, should they be held accountable for the care they provide the child? If the school have chosen not to pass the problem to SS/police, then they have a duty to ensure that child's basic needs are met.

If a parent told a shop worker, or cafe waitress that their child was ill, and they were just popping to their office for a few hours, then the police would be called, and child would not be left in the care of the shop/cafe as they can't meet the child's needs. Why is it different for schools?

That doesn't make it O.K for that child though.
Even if there is only 1 child in the whole school whose parents won't collect them, it doesn't make it O.K.
The schools object partly because they have neither staff or resources to deal with this even infrequently but mainly because of the welfare of that child. No child should ever be left on an office floor feverish and crying for his mum for 5 hours without so much as a bed or a dose of Calpol. Ever. Not because it inconveniences the school secretary once in a while but because no child should suffer like that.

It doesn't make it okay for that child but I don't think it is the parents fault if they are truly in the position where they can't leave work because they will lose their job and they don't have any family nearby. It is the fault of the policy makers who have decided that parents with school age children have to work, that people who have been in employment for less than two years can't sue for unfair dismissal etc.

Icimoi Not all health care workers work for the NHS. Some work in the private sector where they may indeed have no job security and horrible bosses.

"I'm sure many teachers do care about the welfare of the child. I just don't think it is the your or clams main concern."

You have no idea of my concerns! Quite how you extrapolate that load of bollocks nonsense from my stance that sick children should be cared for in their own homes, I can't fathom. It is precisely because we DO care for the children that we want them in the best place, which is NOT stuck on a chair for hours in a side office somewhere, even if the school does grandly call it a sick bay.

Tiggy, the law change has probably allowed more employers who grudgingly stayed within the law before to lawfully act differently now.

You have no idea of my concerns!

I do have an idea of your concerns. You don't seem to care whether the child's parents will lose their job.Considering that this could be worse for the child than their parents not collecting them as soon as the school calls, it suggests to me that the child's welfare is not your main concern and you are more concerned about the inconvenience to the school.

Even if, EVEN IF, a school has a sick bay, with a bed (of sorts) in it, that still doesn't alter the parent's responsibility to get to school as quickly as they can to collect their child. That 'bed' is likely to be one of those you get in a GP's surgery, hard as nails and needing a step ladder to mount. Your average-sized KS1 child could do themselves a serious injury if they fell off it.

And no Calpol (or whatever) can be administered at school (in cases like these), so the child's discomfort remains untreated for hours until they get home. And don't start on the "why can't schools give Calpol if a child is poorly?" We've been there, there's likely some EU Directive about it, probably some poor school secretary was sued over it once, and the laws won't be changing anytime soon.

Mary you're sounding like a stuck record. The scenario you quote has been dealt with by other posters repeatedly (and I've passed no opinion on it, actually) and is anyway highly likely to be an extremely rare event.

I repeat, you don't know me or my concerns AT. ALL. and are in fact being rather offensive.

And the parents in this case work for the NHS I think so are less likely to have a zero hours contract and immediate dismissal. They are more in the position that most employees are in (i.e. get a great deal of hassle but hang on to their job)

Did the OP say that they worked for the NHS. I thought she just said that they were healthcare workers.

I repeat, you don't know me or my concerns AT. ALL. and are in fact being rather offensive.

And I thought that you were quite offensive when you suggested that I was uncharitable for not being willing to collect another persons sick child especially considering that you don't know anything about my concerns regarding this AT ALL.

Whatever.

If the parents are healthcare professionals its likely they cant just down tools immediately they receive a call; they probably need to wait for someone to take over/cover

I am lucky, in that probably 7/10 I could leave work to pick up sick kids with no real consequence. However 3/10, if I had to leave work, it could cost my employer thousands if not millions of pounds. My managers are very flexible and understanding, but I would probably only need to do that once before they stop being so understanding

The government do want mothers to be working, so they should have measures in place.

Icimoi Not all health care workers work for the NHS. Some work in the private sector where they may indeed have no job security and horrible bosses.

It's not too likely that both of them do, though, is it? If they do, the sensible thing to do is to aim to rearrange things so that at least one of them is available if necessary. And if that is impossible, it is still not the school's responsibility to look after their sick child. As Tiggy points out, the reality is that those parents cannot rely on their child never getting sufficiently ill to make it essential for one to take time off and thus losing theirjob; and if they do lose their job, it is not the school's fault and certainly doesn't justify putting their own and other people's children, and other parents' jobs, in jeopardy.

Spacemen, it's highly unlikely that they have to wait six hours for cover to be sorted out.

And your employers really need to have decent cover arrangements in place. Surely if your absence would cost them potentially millions of pounds, failing to do so is a massively false economy?

Marynary It is the responsibility of the parent to ensure their children are looked after. From the child's perspective, it is better to be at home, resting, where they should be and have more chance of recovering from illness rather than being in school - where they can infect other children, in turn their parents, teachers etc.

It is the parents responsibility to ensure their job supports childcare and illness situations. I have had to move job 3 times to get myself in a position where I could a. afford children b. be able to take flexible leave and WFH should I need to. These have all involved sacrifices whether that be on pay or moving to a more expensive area. But that doesn't change the fact that ensuring I choose an employer that supports my decision to have children.

It is not the responsibility of the school to look after ill children. It is the parents responsibility - and no amount of reasons, excuses etc no matter how reasonable from the parent's perspective changes that. Ill children need to rest and need their parents, sending them to school is neglectful in my opinion.

plinkyplonks From the child's perspective it is usually better for their parent to keep their job too. Anyway, I don't really need a condescending lecture on parental responsibilities as no where have I said that I have problems collecting my children when they are sick. Nobody has said that it is the schools responsibility to look after sick children, just that some parents are perhaps stuck between a rock and a hard place which is probably not their fault so posters such as you should be more understandin.

The employment of the parents of the children in our care is not the responsibility of the teachers. The immediate welfare of the child is. And that means a parent coming to collect the child.

There has to be something in place for when parents refuse. Maybe a taxi taking the child and a TA to the parents' place of employment would be a solution. It's ridiculous to think that parents should have to be forced to accept responsibility but that's what it might come to while some parents persist in thinking that it's the school's job to care for their sick children.

It just isn't.

Marynary - " posters such as you should be more understandin", ", I don't really need a condescending lecture on parental responsibilities " - Not sure it's me that has a problem with understanding and respecting other people's opinions? I'm just stating facts, it's not my problem if that offends you or gets your back up.

Parents do get stuck between a rock and a hard place - but that doesn't change the fact that it is their responsibility. These situations come up time and time again because parents do not plan for and take reasonable steps to rectify how they are going to deal with situations like this in advance. So for example, if you have a difficult employer - these things are a known problem. So you have a choice of trying to negotiate with your employer, find different employment or try to organize cover from family who do have more flexibility.