Aibu to think headmistress is living in la la land?

[Maxandrubyrubyandmax]

Get out of a 30 min meeting at work 5missed calls on mobile and my secretary comes rushing over at same time land line calls. Headmistress from ds school. DS has run into post and banged his nose. Can I get there immediately. Apparently DS is fine but we have to pick him up. Explain I will be about 45 min as need to pack up and get train and walk to school. DH about an hour away. Quizzed about couldn't a grandparent pick up
DS (no the nearest is 2 hours away). Didn't we have friends? Yes but it's not 1955 so they all work? Other relatives? No they live miles away and yes they work. Set off to school. Head mistress rings DH goes through same questions. As no one has moved house in last 5min gets same answer. Get to school. DS sat chatting to school secretary happy as you like. Head mistress goes through same questions nope still no one hAs moved or given up job in last 45 min. But there must be someone says the head. Well no actually there isn't. But she wants someone who can be at school in 5 min. Start to get pissed off. No one I tell her. She then shakes her head and says I guess that's how it is these days then. Aibu to be pissed off and felt judged about the fact I have moved away from the family home, got a job and don't just drop off child and sit at home all day? If it had been urgent I would have jumped in a taxi

Watery: How can that be? There are no spare staff. I don't understand how you can possibly think that. The school is at fault for having to move a 1 to 1 because the parents of an injured child can't get there quickly? Would parents here be happy to pay a set amount each year to pay for a nurse to be at the school? That's one solution.

You misunderstand me. In HR speak, it's about picking (or having) the most suitable resources for the job. I agree that there are no spare staff but it cuts one of two ways: either a TA's duties include "pastoral" care of sick students until parents can arrive, in which case the parents of students who are expecting one-to-one should be warned in advance that their TA will also occasionally be given other duties to do, or the TA's duties do not include this sort of job, in which case the parents have every right to be ticked off if that's what they're being used for. A TA is undertaking an important role and their time is arguably less disposable than other staff members may be - they, and in fact no staff member - is meant to be a stopgap and dog's body to help paper over funding shortage cracks.

It's quite simple: children are always going to get sick and injured at school, from now till the end of time. It's just an absolute fact of life and not being adequately resourced for it is a problem. Schools with adequate funding need to have a contingency in place for this, in the form of staff members - whether admin or teaching - whose contracts include this sort of provision as part of their contracted duties till parents arrive. And if there are insufficient funds for this this then get angry not at parents whose jobs cannot be ten feet from the school gates, nor at schools for trying desperately to paper over the gaps, but at where the money should be coming from - the government (assuming that we're talking state schools here).

I would heartily welcome a full-time daily nurse and counsellor at my DC's schools because I think it's just commonsense. I would also gladly pay whatever pennies a month more in tax it would cost to provide every state school with a full-time qualified nurse and counselor to ensure that every state school has this provision. I think it is no less a requirement for a school to provide adequate medical care than that they provide adequate education, or play facilities, or equipment, or meals, or books. Damn straight I'd pay for that. I should already be paying for that. It annoys me that I'm not.

Schools do the best they can with no resources and no proper medical training.

Many years ago after lunch a queue of kids as usual were waiting to go to the medical room - each with a different ailment meaning they felt they couldn't go to lessons. One, a year 9 boy, having just played football for nearly an hour, said his leg hurt a bit. He had a bit of a limp. "Come on," said I encouragingly "you've got another leg! Can you try and go to your lesson?" He limped off grumbling. It was one conversation amongst another 15 or so.

Fast forward a couple of hours and he had gone home still complaining that his leg hurt so his mum took him to A and E and they put him on morphine. She rang me in a complete rage about how I hadn't taken him seriously and should have rung her immediately he complained and then rung an ambulance. What can I say? My zero medical training meant that I made a wrong call and thought that the fact his injury coincided with the end of playtime and he just seemed a little grumbly meant that he wasn't a typical patient for casualty.

Another in the same year was repeatedly throwing up and mum wouldn't come because she was at the shops. (she did in the end under duress).

Every child has a different pain threshold and every parent has a different angle on what is serious and what is not. And 95% of schools have nobody beyond a first aider to make the decision.

