Can we talk about the 48hr rule at schools? This past week Toby was sick at school on Monday so Adam rushed through, ever the valiant Daddy, to collect what we expected to be a wounded soldier who was feeling decidedly rotten. Instead, we collected a hyped up 5 year old who felt absolutely dandy and was bouncing off the walls after an hour or so post calpol. There was nothing wrong with him.
At the risk of sounding oh-so-very-old (which according to Reuben, I am) back in my day this would have meant an early night and return to school the following morning. Now? Now it means 48hrs off school. Two days. For what? Toby to miss out, sit at home bored and be a pain in my arse whilst I try to work and feel all the guilt that I can’t drop everything to entertain him when he’s NOT ILL.
I’m always one to try and look at the bigger picture – no one wants their kiddos to get poorly, especially when we are approaching Xmas. I’ve actually spent a Boxing Day in A&E with a poorly child (again, Toby – little sod) so I’m well aware of what a ball ache it is and I’m quite happy to agree that it’s probably best avoided. In order to avoid other children being sick, schools are now required to follow a 48hr rule. No sickness or diahorrea within 48hrs of attendance. It *sounds* like a smart rule doesn’t? Apart from it’s not. It’s a giant dick move and here’s the reason why: sickness and diahorrea viruses usually incubate in a child for around 7 days (according to our GP) and are usually contagious and present PRIOR to the spectacular vombomb situ that Tobes has offered up on a Monday mid-maths. So if your child is sick at school, they have probably a.) already shared the bug and b.) will not be clear of it within 48hrs.
In the food industry this is a rule too, so surely the 48hrs thing is wise? Well, no. The rule is in place because of the handling of food, which is the most common way for infection to be transmitted. Yet infection is (sorry to tell you this on a Friday morning if you’re heading for a curry) still not totally unlikely to have been transmitted already or after the period.
It’s the same with chicken pox – it has a 14 days esque period and children pass it around wayyyyy before we keep them off to “avoid infection” once we actually realise they have angry red spots.
To me, in a day and age where we have utterly moronic rules like the holiday request system (you know, the one where you pay tax for your kid to go to school, pay for said kid in every aspect but have to ask someone else’s permission to take them out for a 2 week holibob… unless you’re taking them out permanently to homeschool, in which case it’s FREE and no one needs permission) and it is determined by attendance, this really just seems pointless to me. My 5 year old now has an attendance under 90% because only a few days can make a huge difference to that percentage. So if I want to take him out, even for a family holiday – which I’ll just say has been proven to improve family relations, social abilities and cultural understanding… possibly a bit more informative/beneficial than the annual panto or week off *actual* learning to practice singing about Jesus in the nativity but there you go – I am almost certainly going to face a fine.
Ironically I’m pretty sure these policies arrived together, not that I’m implying this is a government money making scheme at all. Ahem.
I think it’s a crying shame that this is the way schools are forced to run and that the decision isn’t placed on these incredibly capable people that run schools (the ones that *actually* have a clue about schools and not just paper pushers who have never worked in school at all). Yes, people do send their children to school when they are unwell and yes, this is an issue, but surely a case by case approach would work better? If we’re so concerned about children missing school that they can’t be taken on holiday, but we’re happy to refuse them entry for 48hrs when they were sick for phlegm due to a cold, where is the logic?
It’s not just the fact that the child misses out, the 48hr rule, whilst utterly pointless in a lot of cases, also wreaks havoc for parents economically. We do not live in a county where flexible working is an easy to take option. I am incredibly lucky that I can work from home, I have built this career purely so that these occasions aren’t an issue. When I worked at mothercare it certainly would have been an issue. It would be an issue for Adam, an issue for most of our friends and I can’t possibly explain to you how impossible it would have been for my mum had this been the case when I was growing up. Actually, I remember my mum taking me into work with her as a child and giving me a blanket in the staff room when I was unwell. Not ideal and highly unlikely to fly 20 years on.
Lastly, sickness and diahorrea can be dangerous, but so can the common cold. What is the next step? We stop children going to school for 48hrs because they have a cold and the potential that a child with a lowered immune system could pick it up is too great? That wouldn’t work – we all know that.
