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.

A school newsletter isn't going to give the minutiae of detail of medication policy. For one reason, many parents will then suddenly claim that there child has some essential health need, in order to bypass this rule.

They don't need minutiae of detail. Just signpost their policy. Or do not publish that particular article. The legal provision could be explained when medicine in brought to school or when a parent inquires about medication their child has to take. Parents claiming anything they have no right to will come to nothing. The law is not something schools should be attempting to keep secret. They can't. To be actively avoiding explaining or revealing the legal provision is disingenuous.

Schools are struggling to avoid paper and pens. They making staff redundant. If no one volunteers to administer medicine what are they supposed to do?

I would hope school staff would acknowledge the necessity of provision and some one would step up. A member of SLT, if no one else. However if not, the school needs to negotiate with the LA and the school nursing team. This issue is more important than paper and pens as it effects whether some children can turn up in the first place and their safety whilst they are at school.

Children with long term conditions that require daily medication will get it under a health plan.

This was not specified.

"This was not specified."

Sigh. They don't need to. Because parents with children with HCP know it's nothing to do them.
And someone who has nothing to do with it like you wanted to know, you can always ask and clarify.

*do with them.

irvine, posters on this thread have to about how they had to go in to school to administer medication to their children with long term medical needs. I myself knew a woman who did this a few years ago. There is a related newspaper article and a campaign linked to in this thread which calls for schools to abide by the law. This is still an issue.

Added to this there are children still waiting for long term care plans who still have long term medical needs. There are children whose medium term medical needs, a series of kidney infections for example, which will seriously affect their access to school and school attendance, if they don't have parents who can go into minister medicines.

Schools not abiding by the law puts all the children I mentioned above at a serious educational disadvantage. And why are posters apparently so keen I don't mention this? Because teachers.

Talked. Typo.

irvine
Just accept you can't possibly have a sensible discussion on this thread with the OP.

Your're back at 'eeeh nobody wants me to show them the truth because it will hurt the feelings of teachers' even though earlier they had a pop at teachers and our job descriptions and then claimed that they didn't care if ir was teachers if not. Oh and teachers on this thread have said repeatedly concerns shouls be raised with schools

It's pigeon chess.

Resorting to memes now, Maisy. Yes, real indication of 'superior' intelligence, that is....

(Do you have a little collection ready for people who disagree with you?)

And if some schools can abide by the law, well then, so can all the ones which don't.

wonky
It reminded me of something i saw online.

I'm not claiming superior intelligence at all. I just can't be arsed attempting to have a sensible debate with someone who has shifted their approach six million times, then denies it, then claims the victim and now claims all thry ever wanted wad a sensible discussion.

The point at whicj a debate stops being a debate abd becomes 'boohoo poor me' and 'i'm only interested in people telling me i'm right' is the poibt at which i'm out.

If you want to fume online then great.
I'll stick to actually raising issued that affect students in schools.

Maisy, I will.

And just to clarify (before the inevitable) 'my issue is about students', what i mean is i raise the issues that affevt students IN SCHOOLS and debate them and aim to bring about change (not sit and make silly generalisations online)

irvineoneohone

There's only so many times teachers can advocate raising issues with school if schools are failing abd asking to avoid generalisations before you have to accept tha a poster doesn't want advice and probably never wanted advice.

This issue does affect students in schools. Posters have come on here to talk about their own school failing to make the legal provision. There is a newspaper article which talks about this happening together with a survey. There is a campaign which calls for schools to abide by the law in terms of making provision for administering medication which is backed by major charities.

No matter how much you try to suggest this is just 'all in my head', Maisy, it clearly is not. This is a very real issue.

I literally JUST clarified my phrasing because on reading it back i knew you'd take it as 'Maisy says it isn't an issue'

You choose to create threads to support your generalisations.
I spend my time actually raising issues with SLT and school when they negatively affect students.
I have another meeting with our head in a fortnight to discuss how something can he done better for the pupils. Oh look, I managed to do thay without suggesting my experienve is true of most schools. Oh how simple. There is an issue. Raise it with thr appropriate person.

I haven't denied there are issues in some schools.
I have repearedly said issues should be raised with schools.
I'm saying you are intnet on making silly generalisations and changing your stance every few pages as and when it suits. One minute it' mean teachers, then you don't care, now we're back to 'eeeh mean teachers'.

Yesthere is a campaign. Yes it is a good campaign.
You arrived at the campaign after multiple pages of chopping and changing your mind to suit whatever would paint you better. Aka incoherent nonsense.

And on that note, as i said before I replied to irvine I am done discussing with you. You make no sense and are more concerned with creating your own incoherent victim narrative than actually doing anything.