We live in the suburbs of a city, and lots of parents work in the city centre or farther out, so at least that sort of time to get to school. And given the ethos of the school, there are a lot of people who are not originally from here, either elsewhere in the country or from another country - most of whom have no support nearby for such incidents.

Our school have a system whereby each September there is a raft of permission slips sent home for parents to sign. For going off site on educational outings in general (big school tours are a separate form at the time but small local outings to good local library, onto the campus of the art college for nature walks, into the art college for workshops, out to see local exhibitions etc). For having photos taken, and used in school newsletter or on website. For giving of medications in emergencies (which they always ring about before giving - but they do keep a bottle of calpol). A form allowing a child to be changed in the presence of 2 teachers/assistants if need be (illness, accidents, falling over into puddles!).

And a form allowing a teacher/assistant to act "in loco parentis" in case of emergency, giving the adult from school the power to take a child to DR or hospital/accompany child to hosp/provide emergency treatment until parent arrives - because sometimes that may take some time and if it was a real emergency, this doesn't prevent treatment happening.

It's called modern life - both parents working and not necessarily having a massive support network in place. In DD's class, there is 1 child who lets themselves out of the house in the morning and locks up, and then lets themselves in in the afternoon, as parents leave before her and get home later than her (this is an 11 year old who is pretty darn sensible and parents have slowly increased her independence over the last 2 years). In an emergency, they would go to school as fast as possible, but not everyone is allowed phones at work, travel is not always easy and work can be some distance from home (especially since the recession and people taking any job to stay at work and pay the bills).

And 95% of schools have nobody beyond a first aider to make the decision.

This is the crux of the matter. I have no medical training, not even first aid. A lot of teachers don't and don't want training either because you are then expected to deal with ill or injured children with very limited skills. If you have no qualifications you aren't asked to.

I would love to see nurses on site in every school but it shouldn't come from the education budget which is already stretched.

What about the administrative staff Watery? Not everyone in a school is teaching every minute surely.

I'm looking at my local primary school staff list (admittedly quite a large school, 3 form entry and always full) and it has

• Receptionist
• Admissions manager
• Business manager
• Senior Admin/Attendance
• Communications Officer
• Finance Assistance
• Senior Admin/Clubs
• Premises Officer
• Catering Manager
• Housekeeper.

All these are non teachers and are presumably DBS checked. Couldn't they have a sick child with them for an hour while parents get there? I realise this could be disruptive to their work but it seems the least bad option to me.

I don't think the solution is expecting teachers to deal with it, however I also don't think the solution is expecting all parents to have someone permanently available within 15 minutes of the school. Not for something which happens relatively rarely.

Watery: Schools are for education not nursing or childcare. We aren't medically qualified, not fair to expect us to play nurse.

I'll say it again. Children will get sick and injured at school. It is simply going to happen. Over, and over, and over. No one should be remotely shocked that in an academic year, you'll have some broken bones, bumped heads, measles, V&D, and whatever. If you live on a flood plain, you are going to get flooded. If you run a school, pupils are going to get sick and injured. So yes, schools must, as part of their duties, provide at least the most basic level of medical provision, just as they also provide food (but wait, they're not restaurants?!) and books (but they're not libraries??) and toys/outdoor equipment (but they're not soft play?!?!) No, they're not hospitals and you're not nurses, but this always comes back to the same thing: if the problem is too serious for the medical provision at the school, then it's time to go to the hospital. If it's not bad enough for the hospital, then the school is going to have to suck it up and wait till the parent can get in their teleporter/climb on their broomstick/grab their wand and disapparate over to you, covering 50 miles in five minutes. Bewailing the fact that people can't do this is as useful as crying over the fact that you are not six inches taller or shorter. Literally no amount of agonising over the fact is going to change it, now, in the future, or over the past however many decades that children have been going to school. It has always been this way and will continue to be this way, merely the reasons why parents can't always get there at light speed have changed from being unable to contact them through lack of technology to parents being literally unable to cover the geography at warp speed, again through lack of technology.

