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.

Well DH and I both work FT. The rules here in the US are simple. Obviously the common sense rules of no D&V. If they have a temperature of more than 100.4F they stay home. Attendance targets are for unauthorized absence only. Being sick due to temperature of 100.4F+ is an authorized absence.

I don't send my kids to school sick but I know plenty who do. They don't have a choice. DH and I are able to work from home and work late the following day to care for any sick DC.

I'm a SAHP but I only keep mine at home if they are so ill that they can't get out of bed or if they are vomiting/have diarrhoea. The school tell us that a temperature alone is not a reason to be off of school and to dose them up with calpol.

Unfortunately they don't administer calpol so once it wears off the child has to cope until hometime or I have to nip up to school to give them another dose.I got a call an hour before hometime the other day saying that DD was complaining of painful earache and could I please come up with some calpol.

lol where's op then??

Parents judging for themselves - fine (assuming no immunocompromised children in the class / school).It's up to each parent I think, to be honest, although it is a bit annoying when people send their kids in when they've been vomiting and the whole class gets it.

The school advising parents what to do solely for the purpose of attendance figures - not fine. I think it's very dodgy if teachers / TAs are telling parents to 'dose them up' and send them in. This attendance figures thing really annoys me - kids in private schools regularly have a week or two more each holidays and you don't see government officials wringing their hands about how much school they are missing.

At my work you are sacked / get a written warning if you have more than two episodes of sick leave in twelve months.

That's the reality of work so I don't think it does children any harm to learn that you go to school unless you are too poorly to get out of bed and paracetamol isn't enough to help you.

You see people in the work place all the time call in sick with a sniffle

nowhere near enough, too many come full a germs and spread germs all other the place.

I'm an office lady and don't mind children coming having been dosed with calpol and I don't mind administering a further dose of calpol under your written instructions as let's face it, it wears off by lunch time if you gave it at 7 am. I do get a teeny bit judgy if you don't mention you have dosed them up and then make you self uncontactable all day so I end up with a hot, weepy child that went down hill rapidly. I feel if you send a child in under calpol you know there is a possibility they are going to get worse so you need to keep a phone handy and be thinking of a plan for who might pick them up just in case.

Thanks everyone. It's really helpful to hear that it is normal to send a child in with a fever if they're ok. That's a fair point about adults going to work feeling rough. I hadn't thought of it like that: my DC is only 5 so I don't want to send her in if she does actually need a day of rest/recovery but I see I'm probably being too soft. I have yet to keep her off sick. I'm the one BU. Sorry for my judgement.

FYI, I have other DC under 5 so I'm looking after them in the day. I count it a luxury to be at home as we have enough money for me to choose to stay at home for the moment. That is what I want to be doing right now and I recognise not everyone gets that choice.

Noone is saying its easy being a SAHP, STD.
However they do have a very easy life in the way that they don't have to worry about childcare.
I think op got everyone's goat when she said. I have the luxury of being a SAHP. That's a ridiculous comparison to a single mum with absolutely no family and no help at all.

I had no intention to cause irritation by using the term 'luxury'. I just meant that by being at home, i don't have to worry about childcare when they're ill. I count that a luxury that others might not have.

Apologies to those I've unwittingly offended.

I have been known to pop into school at lunchtime to give my child paracetamol when I know they are off colour but in school (school won't administer the calpol).

I am a SAHM (not that its relevent)

I was a teacher (also not relevant)

I work 4 days a week. If they were really poorly of course I would take the time off work.
My rules were they got to stay home if they had vomiting, diarrhoea, spots or a temperature.
Anything else ie/ headaches/ bad colds and random tummy aches and they went to school.
My list did include temperature - and I have to cancel patients if I don't go to work so it was always a pain!

I think op got everyone's goat when she said. I have the luxury of being a SAHP. That's a ridiculous comparison to a single mum with absolutely no family and no help at all.

