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.

It's not discrimination at all.

Being a working parent isn't a protected characteristic.

There is no legal responsibility for school to administer medication.

But your OP was originally about working parents being penalised. Until someone pointed out that going out to work is not a protected characteristic which can be discriminated against.

Most prescriptions medicines can be given before school, as school ends and at bedtime with a bit of planning. Its really on 4 times a day doses that are a struggle and then quite often the children are too ill to attend school for some of the course of medicine and some of it is over the weekend, so a parent wouldn't lose their job, one would hope.

That's a very narrow view of people's circumstances and assumes all children only attend school 9-3.30 with parents dropping and collecting!

My DS attends wraparound care in his school, from 8am until 5pm so spreading out three doses would be difficult if school refused to administer.

My work to DS school is a 45 minute drive; pretty sure my employer wouldn't be down with letting me have a 2hr lunch break so that I could administer medicine to my DS and then leave early to pick him up at 3.30 instead of 5 to give him his next dose if he was on four dose medication.

Name changed for this as extremely outing.

This has been going on a long time. Back in the late 90s I had serious, painful operations. I was allowed to go back into school part time. The problem was I had to take morphine tablets for the pain I was in. The local education authority wasn't prepared for me to be home schooled and this was in the year leading to my GCSEs. School refused to give me morphine. I ended up being responsible for my own medication and those morphine tablets were kept in my pencil case in the hours I attended school.

The school knew this but turned a blind eye.

Absolutely shocked it still goes on. I don't really find a reasonable excuse for it.

It is discrimination because a school has a duty of care to every one of their pupils. By failing to administer medication they are restricting the child who required that medication's access to education. Not every child has a parent available to 'pop' in to school. The child could be in care and reside at a care home with no available staff to 'pop' in, for example.

It's still not discrimination.

Schools don't have a legal duty of care to ensure medicine is administered.

The school aren't restricting access to education. The parents work pattern is.

Are you making up that argument, wonky? Because you began this thread by asking if schools could do this, and that it "seemed as if" they were negating their responsibilities.
Now you seem adamant that they're breaking the law.

The school aren't restricting access to education. The parents work pattern is.

Of course the school are restricting access. That is why the government statutory guidelines specifically mention this. Schools cannot penalise their pupils for their parent's lack of availability to go into school and help during school hours. Otherwise there would be no extra provision made for additional needs. Every LSA would be the child's parent. The government encourages parents to work.

Now you seem adamant that they're breaking the law.

I was suspicious before. I then looked it up and it confirmed my suspicions.

Wonky, I don't think there is a teacher - nor TA nor member of a governing body, nor any other interested party - alive, let alone on this thread, who doesn't agree that it would be ideal for every school to have access to a HCP who came into school each day and issued medications etc. However, we all know that is never going to happen in a month of Sundays.

The reason people are being less than 100% supportive of you on this thread is the aggressive, confrontational attitude that your posts exude.

I've worked with dozens of staff over many years who have gone well over and above what they have to do, to ensure a child with a medical condition can attend school, and can have their medication in school, and even can go on residentials, etc.,etc. but there is no way in the world I would do it for someone who comes in with the attitude that is coming through your posts. Maybe it is just your posting style, but the number of posts you have made, I do suspect that is how you come over in life too. You want untrained staff to take on a massive responsibility because it is "your right" yet seem unable to understand that it is also 'the right' of all staff to say that they just can't take on that responsibility as they are not trained medically and they are not given dedicated time when they can concentrate purely on that (clearly important) task.
Of course it is a massive conundrum for schools, but attacking the school is not the best way to instigate some kind of solution.

Schools don't have a legal duty of care to ensure medicine is administered.
I don't see how they can have, but I'd like to see evidence of it being the case if so. Schools are not staffed by medics, and I just don't see how anyone can demand a high level of medical care in such a setting.
But as I say, show me the proof and I'll concede I may be wrong.

But I have to say I wouldn't be prepared to take on the responsibility of administering heavy-duty meds. Especially someone who sounded remotely as potentially litigious as the OP.

Guidelines not law.

You clearly think you are right and don't like being told you are wrong.

@backforgood cracking post

is the aggressive, confrontational attitude that your posts exude.

I'll admit I'm direct. I don't see any point in 'dressing this up'. It negates from the issues at hand. However I have not sworn, used any bad language at all or made any direct personal insults.

Schools cannot penalise their pupils for their parent's lack of availability to go into school and help during school hours.

What sort of "help" are they talking about? Hearing readers and helping on the PTA, or do you mean giving their own child medicine?

You don't get it, do you? Aggression is not just about swearing or insulting someone. It's an attitude, and IF you're displaying the same attitude at school, then (as I mentioned twice, earlier) you may encounter difficulties in keeping the staff on-side. And it sounds as if you need them.

As I have said before, I have successfully advocated for my child throughout their education and shall continue to do so.

Just because I disagree with some posters on this thread it does not make me aggressive.

With respect, you're not the best judge of that.

wonky isn't being aggressive
'Elf 'n safety innit. And forms in triplicate. I am sad we live in a culture where schools won't do a simple task for fear of litigation. If a parent can administer the meds it's clearly not rocket science. There needs to be someone in a school trained to give insulin, epi-pens etc anyway surely. Does this course not cover how to give a child a spoon of calpol or a paracetamol, if staff really are that stupid that they need training to do that? Older kids and teens will just bring in meds without letting anyone know as at least one poster pointed out, which is actually potentially far more dangerous as they may not take necessary meds or get the timing wrong and take too much. So schools are causing a safety issue, not preventing one, to cover their own behinds.
This policy is ridiculous and discrimination.

However I have not sworn, used any bad language at all or made any direct personal insults.

Care to explain what 'resorting to type' means?

Broken11Girl, from my experience and what I have read, most school staff would go above and beyond for their pupils in this matter.

Very hostile attitude like op's toward school would jeopardise the great relationship between parents of the child with needs and school.
She hasn't even stated why she is so angry. If her child needs special provision, she would get it through individual HCP. Few PP stated that, yet she is still going on about discrimination etc.

It is discrimination because a school has a duty of care to every one of their pupils. By failing to administer medication they are restricting the child who required that medication's access to education. Not every child has a parent available to 'pop' in to school. The child could be in care and reside at a care home with no available staff to 'pop' in, for example.

DS2 had to take regular medication at lunchtime. I'm a teacher and one who will not administer medicine, other than in an emergency eg an epipen. So I certainly wasn't going to expect another teacher to do it. I had him home for dinner and administered it at home. That's my responsibility as a parent. My career break was thus longer than I would have liked it to have been but them's the breaks.

In our LEA where there is no teacher/TA prepared to administer meds and the parents refuse the solution is home tuition provided by the LEA. Which the parents like even less.

The law is quite clear that no one in the school can be made to administer meds. It is done in some schools by the generosity and goodwill of the staff. Start with an aggressive attitude and the child won't be in school at all before long.

Care to explain what 'resorting to type' means?

If you can explain why you posted * as a reply to my earlier post, Feenie*. The answer lies within that explanation.

I snorted at your description of yourself as 'duty-bound', as you know.

I'm pointing out where your wide-eyed description of yourself as avoiding direct personal insults isn't entirely accurate.

Kaya,

In our LEA where there is no teacher/TA prepared to administer meds and the parents refuse the solution is home tuition provided by the LEA. Which the parents like even less.

So this means families with children with ongoing health conditions requiring medication risk severe poverty. If both parents to work, financially or are a single parent family. JSA would not be payable either to a family in this situation. So that these children are further disadvantaged in terms of their education. No wonder there is still an education gap.

How can this not be seen as discrimination?