I don't see why this is so opaque to you. Is it ideal? No, of course not. Every parent would love to work five minutes from home and school. But there is simply not the choice. It is what it is. And that's the end of it.

OP, in your case I think the lack of response to the school's initial attempts to contact you made things seem worse to them - if you'd been able to answer your phone or call them back sooner it would have reduced the overall waiting time from the school's point of view.

As for who they contact first - my DD's school have a prioritised list and schools should stick to that (ours certainly do). Only once has it taken me more than 20 minutes to collect DD when called and on that occasion, it was DD who was complaining about the delay not the school!

I don't think a school expects parents not to work at all. The staff work - they know what it's like, they just want parents where possible to make arrangements to collect children at short notice. In the past, one of my DD's male teachers has left suddenly to collect one of their own children - it's not an unknown issue for them either.

We have no family nearby either, it's one of the reasons I am a SAHM - when we first moved here I didn't know anyone and DH often worked away for up to a week at a time. It is tricky when you don't have any backup.

It's not "the end of it" though is it. Because the issue lies in the fact that untrained people are being required to make medical judgments.

Every school should have a school nurse. Yes schools provide food, but it's not the admin staff or the teachers that are making it.

Schools are for education not nursing or childcare. We aren't medically qualified, not fair to expect us to play nurse.

This is ridiculous, really. Dealing with minor illnesses like blood noses, headaches, superficial cuts, vomiting: none of these require a medical qualification. Anyone in charge of children should be able to do it temporarily, until a parent arrives.

Thank god most teachers are not this precious.

minipie do you expect someone who works with food (Catering Manager) to sit with a vomiting child?

Cauliflower: It's not "the end of it" though is it. Because the issue lies in the fact that untrained people are being required to make medical judgments.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is exactly why I would gladly pay whatever pennies it would cost me each month to pay for a fully-qualified nurse and counselor in each school. That's my idea of basic medical provision. A first-aider who did a one-day course last year doesn't even qualify as basic provision to me. If I had the clout to kick the government up the arse, make them take that money from all our paychecks (I'm sure some people would love me for that), and directly funnel it into a medical/mental health/counselling-only budget for every state school, it would be done today and schools would be hiring nurses and counsellors by the end of this month. Since I probably quite rightly lack that kind of titanic power, for now, that is the end of it. Unless you have another solution?

Yes no one is expecting you to perform surgery, or devise a medical treatment plan. Simply deal with minor illnesses until a parent can get there.
Also not everyone is instantly available by phone when at work. If you are driving, a counsellor, interviewing people, etc. There are many situations where you can not instantly answer the phone.
And in terms of neighbours, the only people around in my street that I know during the day, are very elderly people.

I haven't RTFT (sorry) but this seems insane and has also really worried me!! I don't have school age children yet but when I do both my DH and I will be commuting into London for work most days. The absolute minimum time for either one of us to return home will be 70 minutes. We don't have any family nearby. Do schools really expect you to leave work and collect your child inmediately at the slightest bump?? Do I need to re-think my career plans??

I'm also really surprised that the headmistress bugged the OP about 'friends' who could pick up her son. Are schools just happy to foist the kid off on any old randomer provided that they don't have to deal with the problem?

My point, in case it's being missed, is that getting annoyed with parents because they can't get to school within five minutes to cover for the lack of the school's own medical provision is misplacing the blame. Be annoyed that there is insufficient medical provision, yes, but then think why that has come about, and how it should be funded/provided.

I don't for one second absolve parents of turning up as quickly as they can where the situation merits it. However, since "as quickly as they can" could be two hours, and since the cover in that time might call for someone with better training whose job is dedicated purely to this aspect of student care, proper medical provision deals with the problem of unqualified people being wedged into a "nurse" role that they are neither paid for, trained for, nor comfortable with.

Cotswold no. But they're not all vomiting. OP's child wasn't.

I would happily pay extra taxes for my academy chain to have a paid school nurse.

Watery - perhaps you should write to the DWP and tell them that you think they should change the rules?

Pigface1 - don't worry about it. They can bug you and get annoyed with you but they still have to look after your child during school hours. And I have only been called in once in 6 years when I was hours away. They were annoyed but there was nothing I could do - I got back at soon as I could but it took me 2 hours.