So, those are my thoughts on the 48hr rule.
H x
IT’S NOT THE 48 HOUR RULE THAT IS THE ISSUE. We are all frustrated parents trying to hold down a job and navigate time off to care for sick little ones because in this day and age most families can’t afford for mum or dad to be a stay at home parent. Kids will get sick and I am sure your will agree – we actually have no issue taking time off work to care for them – the only issue we have is the pressure put on us FOR taking time off. The frustration and pressure we feel when taking time off is a direct result of lack of action/support from the government and employers – not the childcare providers/schools. It s a classic case of “we support working mums and we have put steps in place to allow parents time off work to care for sick dependants” Uuuuuh Nope that isn’t true – that is just pure plain lip service. So the government brought in this guideline of children not being able to return to a childcare or education setting until 48 hours have passed AFTER symptoms have stopped. Okay that sounds reasonable. BUT they also gave employers a guideline for said parent that has to take this time off to look after said sick child. THAT guidance is in direct conflict of the 48 hour rule. That guidance says parents should not need to take more than 1 -2 days off to look after a sick child or to make emergency arrangements. Let’s do the maths here – child gets ill on a Monday, parent received the dreaded call to pick said child up, child has gastro which then last for at least 2 days so now we are on Wednesday. Child can only go back 48 hours after symptoms start so the earliest that your child can go back to nursery/school would be Friday. So do the math – gov says no return for 48 hours after symptoms subside so it would a minimum of 4 days in most cases where your child would have to be at home – yet they tell our employers that the most time they should allow off for this situation is 1-2 days. Conflict much? We then get pressure from our employers to only take 1-2 days off unpaid and we must simply “make a plan” for the rest of the days. Well, I don’t know about you but I don’t have a cupboard full of nannies or friend nor family available to help look after my sick child. We don’t have our parents nearby (one set is in another country and the other set are old and over 2 hours drive away). And before you say it – yes, there are often 2 parents but not always – lots of single parents out there with partners unwilling to help. There is no one to help in these situations. Just another example of lip service from the government. We are STILL living in an age where working parents are penalised or feel the pressure for taking time off for children – anything the government has put in place has clearly not been thought through – case and point in above example – it is just lip service – doing nothing about something but using clever wording and smoke and mirrors to imply they are.
Sorry 48 hours after symptoms stop not star
The best of it is, when your child is sick and they have to have the time off school, like my son last week had to have 2 days off because he couldn’t even make it to our toilet in time, let alone the one at the school that he has to hold his hand up and wait for the teacher to ackwoledge him and ask what he wants before being able to get up and go to the toilet… We were then sent a letter about his attendance, because over the christmas holidays he had to be off school for a week because he had a sickness bug and he was really bad. And he had the odd few days off here and there because the school kept saying something was wrong with him (he has a skin condition which means he randomly gets water blisters appear on the torso and arms, sometimes legs to) And we are getting penalized for ALL the time off he’s had, it’s like my son’s school would actually rather me send him into school when he’s poorly. *shrugs shoulders* And apparently no amount of meetings with the school is working out for any of us.
Oh my god. I work in early education in an independent setting with only 5 members of staff. It is infuriating when parents think that the 48 hour exclusion rule doesn’t apply to them because they have jobs to go to. What happens when the staff, who you’re expecting to provide your childcare to enable you to go to work, become ill as a result of your child not being excluded for 48 hours ? (incidentally it’s 48 hrs AFTER the symptoms have stopped, not 48 hours after they’ve started!!) What about the families of the staff who look after your children if they also catch it ? I’ll tell you what happens. The setting closes until the staff are well again as they have adult : child ratios to maintain. Therefore you have no childcare to enable you to go to work !!!!! We’ve had to close for this very reason several times, the parents who ‘neglected’ to inform us that their children had been unwell were the very same parents who then criticised us for closing as they as had to take time off work !! Just think, the staff also have bills/mortgages etc., to pay. If they have to take time off because of selfish parents they can’t pay their bills either!!!!! A friend of mine is a childminder, one of her parents decided to keep quiet about her son having D & V from Friday to Sunday, and dropped him off as usual on the Monday morning. My friend, her family and the other children in her care all caught it. She closed for 4 days as a result (2 whilst she was ill and 2 as the exclusion period). She lost 4 days money, as did her husband as he is self-employed. When informed by my friend that she was closing for a few days, the parent who caused the issue in the first place said “that’s awfully inconvenient for me, what do you expect me to do with my son ?” The cherry on the cake was the fact that my friend took the child to preschool as usual as she was unaware he had D & V. Guess what ? It also spread to the preschool !!!
