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, not for another week or so. They are not always regular, though.

I don't need the newsletter to be adjusted. I just thought it indicative of a certain attitude which I explained earlier. Just correcting the newsletter won't change the attitudes which caused it to be written as it was. It did sadden me because I thought they'd maybe improved. However I can see there is more work still to be done.

From this thread? A discussion of what I posted in the initial OP.

Ultimately, I don't want schools to pressurise parents by suggesting they have a duty to make up for a shortfall in provision within school. The provision that schools are legally obligated to make. I think this pressure can further disadvantage already vulnerable families.

I don't want them to be pressurising parents in this way. Added to this I want them to be making the provision they are supposed to by law (not trying to get parents to step in so they don't need to). I want children with additional needs to receive the school provision they are entitled to regardless of their parents' ability to help and support the school.

Because free education was initially set up to reduce social and economical disadvantage. It was supposed to be the 'great leveller'. As it stands, with parents having to step in to make up for shortfalls in provision, it just perpetuates disadvantage.

You don't really know if they are actually pressurising parents, or someone has being experiencing shortfalls in provision though.
YOU ARE ONLY SPECULATING, YOU DON"T* KNOW ANY FACTS.

There are quite a few school law expert on education board and normally comes on to give us impartial and unbiased advice on thread regarding legal issues. Don't you think it's telling no one came here to advice you?

*been

irvine, I do know very much, first hand, the pressure the school in question put upon myself to make up for shortfalls in their provision to cater for my own DC's additional needs. This was provision for which they received significant funding for. As I have said, I know the school.

A newsletter suggesting parents need to go into administer prescription medication which requires to be taken at specific times, without signposting the medication policy or briefly mentioning provision for children with specific agreed care plans in place, is a subtle form of putting pressure on parents. As I have pointed out earlier.

I'm also not speculating, either, about the attitudes displayed on here. Teachers not being legally obligated to administer medication being conflated with schools not being legally obliged to make provision for administering medication happened right from the initial page of this thread. The solutions suggested for parents who were not able to go into their child's school to do this were home tutoring organised by the LA and home schooling provided by the parents.

I have been clear throughout this thread that this issue, of administering medication in schools, doesn't affect my child directly. This thread primarily was for discussion of the issues surrounding administering medication in schools, prompted by a newsletter article. I wanted clarification on the law and how it works (or doesn't) in practice and people's views on this. I also wanted to raise an awareness of these issues. This thread has achieved all that.

Teachers not being legally obligated to administer medication being conflated with schools not being legally obliged to make provision for administering medication happened right from the initial page of this thread.
And yet it was you who went off on some rant about how awful teachers are for pointing out they don't have to do it and it was also you who entioned what thr NASUWT union guidance was and you who brought up action short of strike... and then after when people challenged you said 'oh actually i don't really care who does it'.

What you're actually supposedly annoyed at shifts every few pages as you try to work out which angle is going to get you the most support.

Maisy, as I said earlier,

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.

Added to this, my own personal opinions or posting style, whilst they may be relevant to the issue at hand, matter little in the big scheme of things. What matters is this issue is discussed, people are aware of it and schools voluntarily abide by the law without continual prompting from regulatory bodies.

I agree that the responses you’ve received to your posts are rather telling.

Well, we actually agree on something, zzzzz. I'm not sure we've both learnt the same things from this thread though.

My daughter has iron liquid every day due to pernicious anaemia and they just keep it in a tub in syringed doses and my daughters teacher gives her the syringe daily to self medicate. They are really good. If I had to be there daily this would drive me nuts

And my point is that had you come on and said:
I saw something in a school newsletter that made me confused about how they're handling medication. I've called the school up for clarity as it could affect anyone's child and the school have categorically told me that they are refusing to administer any medications to any pupil. I think there needs to be some sort of awareness about this.
then the thread would have been very different.

But you didn't. You've speculated about a newsletter saying they cab't guarantee medicines at specific times, made mass generalisations and change your angle to suit your agenda. Many people (teachers AND parents) have said you should clarify and raise it with the school. You don't want to do that.

