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.

Maisy, the point I was making re. Action Short of Strike, was that there is much that school's have to provide than is beyond individual teacher's remit. Added to this it seems it is always the most vulnerable that are likely to suffer if schools refuse to make provision. (Extra progress meetings for example for children with additional needs). As you said yourself,"For what it's worth though, schools would stop running properly if we all worked fully to rule. Most teachers don't end up working to rule because it affects the children".My earlier comment was merely a nod to this.

If I wanted an echo chamber I would not even bother to post on the Primary Education Board! Are you being serious?

And also, with reference to militantism, I expressed my frustration that it renders any reasonable open discussion on school's legal obligations taboo because of the concern over teacher morales. It leads to posters suggesting the children with additional medical needs should receive LA home tuition or be home schooled by their parents as the solution if their parents cannot go into school to administer medication.

They may have zzzzz but the newsletter made absolutely no distinction there. It specified prescription medication that had to be taken at specific times. Even if they are prepared to fulfil their duty in making provision for longer term medical needs entirely, I think not to specify this is disingenuous, as I explained in my earlier posts.

But you don't even know what the news letters is talking about, because as you say, they have no distinction. They maybe taking about something like calpol.
They may have properly working system for long term meds or prescribed meds.
How can you have discussion about something you don't know anything about before finding out the fact from school, as if the school is failing children?

But if the OP had done that in the first place, there would have been no need for 23 pages of people telling her to clarify the position, that staff in schools can and do administer medication, that different schools have different rules over short term medication but that longer term medication is covered in the vast majority of schools by trained staff volunteering to carry out these procedures!

I may well do that zzzzz. I just haven't yet.

However I believe newsletters should be correct. They signal to wider readers how accommodating they are regarding any additional need. This was an item that really did not need to be published in a newsletter. Their medication policy (if it had been published on their website) would have detailed the relevant information and been correct according to their legal obligations. The newsletter did not even sign post parents to this document. I actually think the article in the newsletter was a cynical move in order to pressurise parents to bridge the gap in provision.

irvine they did say 'prescription' medicine. I reread it.

spanieleyes
many of us said to call school and ask for clarification many pages ago but were told it's all about proving a point and shedding light on a sector wide problem

It really is quite simple:
good morning head/other appropriatr person. I saw the update in the school newsletter about medicines. Could you just confirm to me if that is a blanket ban on administering any medication, some medication or just that it can't be guaranteed at specific times and it could be at any point within a given window?
Maybe even with an added my child has X need. Can I just confirm that original arrangemebts for their need still stands? if applicable.
No raging.
No conspiracy theories.
No massive claims kf discrimination and schools
No trying to bring in pointless digs at teachers.
Call, clarify, job done.
Siiimmppllees.

Maisy yes, calling is simple. And, as long as the person spoke to knew their stuff, the response would be absolutely (legally) correct.

However of my main issues is that it was strongly suggested in the newsletter that the school is not able to make provision to administer medication that needs to be given at specific times and that parents should step in. Yes, after investigation, a parent might find this is not the case. However, the assumption that the school cannot make the provision is being actively encouraged. Otherwise the newsletter would signpost the medical policy. A policy that, incidentally, is not readily available on the website and one that a parent would have to specifically request.

Added to this, as this thread proves, some schools do not make adequate provision for administering medication.

Oh come on, MaisyPops, you are just being sensible now!

spaniel as I have said, simply calling does not solve the issue.

But you don't know what the actual issue is-just what you THINK it is. Surely it would be much more sensible/time effective/accurate to find out!

But you don't know what the actual issue is-just what you THINK it is. Surely it would be much more sensible/time effective/accurate to find out!
I know.

I mean. One of our departments sent a clarification out last year on a letter because after a parent called school realised how we'd phrased something was ambiguous.
It's now been changed on all trip letters.

I wish that parent had started a nonsensical thread about how 'schools' run trips and are failing in their duty of care and discriminate. It would have provided a huge amount of entertainment.

Alas, we get stuck with sensible parents most of the time.

It is an issue in other schools, spaniel, as other posters pointed out and the news article linked to earlier on in this thread shows.

Also, I pick my battles. If the antagonism on this thread is in any way indicative of how teachers and school staff will treat children differently according to how parents approach them, I would certainly be unwise to approach the school directly, unless this issue was actually affecting my child. However I will certainly raise awareness of this in other, more subtle ways. I am constantly amazed at how quickly ideas can get into the ether...

If the antagonism on this thread is in any way indicative of how teachers and school staff will treat children differently according to how parents approach them, I would certainly be unwise to approach the school directly, unless this issue was actually affecting my child
Ah the victim card is back again.

Schools respond according to how parents behave.
We have some parents at my school who are not allowed direct contact with subject teachers. This is because of their actions. All communication goes via head of year or SLT.

They would still have access to subject staff if they were polite and reasonable.

I teach a child of one of those with limited contact. The child is lovely. But i don't need weekly emails and hour long phonecalls where the parent tells me i have to go and investigate x y z in other subjects because theythink a colleague isn't up to the job or they are annoyed at X trip or revision guides organsied by another department.

You seem to delight in generalisations
E.g. schools do this... teachers do this... schools hate parents raising issues...

Nobody is disputing that there may be issues in some schools.
Many people have said parents can and shout absolutely seek clarity and raise issues where there are issues.

What people are disputing are your silly generalisations and absolute dedication to your conspiracy where it becomes incoherent nonsense.

"The charities looked at 200 schools randomly selected across England, including state primary and secondary maintained schools, academy trusts, free schools and 6th form colleges, using information obtained through school websites or Freedom of Information requests.

Of these, only 23 schools (11.5%) demonstrated they had an adequate medical conditions policy.

And 22.5% (45 schools) were deemed to have an “inadequate” policy when measured against nine statutory requirements.

The majority, 132 schools, failed to demonstrate they had a medical condition policy in place."

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

zzzzz
Keyboard warrior innit.

Wants to sound big and intimidating with all their generalisations, incoherent arguments and general unwillingness to hear anything regarding common sense but won't do anything about it and claim it's because schools are too mean.

Maisy, maybe 'keyboard warrior' accurately describes me on this topic, for now. However have you read the survey results, referenced in the news article, that I have just posted? There are very definitely people out there investigating and tackling this issue. Maybe I'll join them...

OP you do realise that there are some 24,372 schools in the U.K.

Just found the link to relevant the Mumsnet campaign.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/childrens_health/2696339-Children-with-long-term-medical-conditions