The OP didn't mention single mums, just mums who don't go out to work

Now see I don't if there's a temperature. Generally if it's just sniffles my kids don't get temperatures.

If they have a restful day off when the temperature starts generally they're ok the next day. If they try and fight through we get all sorts of bacterial infections and nasties.

So, temperature or D&V they're home, anything else they go in.

Yes YABU. If you kept them off for every sniffle they'd never be there from October through march!

Although interestingly my DDs school refuse to take them in if you say they've had Calpol. This caught my friend out and she got turned away at door in Reception . Ever since then I have told my DD she's just having cough syrup in case she mentions it.

I have had a spell of being a SAHP and it wasn't a luxury in many ways, but indeed was a luxury never to be stressing about childcare for the sick days. Now I'm back at work it's a constant juggling act as, like a previous poster, I'm a teacher who can't just take leave when I need it.

During y6 sats week our school told us that if our Y6 child was sick we had to bring them into school anyway and they would be taken to an office to take the tests in isolation. Poor kids!

I'm a lone parent. I have to work. If DD is too ill to go to nursery I have to take unpaid leave. If it happens too often I get my arse kicked. As a result I never take sick leave myself (even though I have a chronic pain condition) because I worry about my job. If I stayed off every time DD was a bit off colour I'd probably lose my job. Sometimes people's circumstances are different to yours OP - just because you are a SAHP doesn't make you a better mother than women who have to work.

YABU. DS's school rang me the other week to say that ds had a temp (he didn't when I dropped him off) and was it ok to give him Calpol. I asked if they wanted me to come and get him and they said they'd see how he went and I didn't get another call and he was right as rain by home time.
So I'm assuming they wouldn't expect a child who was otherwise well in themselves to be kept off with a temperature.

It's a rock and a hard place, really. Ill children, properly ill ones, need to be at home but that's not always easy for working parents. DH and I both work pretty much full time now (hoping to cut back my hours a bit later in the year) and we always argue over who will take time off if DC are sick, because it's not easy for either of us. Schools get in trouble if attendance rates fall. Individual children/families get in trouble if their child has a low attendance- and one bad d&v bug, maybe a couple of days of for temps and if you're unlucky enough to also catch CP that year, your attendance rating is screwed.

My rule is definitely 24 hrs from the last vomit/diarrhoea unless I KNOW it's not a bug (my youngest used to get very travel sick). High temp (over 38.5) and seeming unwell keep them off. But general coughs/colds and mild temp I'd send in.

What does MASSIVELY annoy me though, is a lot of my friends who are SAHMs who routinely send their kids into school when they have been sick/had diarrhoea in the night but 'seemed fine by the morning.' NO they are still contagious!! Keep them at home especially as you're not working! I seriously have a friend who sent her child to school after being sick in the night because she 'seemed fine' and said friend had a lunch date with friends.

If you're a SAHP presumably you can go along with more calpol / collect them later if need be? Send in, I say.

This judging when to send kids in dosed up is another parent skill they don't teach you. I had a very uncomplaining child that happily went in when feeling a bit under the weather etc but also gave me a few scares - just to remind folks that tonsillitis and throat infections can be very nasty as can chest infections. Ear infections are good if caught early and treated properly but can lead to infections of the small bones in the ears and subsequent hearing loss....we spent a week in hospital on intravenous anti-Bs that time...

Or do you think it is entirely unfair on the child and the rest of the class?

Absolutely 100% unfair to the poor child who with a temperature probably feels quite unwell. And yes, unfair to the rest of the class too. Uncaring and selfish IMHO.

Our school district policy in to keep the kids home if they have something contagious (stomach virus, strep throat, etc.), or a fever over 100° (F) without medicine. I think that's sensible, and that's what we follow.

Kids don't learn resilience from feeling miserable and unwell at school. Mine were always ill in KS1 and I kept them off at the first sign of temperature. Now they never are.