Don’t be so selfish people, think of the impact it has on others.
And can I just say that I caught conjunctivitis off a child before and it’s very unpleasant. And I don’t get paid for time off either !!! Very few people in childcare settings do !!!
Angie I totally agree with you. I think the frustration here is with the government and employers – not the childcare providers/schools. It s a classic case of “we support working mums and we have put steps in place to allow parents time off work to care for sick dependants” Uuuuuh Nope that isn’t true – that is just pure plain lip service. So the government brought in this guideline of children not being able to return to a childcare or education setting until 48 hours have passed AFTER symptoms have stopped. Okay that sounds reasonable. BUT they also gave employers a guideline for said parent that has to take this time off to look after said sick child. THAT guidance is in direct conflict of the 48 hour rule. That guidance says parents should not need to take more than 1 -2 days off to look after a sick child or to make emergency arrangements. Let’s do the maths here – child gets ill on a Monday, parent received the dreaded call to pick said child up, child has gastro which then last for at least 2 days so now we are on Wednesday. Child can only go back 48 hours after symptoms start so the earliest that your child can go back to nursery/school would be Friday. So do the math – gov says no return for 48 hours after symptoms subside so it would a minimum of 4 days in most cases where your child would have to be at home – yet they tell our employers that the most time they should allow off for this situation is 1-2 days. Conflict much? We then get pressure from our employers to only take 1-2 days off unpaid and we must simply “make a plan” for the rest of the days. Well, I don’t know about you but I don’t have a cupboard full of nannies or friend nor family available to help look after my sick child. We don’t have our parents nearby (one set is in another country and the other set are old and over 2 hours drive away). And before you say it – yes, there are often 2 parents but not always – lots of single parents out there with partners unwilling to help. There is no one to help in these situations. Just another example of lip service from the government. We are STILL living in an age where working parents are penalised or feel the pressure for taking time off for children – anything the government has put in place has clearly not been thought through – case and point in above example – it is just lip service – doing nothing about something but using clever wording and smoke and mirrors to imply they are.
Im currently sittimg here on an unpaid day off from work because my youngest has conjunctivitus – a non fatal illness that the doctor told me on monday meant that she would be fine to go to nursery with but that I found out means the nursery wont take her for 7 days or with any sign of crusty eyes! A bloody nightmare explaining to my boss i needed a day of because my 2yo has gunky eyes! O also know from much experience that kids get episodes of runny bums and sickness without it being an ongoing bug and by the time they are sent home they would have passed it on anyway! So I have all the feels for this post!
That is ludicrous!
Well Lady Shearsmith, where to start??? I’ll start with your final but one paragraph. I can recall a dad I used to work with bringing his child to work for a full working day. I was never too sure what the reason was, but it did strike me as an odd thing to do, the kid being left in a chair, looking bored, being bored and quite possibly unwell. That, however, is the one and only time I have seen someone do this.
As I mentioned on twitter, I am going to politely disagree regarding the 48 hour rule. I think ultimately it’s a big unknown as to how bugs are spread. Bugs may incubate for a week, but I have heard of counter-evidence from the restaurant trade about diners being sick in restaurants and spreading illness. Ultimately I don’t think we can expect schools to do anything but err on the side of caution. And, yes, it is parents like you and I that have sacrificed careers to be the main carer that ultimately pick up the pieces.
If you want to get me started on a foolish rule, it is the conjunctivitis rule. This seems to be applied arbitrarily in every childcare establishment. I’ve been in A&E at 10pm trying to get a child looked at just so I could say she had been given the all-clear to attend nursery so I could go to work (I had a job back then!). I had numerous similar experiences and for what…..a slightly tunny eye that can be treated with a few over the counter eye drops?
