Sickness policy SO FRUSTRATED

[nessynoodle]

Hi all

What is your time period? 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours?

Say child has been violently sick one evening after being with you, mum takes out next day but wants you to have the day after. I would say still high risk...but mum says by the time i have collected from school 44 hours will have passed, is that really not ok? (Shouldn't be in school!) Where do you draw the line.

I have been firm, for once. Fed up of being ill myself and not getting paid for it. Said I have to stick to poicies, treat everyone the same and actually if its what i had last week child could be contagious for longer. I remind of school policy also. Mum texts back says she has no choice to send to school or will risk losing job. Thats it. Talk about guilt trip. I am fuming, I have been getting more and more upset about being expected to bend over backwards for this family, this is the tip of the iceberg. What do i reply? suggest that if not telling school she could send to after school club also?! I realise how hard it is for people, but I am always the one to comprimise and I have truly had enough.

[miffy]

My sickness policy is 48 hours from the last bout of sickness and/or diarrhoea before they can return, this is the same as the HPA guidelines for schools.

If mum chooses to send the child to school that is up to her but you don't have to agree to pick her up after school. I would just tell mum again that you cannot have the child until the 48 hours have passed so, if she does send the child to school she will also have to make other arrangements for the child's after school care.

You are doing the right thing so don't let this parent bully or guilt trip you into doing something else.

Miffy xx

[Kiddleywinks]

Mum texts back says she has no choice to send to school or will risk losing job.

And if child is still contagious so you catch it, you'll have to have time off so mum will be stuck for at least another 2 days, as it's 48 hours from the LAST bout of sickness! Silly woman!

[blue bear]

Our school has a 48 exclusion for infants and takes junior straight back the next day. It causes problems for parents to understand why I have and stick to the 48 hour exclusion.
To be honest I can see where mum is coming from if the child was only sick that once then it's nearly48 hours since you last had them, but I would still stick to the 48 hours.

[Tink]

I follow the HPA guidelines of 48 hours. Make sure you drill this into your parents as they tend to forget!!!!!!

[nessynoodle]

Think it was probably more than once as she said he was violently sick.

I was firm and said that I was sorry but I had to stick to it, in the end she said she saw my point of view but just went on about how difficult it is for her, and she needs her job too support her children....seriously?! And I don't need my job to support my family...I'll just get sick all the time and have days off and get paid nothing. No problemo! Everyone has their own life to worry about and that's the first time I have said (or near enough) its not my problem!!!! I feel empowered

[Tatjana]

Our school doesn't have the 48 hr rule or even a 24 hour rule, they actually encourage children to attend even when ill because "school is important" lol!!! Jokers.

[Mouse]

Our school doesn't have the 48 hr rule or even a 24 hour rule, they actually encourage children to attend even when ill because "school is important" lol!!! Jokers.

Our school is like that. When my children had a sickness bug before christmas I phoned school to say they wouldn't be in & asked what their exclusion period was. I was told "oh, I don't really know". I said I assumed it was 48 hours. She said "that rings a bell. I wouldn't worry though. Just send them back when they're better. There's so much going round at the moment it really doesn't matter!"
I did say perhaps there was so much going round because they didn't exclude sick children, but she didn't seem to understand

When I checked, their exclusion period is 24 hours for sickness or diarrhea and 48 hours if they've got both.

[bunyip]

Think it was probably more than once as she said he was violently sick.

I was firm and said that I was sorry but I had to stick to it, in the end she said she saw my point of view but just went on about how difficult it is for her, and she needs her job too support her children....seriously?! And I don't need my job to support my family...I'll just get sick all the time and have days off and get paid nothing. No problemo! Everyone has their own life to worry about and that's the first time I have said (or near enough) its not my problem!!!! I feel empowered

Good for you for standing up to her. Really she should be standing up to her employer instead of thinking she can walk all over you. There's no reason why CMs should have to bear the brunt of all the union-bashing that resulted in employment rights being so badly undermined and employers thinking they can act like Victorian industrialists.