It's not about your posting style. It's about a totally incoherent argument which shifts depending on what you think will get people (who join the thead so haven't read the full thread) to feel sorry for you.

One minute it's working parents being discriminated against in one school, the next it's schools gaslighting, then you were smugly goibg on about how you raised an issue and then someone left their job and implying ypu're proud your actions pushed someone out, next it's schools as a group failing, then it's schools not meeting care plans, people said 'contact school' and you were arsey and all 'why should i? I'm shedding light on a whole sector via a MN thread'. Then it's teachers and how our job descriptions should be changed, then you mention a MN campaign and go down that route, and now you're acting like all i ever wanted was to discuss vulnerable children having their needs met and it doesn't affecr my child but i couldn't possibly contact school because as this thread proves, schools are horrible and i'd only be victimised.

It's totally incoherent and smacks of someone who isn't interested in a solution and just wants to fume away on the internet feeling hard done to.

I'm not sure we've both learnt the same things from this thread though.
Because obviously OP you've decided this thread confirms the victim nareative you started on early pages and proves to you how mean and nasty schools and teachers are because people have pointed out you make no sense.

I've repeatedly said if there are ambiguities (which there are!) SPEAK TO THE SCHOOL for clarity. If there are issues following from that clarification SPEAK TO THE SCHOOL and complain. If need be you go theough the formal complaints procedures to get a resolution.

... but don't refuse to get clarify on a situation, not raise it with school, sit and make silly generalisations and spout nonsense online and play the victim

And yet you will have taken sniffle poor me... this is exactly why i should never speak to a school even though you were bragging about how you felt partially responsible for a member of staff leaving their job earlier in the thread.

It's totally incoherent and smacks of someone who isn't interested in a solution and just wants to fume away on the internet feeling hard done to.

I am not fuming. If readers of this thread go through my posts and compare them to your own, Maisy they will quickly see which of us uses the most 'angry' type of language. A significant amount of your posts have the prime function of criticising the way I have gone about this thread. They derail the thread from the actual issues at hand. Has this been your intention all along?

wonkywillow
Not angry.
Just exasperated that one person can have an issue in their school, refuse to do anything about it and then shape shift their argument every couple of pages.

And then still claim but i was only trying yo discusss X all along despite your first post being totally different to what you are claiming now.

It's total and uttter nonsense.

My first post is not different at all. It is a perfectly functional snapshot of the issues surrounding schools' legal obligations for administering medication, Maisy.

And I didn't say I would do nothing about it. I just said I would pick my moment thoughtfully, to act appropriately, to the circumstances. I was not about to carry out other posters instructions on order, to report back. That is not what this thread is about. There is a wider issue than one individual school's newsletter. The newsletter was just a prompt for discussion.

...although the newsletter article does very definitely exist. Just realised my last post could have been misleading on that point!

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.
To which many posters have said:

1. Clarify with the school. It could be they are refusing everything. It could be they have additonal plans in place for care plans and lomg term and this is for short term things. It could be that they can't guarantee specific times for medicines but it could be done within a set window.
2. if there is an issue in the school where they are failing to do what they should, it needs raising.
3. But until you clairfy the position, you simply don't know what it refers to.

You decdied you didn't want to do any of those things and went off on one about 'schools' as some kind of whole sector, accused schools of gaslighting, felt smug about how you feel partly involved in a memeber of staff leaving, brought up teacher union guidanve (which doesn't impact on schools being able to do medicine) and then arrive at a MN campaign where you've finally decided this is the angle you want.

The fact still remains. You have no idea what the ambiguous letter was meaning because you haven't clarified and have zero intention of clarifying.

As I say, if you wanted a sensible discussion about school responsibilities then surely that's what you would have done to start with rather than change your stance every 4 pages and then accuse play victim.

Yes. I am exasperated. Mainly because I spend a reasonable amount of time helping parents work through a crappy system and I'm one of the first to be in SLT offices if I think something we do is impacting on students. But I absolutely can't stand hot air fuming, not seeking clarity, not doing anything and thenjust bitching and making silly generalisations about schools.