Very thought provoking post Harriet!
Well thank you Lord Adams! I can see some really valid arguments for the 48hr rule, I never expected this post to be a controversial one (isn’t that always the way) but it appears that there is a big divide amongst parents and how they feel about it. Above and beyond it being a “ballache” as I’ve mentioned, I think my main issue is that it’s so… blanket and doesn’t have that common sense approach that I think would benefit us all. I also find the fact that it really only applies to D&V infuriating. You see children with fevers who (sometimes, but not always) sent home, and are back at school the next day because they are fine. There is nothing to suggest that they aren’t incubating an influenza style virus, but it’s not D&V so they don’t have to stay off. Considering that one of the leading killers of people with immune deficiency IS the common cold that develops, this makes no sense to me.
As for the conjunctivitis rule… what the devil!?
Has it occurred to anyone that teachers in schools are not paid to clean up poo or vomit, or both, their job is to provide your child with an education. I work in a preschool and we are not exactly paid a fortune for the honour of cleaning up your child’s bodily fluids. And they aren’t supposed to come in if they have a fever as the chances are they’re very poorly. How would you feel if you were at work and had to clean up a colleagues vomit or worse? You’d refuse and say they shouldn’t be at work. Well it’s the same for us. WE DON’T WANT THEIR BUGS !!!!! We can’t work if we’re ill. If we can’t work we don’t get paid !!! If it was the other way round and a member of staff at your child’s school or preschool was vomiting or had diarrhoea, or both, and passed it to your child and the rest of your family resulting in you being unable to go to work you wouldn’t be terribly happy would you !!
We’ve just had this, Arlo puked on Sunday but was fine by Monday and has had two days off school, missed his nativity. I think lots of parents lie too and send them in regardless. We really struggle, we use all our annual leave covering sickness. It sucks.
It does – and there is no common sense. I think those that lie and send viral kids in are utter wallies, and because of that, there are people who end up suffering a silly rule that is largely ineffective.
I’ve just had the exact same issue with my little boy at his nursery, he is two and sent home due to diarrhoea, he also suffers from *toddler diarrhoea” making this an extremely difficult situation as they don’t take it case by case rather than just the government guidelines. He has better days and worse days. In the past year alone I have had to take so much time out of work which ultimately due to the governments set childcare scheme means I’m working to pay his nursery fees which of course means that his place is ‘reserved’ so no matter how many ‘sick’ days he has where within 2 hours of being at home he’s bouncing off the walls I still have to find a way to pay for it taking holiday or unpaid days off to be with him at these times. School is slightly different as it isn’t childcare unlike nursery but this still applies. I’m so glad you posted something like this is it is dead on! ?
Thank you Leah. It’s so infuriating isn’t it?
We have two rules,
It is 24 hours from the last sickness bout our 48 hours if its come out the other end.
To be honest it is a bit of a nightmare, especially if its caused by a coughing fit for example however so many people send them in when they’ve been sick through the night etc I’m assuming that is why they have put it in place (not that many people actually listen…)
And if you’re child is poorly and you aren’t listening then that is insane, totally behind that, but then surely we can have a case by case approach.
My son died, not of his cancer, but because his lowered immunity turned a cold into pneumonia. It was a slow, horrible, painful death. As his body failed to take in enough oxygen, his organs failed, one at a time. I’m so sorry the 48 hour rule is such a pain in the hole for some of you. It applied to us too, as parents, and when school was plainly not “well” enough to send him into, we didn’t send him. Basically, we kept up our end of the bargain, were treated as pariahs by the community who seemed to find a cancer diagnosis in a 5 year old a bit of a social faux pas, and regularly questioned about his “regular unauthorised absences” by staff who accused us of wrapping him in cotton wool… and then, after 7 years of constantly defending ourselves (when we weren’t being ignored), I held him as he died of something that could, had the right people chosen to believe me, have been avoided. It’s a rule; suck it up like the rest of us have to, and thank your god you’re not being expected to accept and move on after their funeral.