It's not just a matter of HPA guidance either, though that is serious enough. According to my local EHO, if we knowingly expose our premises to a S&D risk, we can be closed down pending investigation and possible prosecution.

Also, I'd be tempted to notify the school if I knew someone was sending a sick child in. Tbh, I'm no big fan of our local school, but I couldn't bear the thought of 100's of children exposed to a known illness, never mind the duty of 'partnership working'.

I'm absolutely shocked (though not surprised) by the schools with no exclusion policy. Gotta keep those attendance statistics up for the Ofsted report. But do Ofsted, HPA, EHO, LSCB all know how they're going about it? Shocker.

Better go before I fall of my soapbox.

[FussyElmo]

Good for you for standing up to her. Really she should be standing up to her employer instead of thinking she can walk all over you. There's no reason why CMs should have to bear the brunt of all the union-bashing that resulted in employment rights being so badly undermined and employers thinking they can act like Victorian industrialists.

It's not just a matter of HPA guidance either, though that is serious enough. According to my local EHO, if we knowingly expose our premises to a S&D risk, we can be closed down pending investigation and possible prosecution.

Also, I'd be tempted to notify the school if I knew someone was sending a sick child in. Tbh, I'm no big fan of our local school, but I couldn't bear the thought of 100's of children exposed to a known illness, never mind the duty of 'partnership working'.

I'm absolutely shocked (though not surprised) by the schools with no exclusion policy. Gotta keep those attendance statistics up for the Ofsted report. But do Ofsted, HPA, EHO, LSCB all know how they're going about it? Shocker.

Better go before I fall of my soapbox.

Ofsted need to stop making attendence an issue. Is it still if the school attendence falls below a certain amount it triggers an automatice inspection.

Our school do turn children away when parents come in and say they were sick in the night but then parents just stop telling the teachers. So in our schools case they are dammed if they do dammed if they dont.

[bunyip]

Ofsted need to stop making attendence an issue. Is it still if the school attendence falls below a certain amount it triggers an automatice inspection.

Our school do turn children away when parents come in and say they were sick in the night but then parents just stop telling the teachers. So in our schools case they are dammed if they do dammed if they dont.

Another of the areas where my local school drives me mad. They mark the child present, then within the hour they call me to come and collect. They always call me first, when they should be calling the parents. The school secretary has even told me quite blatantly that it's because they know I'll get there quicker and take the child off their hands.

[FussyElmo]

Another of the areas where my local school drives me mad. They mark the child present, then within the hour they call me to come and collect. They always call me first, when they should be calling the parents. The school secretary has even told me quite blatantly that it's because they know I'll get there quicker and take the child off their hands.

I had to go fetch my dd on friday and it took me approx 6 mins to get there (dh was off so could drive me). There was one little boy who was in the waiting room throwing up who had been waiting an hour and half for someone to come
Poor little guy

[nessynoodle]

It's not just a matter of HPA guidance either, though that is serious enough. According to my local EHO, if we knowingly expose our premises to a S&D risk, we can be closed down pending investigation and possible prosecution.

Oh my god that is brilliant, a solid reason for strictly adhering to your policies!! I might do a bit of local research into that then. Even if its not the case I could say that if x amount of children are sick I have to report it and have possible investigation. Or something along those lines. No matter what you say though some parents just don't get it...to them a sick child is no problem, they look after them all the time, take them out to the shops etc etc...and its just sickness, its all going around. But for us it is our business, it makes a huge difference...we are not their parents and therefore a sick child is not our responisbility...I have previously had her child on the sofa very ill with all my other children their and not being able to do any of our plans, because she just couldn;t get out of work until later. That is not in my job description!! I used to be so sympathetic hahaha. Poor children as well, they need rest and their mummy!!

