To judge parents who dose their kids up on children's paracetamol and send them to school with a temperature?

[SwissSarah]

Just that really. I have the luxury of being a SAHP and not having the dilemma of whether to send a slightly unwell child into school. Several of my friends send their kids in with temperatures. Is this quite normal? Or do you think it is entirely unfair on the child and the rest of the class?

Is it unreasonable even with big work commitments to send a child in if it's just a temperature that's managed by paracetamol? Or am I a big softy and keep my child off unnecessarily? Thanks.

When we had our Reception starters meeting, the Head talked about this. She said that if a child felt a bit unwell and there was no D&V, we should give them paracetamol and send them in if they felt up to it.

It's all down to the attendance targets unfortunately.

I thought no everyone knows their own kids better than you do, so you are in no position to be so nasty and judgey

I was a SAHP to all 3 of mine and I wouldn't have dreamed of keeping them off just because they were slightly unwell. I think that does nothing to teach resilience.

I'd give them paracetemol, send them off to school and inform their teacher they could phone me any time they needed picking up.

You won't do your kids any favours in the long run if they think being slightly unwell, is a free pass to a day off I'm afraid.

• my thoughts are

Entirely normal. What do you think teachers do?

YABU and YANBU, more schools are demanding parents send their kids in regardless and tell them they will be the judge of whether the child is ill enough to be sent home. A lot of these schools don't have their own nurse so nobody with medical training is making this assessment. Parent have to go along with this as otherwise they risk their childs absence being automatically ruled as unauthorised. This is not being done in the childs interests but in the interests of reducing the absence rate. There's not a lot a school can do about authorised absences yet they are still penalised for it. However, if they move to rule all absences that they can possibly manage to do as unauthorised they can fine parents, involve EWO and SS etc.

Sorry in short YANBU to judge however YABU to lay the blame at the feet of the parents.

Normal. Mine aren't off for coughs either. Or colds. Or anything other than D&V tbh.

The ones at secondary who are off for every temperature, headache, cold, start to fall behind.

If you can take a couple of paracetamol and function ok, you don't need the day off. Work or school.

Pottering. Teachers also have jobs, we don't expect that from children give the tories sometime. 5 year olds don't need to learn "resilliance" and make other children sick

I'll bite - if your kids are in school why aren't you working? Do they keep you company when they're off? People don't get paid if they stay off with their children but still have to pay nursery fees - I can't take a days holiday as I'm a teacher and my school have recently announced they won't pay even for a day if you are off with your sick child. Don't be a cosseted SAHM with no idea how hard it is to be a working parent .

Yes I do this, except with ibuprofen.
And?
That is what I do as an adult. Poor attendance for a fever at work isn't rewarded. If my kid isn't vomiting she is fine to go in.
Unless there is a child undergoing chemotherapy in her class I won't be keeping her off for a fever.

Nah a slightly unwell kid can go to school. Our HT encourages paracetamoling them up and send 'em in. D and V a different game of course

Of course 5 year olds need to learn resilience.

It's something all of us learn from a very early age, into adulthood.

And as for making other children sick, you simply can't keep a child off for every raised temperature, cough or snotty nose, or most of them would be off school far more than they actually attend.

I'll bite - if your kids are in school why aren't you working?

Because she's a SAHP

Its down to attendance targets

Schools are encouraging parents to send unwell children (not blaming the school, they have to meet government targets)

5 year olds don't need to learn "resilliance"

Then prince, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one

Totally normal to carry on with paracetamol if they're just a bit under the weather with a sniffle or slight temperature.

If they're unwell in themselves (floppy, feverish, not eating etc) or haven't slept then I think they should stay home, especially the little ones.

D&V, chicken pox etc obviously need to stay home

Urghhhhhhh that phrase 'luxury of bring a SAHP' makes my teeth itch. The luxury of what exactly?

I'm a sahm and send mine in when they are a bit under the weather. It's what was done to me and it's probably what my kids will do to theirs.

Why would you keep them off for a sniffle? I know a few kids who have a constant cold, they'd never be at school with your logic.

Sally a lot of SAHPs on Mumsnet get told it's a luxury. I expect the OP was just repeating that.

And to some who would really rather stay at home but really can't afford to, they'll tell you it is a luxury in their eyes.

Keeping a child off school for a temperature and nothing else is quite frankly ridiculous!

How is that a benefit to them over attending school and receiving their education?

I'm judging you!

What will happen when they start work?

If it's so awful being a SAHM get a job then! Then fit all the things you do while your kids are at school around that! It is a fucking luxury - especially if your kids are in school!

Not contagious and no d&v then they're fine to go in.

Not everyone has the "luxury" of being a SAHP or 'just taking the time off'.

jelly

sally asked why its a luxury

No one on here is complaining about being a sahm...i dont think anyone apart from sally has said it isnt a luxury