Louise, I’m so very sorry for your loss, yet I’m not sure that your comment has a place on this blog post. This not about having a common cold – which you’ve said is what made your son ill in the first place due to his lack of immunity – the whole school would be off sick this week with common colds if the 48hr rule applied in anyway to that (it doesn’t and that is one of the reasons I don’t like it – it only focuses on one type of illness S&D). The point I’m trying to make is that if we assessed each case, and said “ok, that child has been sick because they have a bug” or “that child has had diahorrea and is unwell” as opposed to “well yup, that kid was charging about like a loon when they had a big dinner and was sick but they were sick so they must go home and not return for 48hrs” but the child running a fever in the corner is all fine and dandy because this idiotic rule is only applicable in most places to S&D, not flu symptoms etc, then that would be better. There was a child in my son’s class last week who was as flushed as hell, quiet as a mouse, snotty and clearly not well AT ALL. We were at a stay and play, and even his dad said he wasn’t well… but was he “fine” the next day and back at school? Sure was. Why? Because the moronic rule applies to S&D. Toby had a cough, phlegm came up, so did his (literally just eaten) dinner and boom. 2 days off. For a cough.
I’m not in the slightest questioning the merit of having children off school if they are ill – not remotely. Its the same principal as vaccinating, we’ve gotta get on with it to make sure that those that aren’t able to fend off the illness don’t get it, but this rule doesn’t work. There is no statistical evidence to suggest it helps or saves anyone. Lastly, we always adhere to it so I don’t need to suck anything up – always – because it’s a rule and if I didn’t want to adhere to it, I’d home school. You just have to – but that doesn’t mean that whilst you are adhering to a rule, you can’t question it’s logic, validity and overall worth.
Harriet,
Louise lost her son because of a common infection. It could quite as easily have due to a stomach bug and for that reason alone it has a place on your page. You are saying that common sense needs to prevail but you’re assuming that all people have common sense. Also you have no way of really knowing why someone may or may not vomit. Yes you can have an inkling following a coughing fit or after running around the playground but you can’t be sure.
My daughter fell three years ago and consequently suffered with back ache due to that. Or so we thought. Turns out she had a malignant tumour growing around her sciatic nerve which has given her three years of hell. Today we go for the results of her three monthly scan today to see if she is still clear. She is due another procedure soon because of an enlarged kidney.
I’m telling you this to help you see how not everything is as simple as you think. My daughters red herring could’ve and has almost killed her and taking a child into school with d & v could cause an immunosuppressed child to become severely ill or pass away. You don’t know for sure why they vomit and it’s that simple.
Please don’t dismiss Louise’s comment as she has more experience than all of us as to how people’s ‘knowledge and I know best’ attitude can damage other people.
Thank you for your comment Allison, I’m not dismissing the comment at all. I fully appreciate that not everyone has common sense and that is why I have said it would make more sense for the teachers, the staff who have to see the children on and day to day basis and the parents, to come forward and work together. Again, you’re ignoring my point that this is relevant to a particular type of illness, when surely if we didn’t have this rule, we could move forward and look at something that helped more, that was a better way of ensuring children didn’t come to school unwell – not just if they have been sick.
I really think we’re at cross purposes here, you simply aren’t going to change my mind that this is a really silly rule and I’m not going to change yours that it is vital. I believe we could have something better, with parents and staff working together. I’d have no issue with a parent being told “sorry, you’ve sent your child in and they are unwell. They have to go home.” and I don’t think that should apply exclusively to S&D. Whilst I fully appreciate what you are saying about red herrings, this is SO unusual. Most children that fall and hurt themselves won’t have a tumour and most children that are sick running about and spinning around in a playground just after dinner when they cough, aren’t hosting a bug that could cause trauma to the class.
I truly hope your little one has clear results today and wish you the very best.
I really don’t get it either there’s a difference between a sickness bug and sick or feeling a bit dodgy because of running around to soon after food etc(which most kids do) you know when they need to be off they sleep a lot and a generally a delight to look after , when they are well on the other hand they are pains in the bum who say they are bored or get every toy you own out ?
Exxxxxactly. If they are ill then I don’t think anyone disputes the need to stay off, but for something like a cough that has made them sick or something daft like throwing up after running about too much. My overall point is that we could have a better approach.