Oh just had another text and another one has it too...but his mum said straight away..won't see you tomorrow either, see you next week. Finally! So a very quiet two days for me

x

[bunyip]

Oh my god that is brilliant, a solid reason for strictly adhering to your policies!! I might do a bit of local research into that then. Even if its not the case I could say that if x amount of children are sick I have to report it and have possible investigation. Or something along those lines. No matter what you say though some parents just don't get it...to them a sick child is no problem, they look after them all the time, take them out to the shops etc etc...and its just sickness, its all going around. But for us it is our business, it makes a huge difference...we are not their parents and therefore a sick child is not our responisbility...I have previously had her child on the sofa very ill with all my other children their and not being able to do any of our plans, because she just couldn;t get out of work until later. That is not in my job description!! I used to be so sympathetic hahaha. Poor children as well, they need rest and their mummy!!

Oh just had another text and another one has it too...but his mum said straight away..won't see you tomorrow either, see you next week. Finally! So a very quiet two days for me

x

True that. The parent is essentially expecting you to provide private nursing services without paying what it would cost to employ a private nurse or book the lo into a private hospital. Of course, if you put it like that, the mum would be so mortally offended.

As far as EHO are concerned, we are a registered 'food business'. There are severe penalties for food businesses and individuals whose staff fail to follow the 48 hour rule, as it can easily lead to contaminated food, and nasty consequences of illness (possibly even death) for anyone consuming the contaminated food. I appreciate the case isn't about staff being sick, but the risk is still there and you need to have a safe way of managing it as part of your business's food management systems.

Our local EHO guidance is that having a sick child with diarrhoea/vomiting massively increases the risk of contamination no matter how rigorous we are about handwashing, etc. The officer told me they couldn't necessarily prosecute just because we might have a S&D case amongst the children, but they would have to act if there was a complaint, and it could be a critical factor if there really was a food poisoning/bacterial incident. In any case, it goes against al the princples of 'due diligence'.

To put it another way, I don't suppose the mum would be keen to eat in a restaurant where the chef had taken their sick lo to work and maybe just changed several runny nappies.

[nessynoodle]

To put it another way, I don't suppose the mum would be keen to eat in a restaurant where the chef had taken their sick lo to work and maybe just changed several runny nappies.

Hahahahaha I am definitely going to use that one!!! So true though.

[izzy23]

Good for you for standing up to her. Really she should be standing up to her employer instead of thinking she can walk all over you. There's no reason why CMs should have to bear the brunt of all the union-bashing that resulted in employment rights being so badly undermined and employers thinking they can act like Victorian industrialists.

It's not just a matter of HPA guidance either, though that is serious enough. According to my local EHO, if we knowingly expose our premises to a S&D risk, we can be closed down pending investigation and possible prosecution.

Also, I'd be tempted to notify the school if I knew someone was sending a sick child in. Tbh, I'm no big fan of our local school, but I couldn't bear the thought of 100's of children exposed to a known illness, never mind the duty of 'partnership working'.

I'm absolutely shocked (though not surprised) by the schools with no exclusion policy. Gotta keep those attendance statistics up for the Ofsted report. But do Ofsted, HPA, EHO, LSCB all know how they're going about it? Shocker.

Better go before I fall of my soapbox.

Wow did not know that about knowing exposure etc!! HA, I am WRITING THAT ONE DOWN for future use.

[lisbet]

When I worked in a nursery we once had a nasty sickness bug going round and round the 0-2yr old's room, because parents were bringing children back before they were clear of the bug. I do understand the pressure to work that parents feel, on the other we had young babies getting really poorly, and in the end enough staff got it too that we had to close the whole room for a few days! The manager rang the environmental health department and asked them to come and investigate. They asked the parents for swabs from their babies and toddlers in their bid to identify the source and stop the cycle of re-infection!! That group of parents adhered to the sickness policy after that.

[Ripeberry]

And no employer would have a leg to stand on if they sacked someone because they could not come into work due to an ill child. The parents just don't want to lose any money or use up precious holiday time!

[watgem]

I have the same 48 hour rule as Miffy, the one that HPA recommend. My sil and friend work in the food industry and tesco and its 72 hours for them because thats how long it takes for the bug to actually be passed out of your body, so presumably after 48 hours you could still be contagious?

[TAZ]

I can't believe that schools don't all follow the 48hr exclusion recommendation!