Planned redistribution and reduction in school nurses in DC Public & Public Charter Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the charters win their lawsuit, DCPS is going to lose a lot more than its nurses.

School nurses aren't paid for by DCPS but by DOH.

[Anonymous]

Philly did something like this. Several children died of asthma attacks because there was no nurse on staff

[Anonymous]

In Chicago, the k-8 schools had a nurse one or two part time days a week. It was awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Philly did something like this. Several children died of asthma attacks because there was no nurse on staff

awful. are nurses really that expensive that we can't put one in each school full time especially with such a high need population?

[Anonymous]

This is crazy. At Hearst we have one nurse on one day, a different nurse on two days and teachers being pulled out of class and filling in the other two days.

Sure, we have only 300 kids, but three classes are dedicated to students with autism. There are a fair amount of food allergies and asthma as well. This is no way to take care of children. Shame on the District.

[Anonymous]

There should be a nurse and lunch times should be 30 minutes.

They talk about health but don't take these concrete steps, typical DCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the charters win their lawsuit, DCPS is going to lose a lot more than its nurses.

Random comment

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why this isn't getting more press. It seems like a big deal, but I haven't heard anything from DCPS on it.

[Anonymous]

Friday afternoon news dump from DC Government about nurses.

http://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/u23/memo%20to%20parents%20with%20header_FINAL.pdf

(annoying: Why is there no "From" on this memo?)

According to release there will be two meetings:

October 5, 2016 at Paul Lawrence Dunbar Senior High School (101 N St, NW)

October 17, 2016 at Thurgood Marshall Academy Public Charter School (2427 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave, SE).

Both forums will be from 6-8 pm. No RSVP is required.

[Anonymous]

In 2012, (when I worked for DCPS) there were a number of incidents relating to this as well if someone wants to scrape together some evidence. One case I remember in particular was a little 3rd grade girl with insulin dependent diabetes. Her mom had to come to the school to give her insulin/test her blood sugar because there was no school nurse and no one else qualified to do it. The mom lost her job and got fined for truancy because the daughter missed so much school. There was also some sort of incident involving an inhaler that a teacher denied to a student that year (legally, only a nurse can give them).

[Anonymous]

Even though it's illegal, technically, at their school, I have my ten year old carry their own inhaler. No nurse? I need some way of knowing they'll have access. I also know that the school has already had several 911 calls--not for anything actually life threatening... But because with no nurse, anything bigger than a scraped knee requires some kind of medical assessment.

I'm sure our school isn't the only one. What's cheaper? Calling 911 every time a kid falls off a playground slide, or having a nurse?

[Anonymous]

This is such a penny wise, pound foolish effort. The district will surely end up in lawsuits when children do not receive the care that they required and then all the money that could've been spent paying to have licensed nurses on staff will be paid to lawyers instead. So all schools, regardless of enrollment, will only get 20 hours of a clinician unless the school proves they have needy or sick enough kids to warrant more? 20 hours regardless if it's high school or elementary? Elementary school children are constantly needing to go to the nurse. They have recess for goodness sake. They get hurt. They get lice. They get sick. They throw up in class. They use scissors and cut themselves. And where is the national nursing Association on issues like this? As far as I can tell the nurse's job is being taken on by non-clinicians which in my book should not be permitted and their advocacy group should be stepping up.

The press release or whatever it is they issued at the end of the day on Friday says that the goal is to have better outcomes. I will attend the Dunbar meeting and will ask them to delineate the various outcome goals they will be tracking.

This whole thing smells like an effort to shortchange our kids. Again.

[Anonymous]

Also, I only skimmed that PDF because my head was exploding, but were they actually trying to justify not having full time nurses in favor of "tailoring" more specific needs for children in schools? Like kids with diabetes only need checking in on twice a week? Like they're doing children a FAVOR by not having someone around to give medical care when it's needed? Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous]

And they are planning on implementing this mid-year? In January? Right as flu season really gets going? I feel like they think referencing "CDC" in the document will somehow make everyone just accept whatever asinine plan they plan to shove down our collective throats. Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, I only skimmed that PDF because my head was exploding, but were they actually trying to justify not having full time nurses in favor of "tailoring" more specific needs for children in schools? Like kids with diabetes only need checking in on twice a week? Like they're doing children a FAVOR by not having someone around to give medical care when it's needed? Are you kidding me?

Supposedly schools where there was a student with diabetes or other chronic issue would have a full time nurse. Staffing levels would change depending on needs of enrolled children.

Makes no sense but seems too late to stop it.