I agree with you Harriet. The 48 hour rule is ridiculous. When I was young (a long long time ago) and had been poorly with vomiting or the shits I’d be sent to school as soon as I’d stopped throwing up or pooping. There was none of this rule and guess what I and all the other kids survived. Bugs are spread no matter what, the likely hood of kids getting whatever illness isn’t going to stop because parents keep the sick ones off. Kids are gross little creatures and bugs are going to happen end of.
Ha, kid’s are gross little things! Brilliant comment !!
It was the same with my girl, sick because of phlegm build up because of a cold. Nothing wrong with her once she got that out. Was then in tears because she was turned away the next day. (I wasn’t aware of rule at this time) So following year she was scared to go in when she had a cold incase it happened again. Because of this I get a letter telling me off because my daughter has had too many days off school. There needs to be common sense when following these rules.
Amen to that.
Yup I am anti the 48hr rule too!! My son’s school has had me collect him twice cos he was nauseous and sat with a bucket but no actual vomiting or fever! I have also had to keep him home because he threw up once with a fever, no bug! It is very frustrating as I know he is fine but he must remain home. Then the “attendance police” want to aee you because of attendance numbers!!!
This precisely.
I find this situation a hard one. I work in education and I’m currently pregnant, so when parents send children in who are ill it’s tricky all round. I can totally understand it’s really hard on parents re childcare, but from personal experience many parents see school as childcare, rather than a place of learning and will send children in regardless of how the little ones feel. I agree with the cold argument. I would say on average, in the class I work in, 60-70% of the kids come in with the snots and that’s just normal. There not ill, it’s just snotty noses. But the other part of me disagrees with how you say the adult world doesn’t grind to a halt because we’re poorly. That’s really the point, we are adults and our little ones are children. They shouldn’t have to endure going into school feeling crappy, because that’s how the adult world works. Our children start school at far too young of an age, then they’re there pretty much all day. Our government expects far too much of them. I also personally wouldn’t bat an eye lid about attendance. If a child is ill then they need to be off and I’m afraid I agree with the 48 hour rule. It protects staff and fellow pupils. I think because I work in education I have a different view point, but I do understand the struggles with childcare.
Oh no I totally agree that if they are *actually* ill they should be at home – 100%. For me it’s more the instances where the child just isn’t ill and because it’s a blanket rule, it’s applied and that’s that.
We have to have a meeting with the school because my little boy in reception. Reception. Had chicken poxs and scarlet fever so was off. He has had a couple days off because of colds and we have to go see the school. I’m all worried because we’re in trouble but my kid was actually Ill. Handled properly. We’ve had chat from teacher, call from head pf year and letter from headmaster. What the he’ll is with that. Bloody joke
THIS. This is a major cause in parents rushing children who are actually poorly back to school.
What about protecting the staff? I’m a fully trained and qualified teacher who enjoys spending time with my children in class. However I never have full attendance due to picking up bugs off the children and needing time at home to recover. Yet parents complain to me about lack of continuity of care for little Johnny. Perhaps if you’d kept little Johnny home last week when he was ill I would not need time off this week for the same thing! The 48 hour rule is there to help everyone avoid unnecessary absences and while,as a parent, I admit often your child can appear well after a few hours we need to think of others more.
That’s so interesting Suzanne – my teachers friends are the worst for ignoring the rule, they wouldn’t dream of having time off because it’s seen as unacceptable and they would want to ensure that their students were all given the very best. Like I’ve said many times, I wholeheartedly agree that actually poorly children shouldn’t be at school, but in the instance where they have vomited and been sick because they have been running about in the playground after dinner, or coughed too much or got themselves wound up (Edith has just done this) and borked then there really is no need to keep them off.
It’s got to be more about a case by case approach, surely?
There is actually 48hour rule? Really? I am from Croatia and here there is no such rule, but also kids here start school at the age of seven. Until then they are in kindergarten or preschool (age 6). I have a 3,5 year old and 1,5 year old twins if any of them were to be sent home for a little sniffles or sneezing and then not be able to go back the next day even if they are perfectly fine I would lose đy nerves. It is hard enough to be a working mom of three as it is, but to impose a rule that is no good to anyone. I mean I agree to send a child home if he/she is really sick, but for snffles and sneezing it is just stupid.
