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.

I'm staggered that you believe that anyone will be leaving this thread with anything other than a severe headache
No headache here.
I'm listening and learning so that if i ever have a bad experience anywhere i know how to create a totally bizarre and frustratingly hilarious threads on MN.

Just you wait. My GP surgery doesn't quite get something right or there's ambiguity, i will be so on it starting ny own rallying call ti save the world from something or other. It'll be a sector wide scandal and i will be spokesperson for all.
And banners. I want banners. And drums.

"And surely if the NHS can treat people well, despite current funding crises, so can schools?" You seem to be choosing to ignore that the NHS was founded to look after peoples medical needs while schools were established to look after educational needs.

It's been established since at least the 19th century that schools are "in loco parentis" and this is supported by modern legislation. Schools aren't just there to teach the three Rs and never have been. I'm sorry that the pressures on teachers to get the children to a certain academic level means that this part of the role is pushed aside.

It is not pushed aside. For children with ongoing medical needs there are Health Care Plans which are followed by school staff. Safeguarding plans are onerous. Children are cared for in our schools. This is what happens.

Children with temporary ailments have needs that are discussed with parents and, if possible, medication is taken outside school hours. If not, it’s a relatively minor issue to administer medication.

The thread is ludicrously repetitive and perhaps if people have a query about health care in schools, they read the legislation and contact their Head teachers for how care is handled in their school, or even better, read the SEND policy and report for their school. It will be detailed in there. These policies are often framed by the LA, so will follow legislation. If anyone thinks their child is not receiving the support they should, check the policy and see the Head.

The thread started because of a loosely worded newsletter!!! The OP could just ask her Head what it meant!

It’s not what happens everywhere. The OP was right to start a thread that raises the issue.

www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/thousands-children-at-risk-dying-10111607

Bubbles it shouldn’t be in the SEND policy. It should be in the medical conditions policy which every school should have but only 11% do. And sorry, the line about just contacting the school is just bizarre. This is a discussion forum and it seems like this is a pretty important issue to discuss with some pretty polarised views and lots of gaps in knowledge. If you don’t want to be educated on this issue, find another thread to contribute to.

Teachers’ professionalism was recognised by the courts in 1962, where the ‘standard of care’ expected of a teacher was held to be that of a person exhibiting the responsible mental qualities of a prudent parent in the circumstances of school, rather than home life. The current standard of care expected of a teacher is that of a reasonable person in the circumstances of a class teacher. It has been recognised that a teacher’s duty of care to individual pupils is influenced by, for example, the subject or activity being taught, the age of the children, the available resources and the size of the class.

A teacher’s duty of care will depend upon what is reasonable and what can be expected of a competent professional acting within the constraints of the circumstances.

The thread started because of a loosely worded newsletter!!! The OP could just ask her Head what it meant!
I suggested that. And also suggested raising a concern. She doesn't want to do that.

t1mum3
Loco parentis only ever covered staff taking SOME elements of parental responsibility.

Nobody is saying we should only teach the 3Rs. We are pointing out that administering medication is not part of our jobs or the teacher standards. There's a lot more in iur jobs than standing at the front of class, but administering medicines isn't one.

By the OP going off on one about what unions have said and actions short of strike, she has very cleverly redirected the thread again from:

1. Here is a newsletter which is discrimination against working parents

To

1. All these kids with additional needs, medical plans etc aren't being provided for by schools and SCHOOLS are failing

To

1. Look at the mean teachers on here. They think it's fine for THEM to fail our children. Even teaching unions are saying it's acceptable for TEACHERS to not do medication. quite a few people have already said it is generally support staff whi do the medicine and first aid stuff in schools but don't let that get in the way of a new reason to be fuming

It's incoherent nonsense where she just throws new wood on the fire to try and get whatever response she wants.

The thread started because of a loosely worded newsletter!!! The OP could just ask her Head what it meant!

Yes, it did. Because newsletters serve the purpose to 'touch base' with a lot of parents. The information contained within them shouldn't be misleading or conflict with school policy.

I think it is disingenuous for a newsletter to suggest a parent has an obligation to come into school, to administer medication which has to be taken at specific times, when they absolutely don't. A naive or trusting parent might just take this as read (which was probably the purpose of it). The law is clear, the school does have a legal obligation to have provision in place for the administering of medication.

The trouble is, is when parents routinely do step in to relieve schools of their legal obligation to make provision, that provision is compromised. It then exists as a policy in name only. Staff routines adapt so no one, regularly, is used to doing the practical work involved in making the provision required by law. Which I think this thread indicates as posters were keen to point out the solution was home schooling or home tutoring provided by the LA.