Watery - perhaps you should write to the DWP and tell them that you think they should change the rules?

I always worked near to my DCs' schools. I could have earned more elsewhere but they were my priority.

Not sure why the DWP should arrange for parents to ensure they have emergency contacts.

It's not precious not to expect to look after other people's sick DCs. That's the job of the parents.

It's not precious not to expect to look after other people's sick DCs. That's the job of the parents

If a child is in your care and suddenly and unexpectedly becomes ill or injured, it's the job of you, until the parents arrive. Whether you are teacher, babysitter, scout leader or swimming teacher.

How is this not obvious?

Schools are for education not nursing or childcare. I totally disagree. While the children are in our care, we are responsible for their welfare. We act in loco parentis. I think anyone who thinks a school is just there for education shouldn't work in one.

While the children are in our care, we are responsible for their welfare. We act in loco parentis. I think anyone who thinks a school is just there for education shouldn't work in one.

And this is exactly why teaching time is being eroded. We are expected to be nurses, counsellors, social workers etc etc. We aren't qualified for those jobs. To pretend we are is to short change the children in our care.

for the - I agree. A full time counsellor is also a great idea.

It's bad luck if all the grandparents are dead and both parents are only children isn't it?

I always had this as well - we need someone to ring if we can't get hold of you. Right - so you've got 3 numbers for each of me and DH (well 5 in total as one will be our joint landline) but that's still not enough?

Goodness knows what schools did in the days before mobile phones. Even if mums didn't work. they didn't sit at home all day and shock horror, might be out!

You don't need a contingency plan because they are simply not realistic for some people. And those of you who will say "well ask one of your dc's friends to be a contact - they might not be available either!) When dc was smaller I put his childminder's name down as she was genuinely always around, but now, it's either me or DH or nobody. I think they do have my mother's number but she's a distance away so is really only a contact for if DH and I were in an accident together or something.

Do schools really expect you to leave work and collect your child inmediately at the slightest bump?? Do I need to re-think my career plans

Some do. But no you don't need to rethink your career plans. Both DH and I worked in London for some years and it was never a problem.

Watery: I always worked near to my DCs' schools. I could have earned more elsewhere but they were my priority."

Wonderful for you. I am the only earner in my house. My job is pretty specialist. There are literally about forty places in the whole of the UK where I can work. Most of them are substantially (read: multiple hours) further away from our schools. In fact the bulk of them are in London, 350 miles away. I am actually incredibly lucky that, if my schools don't catch me when I'm unavailable - think surgeon-operating-on-a-patient unavailable - I could down tools, sprint to a taxi, and be at the primary in around fifteen minutes, and the grammar in about forty. So my circumstances are not so bad as many people's here, and yet, if I hadn't been lucky enough to get this job at this location, it could so easily have worked out that I'd have ended up at the next job over, 75 miles away, and I wouldn't be able to get there for hours. Because of its nature, my job brings with it a very good salary, and my DCs benefit from that in countless ways, including being able to live in a nice house, in a nice area, close to these extremely highly rated schools. Do you really think I should take an enormous paycut to get a job that pays a fraction, to then have to move to a much worse area, and as a result send my DC to schools with much poorer outcomes, just so I can be five minutes from the gate in the event that one of them gets D&V one day and needs collecting quickly? You realise how insane that entire plan is, right?

Watery: And this is exactly why teaching time is being eroded. We are expected to be nurses, counsellors, social workers etc etc. We aren't qualified for those jobs. To pretend we are is to short change the children in our care.

Once again, I don't think teachers or admin staff should be doing this. I think these jobs should be done by people hired especially for this. There should be nurses and counselors as an absolute minimum in every state school, rich or poor. Teachers should teach. Nurses should nurse. Counselors should counsel. Getting angry because parents work miles away fixes none of those things.

And for reference, the job 75 miles away is in a very deprived urban area with extremely poorly rated schools, so either my family stay here and I commute, or they move with me and their quality of education goes right down the pan. I know which I consider more worthwhile.