There is Marta I’m afraid. I agree with you – if a child is physically sick (or even running a fever etc) they need to be sent home and parents should be keeping them home, but other than that? No.
We had that a few weeks ago. James was sick at home time while I was outside waiting for him. Was a Wednesday so he ended up off for 4days! By the next morning he was fine and bouncing off the walls! Meant I lost two days of working and the little one missed out in his toddler group!
It’s silly isn’t it?
An immunosuppressed child could die when exposed to various viruses, that are spread around school, or at least suffer 10 times than that of a healthy child.
The 48 hour rule, applies to the last time a contagious symptom is present, considering the health of others isn’t wrong. Spreading illnesses and for some, very serious disieases, should not be encouraged.
For you an inconvenience of a couple of days, for others, it’s a matter of life and death.
As I said to you on facebook Allison, I wholeheartedly agree that if a child is genuinely ill we need to keep them off but when they aren’t you can’t keep children off school. To imply that someone is upset about a totally ridiculous rule that really doesn’t have any common sense approach is incredibly unfair and undermining to having a constructive conversation. I look at my child’s class now and if every child was kept off because they have a cough, cold and have been a bit under the weather (which is what you are suggesting on facebook) then there would be two children. What’s more, the adult world doesn’t grind to a halt because someone has a cold, we can’t teach kids that this is the way it should be.
Surely common sense and all pulling together is the best way, and if a child has an immune deficiency to the point where they can’t be around the common cold, then surely for their own safety they should be around other kids?
My daughter was in isolation for the majority of her intensive treatment, for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia, she’s still on treatment now, and is able to go to nursery, but if other children cough and sneeze all over her, then she could end up in hospital.
I’ve had to keep my daughter away from other cancer kids because she had a snotty nose, I cannot risk another kid catching something and end up in intensive care.
It may sound extreme to you, but this is our life, until she’s off treatment and her immune system is back on form.
It seems you’ve already made up your mind and are unwilling to see it from the other side, I hope you’re never in my position, because we live in fear everyday, because other parent’s would rather we keep our child locked away.
That’s not what I’m suggesting at all Allison and I’m really sorry if it is translating as that, it’s genuinely not my intention and I don’t mean to come across as apathetic or uncaring – I’m not. My point is that if a common cold would cause such an issue, there can’t be multiple children expected to stay home, multiple parent’s asked to take time off work for otherwise healthy kids in order to make life safer for one child, it would just be so impractical. That really is a total aside to my actual post, which is questioning whether the 48hr rule works in practice and whether a case by case way of dealing with things wouldn’t be better.
Yet, it would only take one or two children staying at home, and not passing it on to the rest of the class, meaning that in the long term, less children would get sick.
This would also be the case in an adult workplace, many people are immunosuppressed and they have to deal with others going into work sick, they pass it on to their families, who send it into schools.
It’s a vicious circle, that would calm down, if more people took into account their symptoms, and stayed at home.
I totally agree it’s ridiculous! Childcare is hard enough to find without making you take 48 hours off when they’re fine! Our work has a policy where for the first day you can take a childcare emergency day when their sick but after that you need to arrange other childcare – yes coz everyone wants to offer to look after your sick child! x
Precisely! To label people that have an issue with it as lazy parents who don’t want to take time off work shows a real privilege that others can take the time and not be affected. As I’ve said multiple times, if you have a kiddo that is ACTUALLY ill then that is a whole different story and they should be kept off to protect others (and themselves!)
My little girl was sent home a few weeks ago because she’d been sick at school. By the time we got home she was fine and begging to go back. When I asked her what happened she said she coughed and burped at the same time and it made her sick. I took her back the next day and they were ok with my explanation thankfully. What annoys me though is they have a 100% attendance award which she is now not eligible for so I’m now going to have an upset child at the end of term because of an over-zealous decision to send her home.
This is the kind of scenario where I have an issue – of course if your child is actually ill with a sickness and diahorrea bug then keep them off, but it’s gone from the sublime to the ridiculous!