Maisy my criticisms towards teachers have been primarily aimed at those who claim to be teachers on this thread. These criticisms are:

1. conflating school responsibilities with teacher responsibilities
2. suggesting schools have no legal responsibility to administer medication which is incorrect
3. the presence, amongst some, of a militant kind of mindset which is obstructive because it causes teachers to do the things I said first two points but also post repeatedly in order to try and discredit me and disrail this thread. My posting style, grammar, personal experiences top trumps, refusal to follow their instructions, to their timescale and report back, actual insults, memes, bad language, capitalisation and purposeful crossing outs in posts, references to 'victim narrative', confused and shocked emojis have all been used to this end.

I haven't denied there are issues in some schools.

Good. Perhaps this thread has achieved something, even with you, Maisy.

My posting style, grammar, personal experiences top trumps, refusal to follow their instructions, to their timescale and report back, actual insults, memes, bad language, capitalisation and purposeful crossing outs in posts, references to 'victim narrative', confused and shocked emojis have all been used to this end.

1. People have shared a range of experiences (good and bad) on this thread. It isn't top trumps if they don't agree with
2. Suggesting you actually get clarity from a school before getting angry online isn't demanding you report back. It is common sense.
3. Insults. Debates get heated on MN. People only get exasperated with OPs if the OP have zero interest in actual debate.
4. Memes. One meme to another poster because it was an amusing summary of the thread. Again, it wasn't what you wanted so obv it's a problem.
5. Bad language. I wasn't aware you were the forum police. Some threads on here are full of swearing but you know what, we all suck it up and don't mope about it when a discussion hasn't gone our way.
6. Capitalisation for clarity. Basic part of indicating prosody. Just.like using bold for emphasis. I didn't realise communicating emphadis was now a crime.
7. Purposeful crossing out in posts - give me strength we really are clutching at straws here
8. References to victim narratives - umm.. yeah. Because you started with discrimination against working parents, then accused schools of gaslighting, then started being all 'if thisbthread is anything to go by then it is probably best to never contact school' (when lots of people have said you would be reasonable to contact school!)
9. Emojis - another way of communicating expression and tone of voice. Again.

Funny that all of that is 'reasons i'm a poor victim'.

Good. Perhaps this thread has achieved something, even with you,Maisy.
I don't need your crappy generalisations to tell me there are issues in schools so save your patronising, self-righteous one woman saviour nonsense.
The difference between me and you is that I advocate raising issues with schools without making silly generalisations whereas you think people suggesting grtting clarity is demanding you report back and are more bothered about getting people online to agree with you and then playing victim if people disagree or challenge your.

The difference between me and you is that I advocate raising issues with schools without making silly generalisations

I advocate the same thing. Hence not going into school to raise this without a specific issue. If I were only talking hypotheticals, I am well aware I could very likely be just directed to the legal policy. Nothing about that shows me how well the school do this in practice. The newsletter, however, indicated to me that the school will omit to signpost to the legal medical needs document and instead attempt to pressurise parents into coming into school to administer medication. It is of course possible that the medical needs policy is inadequate in which case we would be in a worse state of play but this is something I suspect is probably in place and sufficient but that is just a hunch.

you think people suggesting grtting clarity is demanding you report back

This is because some of the same posters who suggested this were the ones who earlier and later on in this thread were strongly advising I did not say anything to the school.

I fully appreciate schools struggle to provide what they need to by law on the funding provided by the government. However I don't think it should be the vulnerable that primarily bear the brunt of the cuts. Added to this, this is not merely about funding. It can also be about willingness to do certain tasks. My D.C. had significant funding for additional needs and a full time one to one LSA. Yet I still had to come into school to make up for shortfalls in provision in order to allow them to fully participate in school. My D.C. also still was illegally excluded in the form of attending school on a part time basis for the best part of a year. The issue was not funding. Yes, this is one example, but there were other parents in that school doing the same thing. Also posters on threads, I have read about on here, doing the same thing. This illustrates that it is not always about funding. Concerning this particular medication issue, posters on here have talked about why school staff are unwilling to volunteer to administer medication. So this shows funding is not necessarily the issue in terms of shortfall in provision for administering medication, either.

'omit to signpost to the legal medical needs document unless they have to', that should read. Typo omission.

Of course, schools can just claim they have 'good relationships' with the parents and they 'volunteer' to do all they can to help whereas in reality parents feel under a great deal of pressure to do this in order that their D.C. do not suffer any detriment. It puts pressure on families and even more pressure on those, who, for a variety of reasons cannot go into school to help.

one woman saviour nonsense

I have nowhere claimed to be a 'one woman saviour'. As I said earlier, several times, there is a campaign involving several major charities which calls for schools to fulfil their legal duties in terms of making provision for medical needs.

zzzzz
There are places where it doesn't work and that needs addressing by contacting schools, seekimg clarity, raising issues, learning from schools who have it right, formal complaints where required.

The OP is just spoiling for an argument to feed her poor me thing.
Why else would she write a reply to me once (after I said I'm done playing pigeon chess) and then come back again around 45 mins later to add another post.

It all works very well as is

No, it doesn't, not all the time. And it should.

This could have been an interesting discussion, but some posters got so defensive in turned into an argument and picking apart posts to score points, which is never productive,