Our primary school says if children need medicine at specific times 'pop' in & DIY

[wonkywillow]

Surely this penalises busy working parents, with occupations where they can't just 'pop' in? Or a parent who simply has other pressing commitments..

Can schools actually do this? They seem to be negating their responsibilities towards providing education and support for children with long term medical conditions that require regular medication.

zzzzz it seemed an odd thing to say because you are very much preaching to the converted regarding additional needs. So I assumed you were quoting someone. My child had a Statement for severe and complex needs. With a significant level of additional funding attached and an LSA. Whether all that additional resource, supplied by the Statement, was utilised for my child is a different matter.....

Cherry, I remember checking school census data, if I recall correctly, and many schools in our area were thousands under budget.

And there are many many people desperate for jobs in school hours. Not remotely similar to trying to employ a qualified teacher

I know that schools have very little money to play with because I am a staff governor on our finance committee and because I have an awareness of education issues past my own nose.

Ok. So your ONE school doesn’t have any money.

And tbf, as a teacher you also don’t have the skills, qualification or experience to properly integrate or analyse the information presentsed to you (extremely poorly if our local authorities outsourced finance service is anything to go by)

You wouldn’t believe the work and integration that does into those numbers in a company or local authority vs schools. And don’t say you know, because you dont.

Quite simply, zzzzz, if none of the staff a school currently employs will administer medication they need to employ another member of staff that will. If that means another member of staff's work is then rendered redundant then so be it. If a school cannot do this they need to liaise with other stakeholders. What they should not be doing, is stating parents need to come in to administer medication in their newsletter.

It is the schools responsibility to ensure this happens and it doesn't matter what is in any staff contracts - someone has to ensure the safe provision of medication to the child. If the school have managed to employ everyone (including management and administration staff) on contracts which explicitly say they don't need to then they have been rather foolish and will have to employ someone else.

How many more times does it have to be said? Teachers can and do refuse to medicate. They cannot be forced to.

How many more times does it have to be said? Teachers can and do refuse to medicate. They cannot be forced to.

No they cannot. But they will not be doing their career prospects any good if they refuse. Because others will step up and do this. And I know who will be first in the firing line should redundancy be on the cards...

Just not true. I think you underestimate how many teachers refuse to medicate. Heads cannot put you in the firing line for refusing voluntary duties, they aren't stupid.

It's not going to exactly help your relationship with a head teacher or parents, though, Kay? And I, personally, think the attitude, 'Needs t my problem', displays an appalling lack of concern over the inclusion of children with additional medical needs. I cannot imagine this in a teacher who was actually good at their job.

'Not my problem,'. Typo.

Tbh perhaps this is one reason why schools are employing an increasing amount of non teaching staff together with employing less teachers...

If someone asked me to medicate their child. I wouldn’t unless it was an emergency- epipen/asthma etc because I would be worried about doing it wrong. Or that someone else had done it already/that I misread the instructions/did it at the wrong time.

I wouldn’t be fired for it. I would however probably be fired if I did it wrong.

"I will” and they actually won’t, how can we send our vulnerable children to school?"

How can we anyway, if every teacher routinely refuses to do anything above voluntary duties? I have seen the working 'to rule' documentation. If teachers follow this to the letter it does not even make for an adequate, never mind good, teacher. Look at the rules concerning attending necessary meetings which discuss a child's progress, for example.

In all types of occupations people routinely have to go above and beyond what they are paid to do. Just so the job is done properly.

I really loved the school approach of everyone learning about what to do at once. Sharing the knowledge and stress makes it easier. Both schools that did this for us had fabulous pastoral care, and worked on a “this is your school family” basis. They made a very dark time easier.

So how would you feel if the school just point blank refused to help, zzzzz?

This sort of thing has been going on for years. Here look:

"Parental consultation
1.14
The NASUWT recommends that teachers should only attend one parental consultation per year
for each year group. These meetings should be counted as directed time and identified in the calendar of meetings.
1.15
In a week where there is a parental consultation meeting scheduled, no other meeting outside school sessions should be calendared to take place.
Open evenings
1.16
There is no requirement for teachers to attend open evenings. However
, where they agree to attend, these should count against directed time and against the weekly total of meetings.
Pupil reports
1.17
Reports to parents, including comments from teachers, should be made once per year.
1.18
Where they have not done so, schools should consider introducing an electronic system for
generating reports, which includes a database of standard phrases that can be tailored to suit
most circumstances. There is little point in seeking to be original in every report or going beyond a crisp and concise format. Interim reports requiring written comments from teachers should not be undertaken. If the school determines an interim report is required, then it should be capable of being electronically generated from information/data the teacher has recorded once in the agreed assessment system" (NASUWT 'Action Short of Strike)

they would inform the LA who would either insist they did

So, as other posters have pointed out, how could the LA insist?

and? the point being, there is much in teaching that is absolutely necessary that lies outside a teacher's core duties. Yet schools have to provide children, with varying needs, at the very least, now, a 'good' education.

So of course that answer had been to employ less teachers and more support staff. It all adds up now, doesn't it?