The thread is ludicrously repetitive

This was because several posters were incredibly keen to point out, repeatedly, administering medicine is not teacher's or any individual member of staff's responsibility. I acknowledged this because I know it is the school's responsibly.

Unfortunately this keenness, in pointing out member of school staff's lack of individual responsibility seemed to be derailing the thread somewhat. I had to stop posting at one point because every post of mine seemed to cause a certain set of posters to rush to pull my posts apart, seemingly just to disagree and discredit me.

Added to this, I acknowledge some parents of children with medical needs were becoming upset because they felt schools had treated them well and a discussion of school's obligations would demoralise teachers. It was not my intention to upset these parents with this thread, at all. However I think it is incredibly sad when simply a discussion of school's obligations, in this area, needs to be silenced because just discussing it would risk demoralising those who work in schools.

Thank you, t1 for continuing to post and keep the discussion on track.

Children with these quite rare and specific needs have been heavily highlighted as “an issue”.

It is regrettable that this may have been a knock on effect if this thread. However, how, on earth, are people able to have an open discussion concerning schools' legal obligations for administering medication if the risk of children being highlighted as an 'issue' meant discussion should be silenced? Is saddens me that this topic is so sensitive that this is a risk and any discussion is rendered taboo.

Teachers and support staff reading it have been nudged towards refusal to help, worry about the impact on them, questioning how far they should go, and parents reading are faced with concerns about how competent, willing to help and welcome their child might be.

Why do you think this has happened?

Real concern for the PEOPLE directly involved seems totally lacking.

What makes you say this? I presume that comment has been directed at me, zzzzz. If I was not concerned I wouldn't have started the thread or even bothered to post. I am really sorry that my posts seem to offend you but am baffled as to the reason why. I suspect your view of my posts fit neatly into a cliche of people that you have observed. Please not I am not that cliched person. I might not have experienced exactly the same hardships you have but that does not mean I have experienced no hardship in my life.

Please note. Typo.

As far as, teachers are so work to rule they actively refuse to help families with children who struggle to be in school for medical reasons. No they don’t, in fact they often are the key to children being in school and minimising the devastating impact of serious conditions.

I understand this. It is why when teachers / teaching unions do work to rule or reiterate the rules it is so deeply unsettling. Why militancy is so unsettling. The job description that goes with being a teacher is completely inadequate in describing the day to day role.

However, parents have to be able to entrust their children to a school's care. When schools appear to be attempting to renege on provision they are legally bound to make, and persuade parents they are obliged to make this provision themselves, it is worrying.

It's not just zzzzz though. I don't feel any concern for real children from your posts at all.

Why is that, irvine? What unwritten rule have I broken?

OP have you ever talked to anyone about this in RL?

Yes.

It’s a huge ask andtakes hours of their time even if they never have to use their training.

But what is the alternative? If schools do not make provision for additional medical needs then children with additional medical needs face even greater barriers towards accessing education. These barriers can severely impact on the child's social and emotional development and future social mobility. If the burden of full time care, with no respite, falls entirely to families, in turn, it can impact on their ability to work in paid employment. So they face huge economic disadvantages as well as the stress of added responsibilities.

The provision of administering medication within schools can make such a difference to these children and families. It is why schools have a legal obligation in this area.

Yes, it is a big ask but such an important one the government requires schools to make provision, funded by our taxes. The alternative is a sector of already vulnerable people are further disadvantaged in society.

People who require regular medication can live full, fulfilling and active lives. They have as much potential to benefit from receiving an education as anyone else. All we have to do, as a society, is ensure that there is provision, within education, for administering that medication. It is a tragedy to see so much potential go to waste.

rare and specific needs they become more common with each generation, if you take CF as an example.

I understand this. It is why when teachers / teaching unions do work to rule or reiterate the rules it is so deeply unsettling. Why militancy is so unsettling. The job description that goes with being a teacher is completely inadequate in describing the day to day role.

It isn't militant to want to do the job you were trained to do, which is to educate. Any extra job foisted on us (and there are attempts at far more than just this) is time away from our proper job. That's not fair on any of the children.

If children need medical care in schools it is not up to the teaching staff to provide it. It's a medical need so a nurse or suitably qualified TA should do it (and imo it should be funded by the NHS). Too many schools are trying to do it on the cheap and force teachers to do something they do not feel qualified to do.

Most of us are happy to train to do emergency care, that should be enough.