Talk

Advanced search

I don't understand why blended learning/part time schooling would work

(140 Posts)
Whatchasayin Mon 26-Oct-20 09:00:24

I thought the argument for not returning to school before the summer was that even with half the class in it was still impossible to social distance the DC and teachers. Our primary only managed 8 DC in a classroom in June. My DCs school has smaller rooms than that so could presumably fit less in. When my year 10 went in for a few days there were 6 in his group to ensure no close contact and they all had to sit on their own table in the hall at lunch. How do you envisage part time schooling being possible at all?

OP’s posts: |
GoldenOmber Mon 26-Oct-20 09:03:47

It would end up being very very part time. When Scottish schools were planning for this in the summer, some councils were planning to have the kids in school as little as 3 days a month.

InTheLongGrass Mon 26-Oct-20 09:09:06

It would further divide those with the finances, space, equipment, time and involved parents from those kids where one or more of the requirements for vaguely satisfactory home learning are not possible or available.

Chosennone Mon 26-Oct-20 09:11:58

Depends on 1 or 2 metres.
We had a maximum of 12 in a classroom at the end of summer term. We have also increased teaching spaces by using the Hall and Dining Rooms and the kids eat in their base room. We are ready if the 2 weeks on 2 weeks remote has to happen.

Sockwomble Mon 26-Oct-20 09:12:05

Fewer children in a classroom would increase social distancing even if it is not optimum but this has to be balanced against the negative impact of part time attendance.

Triangularbubble Mon 26-Oct-20 09:16:07

“Social distancing” in the context of short interaction makes sense. In the context of sitting in a enclosed room together for six hours it’s a nonsense. Part time learning maybe makes sense in that having smaller numbers means fewer people mixing, I don’t see the point if it’s just to space desks out a bit. Nor do I see how a primary teacher can socially distance anyway.

NailsNeedDoing Mon 26-Oct-20 09:22:17

I don’t see how it could work either. How are teachers supposed to teach an entire years worth of curriculum to children who’d only be there half of the time?

Right at the start when schools closed, we were told we can’t do anything that would actively disadvantage some children who don’t have resources at home, why has that changed? Is it suddenly ok to disadvantage those children who don’t have parental support or technology or space at home?

ohthegoats Mon 26-Oct-20 09:29:10

It's better to look at it in terms of the alternative.

Kids in and out all over the place, isolating, getting bits of lessons here and there from teachers expected to do both classroom and remote teaching, from ill teachers, having cover teachers, not knowing how often this would happen over a year - maybe 2 weeks isolation, 2 days back, 2 weeks isolation on repeat.

OR

A plan to have socially distanced classes 2 days a week, fewer households mixing, 2 days of face to face lessons, a day a week for teachers to plan for this with videos and work packs to support learning at home the other 3 days.

Ie, a teacher plans a rolling programme of 2 days full time lessons, 3 x 5 minute videos and tasks/sheets/whatever to do with that 5 minute video to support. Time to go through that work when in school.

Not ideal, but more organised than the first option.

Whatchasayin Mon 26-Oct-20 09:33:03

@Sockwomble
Fewer children in a classroom would increase social distancing even if it is not optimum but this has to be balanced against the negative impact of part time attendance
But they'd already be part time and then still probably have to self isolate on top of that unless there's only 6 in a classroom which isn't practical. It would potentially be much worse than the current situation.

OP’s posts: |
Lavendersy Mon 26-Oct-20 09:39:36

The virus is not a problem for the vast majority of children, teens and teachers.

The negative impact of closing schools or moving to blended learning will be large imo.

Barbie222 Mon 26-Oct-20 09:39:41

The reason for 2m is because that's the level at which you trigger track and trace.

If you are less than 2m apart, your case would trigger a bubble burst.

So there's a sliding scale between having six or so children in at once, in which case anyone who tested positive wouldn't "trigger" anyone else legally - no need for anyone else to isolate (legally at least - of course if it's your own child you wouldn't be happy!) - and the current situation we have now where we don't really make any adjustments in terms of space / distance but require a lot more children to isolate in the event of a test.

Now whether we are where we are because our good leaders honestly thought there'd be no cases spreading in schools, or whether it's because there was no one with the balls to stand up and point out that opening schools full time as they were would very soon be much more disruptive and damaging for very, very many children and families in areas of high prevalence, we could argue about, but here we are.

There would be a middle point where children were physically in as much as possible without raising case levels and isolation triggers to unacceptable levels - we saw it in July.

As for teaching a full curriculum part time, that would soon be just another example of how resilient, flexible and forward thinking teachers can be!

Lavendersy Mon 26-Oct-20 09:41:00

Is it suddenly ok to disadvantage those children who don’t have parental support or technology or space at home?

No it's not! Schools need to remain open.

Walkaround Mon 26-Oct-20 09:42:26

@Whatchasayin - you’re assuming changes to behaviour won’t result in changes to the rate of spread of covid 19. If the end result of packed classrooms 5 days a week is all schools having to close completely again for months, is that better than trying alternatives? Lumping all “schools” together, as though primary schools, middle schools, secondaries and sixth form colleges are all the same thing to be treated the same way is phenomenally dim as a general approach anyway, don’t you think?

Lavendersy Mon 26-Oct-20 09:42:29

GCSE and A level exams are taking place next year. Those pupils in years 10-13 have to be in school imo. It wove massively unfair otherwise.

Barbie222 Mon 26-Oct-20 09:42:33

* Schools need to remain open*

They're already closing. We need to take action to make sure no more do.

Sockwomble Mon 26-Oct-20 09:42:45

It could well be. I am not arguing that it is the right solution.
Whatever happens there does need to be full time attendance for those that need it. The guidelines say that must happen but it didn't happen last time

Barbie222 Mon 26-Oct-20 09:44:54

* Lumping all “schools” together, as though primary schools, middle schools, secondaries and sixth form colleges are all the same thing to be treated the same way is phenomenally dim as a general approach anyway, don’t you think?*

Absolutely this too. I would expect my year 1 class to be full time in person until the very, very bitter end. I'd expect my y9 child to be working remotely some of the time long before this to bring the risk to us all down.

Lavendersy Mon 26-Oct-20 09:48:55

* I would expect my year 1 class to be full time in person until the very, very bitter end.*

I would also expect exam years 10-13 to be in school until the very very bitter end.

That doesn't leave that many school years who could work from home.

Qasd Mon 26-Oct-20 10:09:03

Yes are school said with social distancing of a meter they could get less than half the kids in the classroom so by part time it’s not half time, it’s a lot less than that. They estimated each of the four year groups in junior on rotation so a week of school every four weeks.

Qasd Mon 26-Oct-20 10:10:51

That is primarily obviously secondary never looked into it (or didn’t communicate plans to parents) as they didn’t have any expectation of going back before September but given the pupils are bigger I would guess it wouldn’t be much better!

Lavendersy Mon 26-Oct-20 10:37:35

Here's more evidence why home learning does not work

'Generation Covid' hit hard by the pandemic, research reveals https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54662485

LastGoldenDaysOfSummer Mon 26-Oct-20 10:44:56

The myth that children do not pass on the virus has been discredited.

So it's important that social distancing is enforced in schools, for the health of the children and the adults. In some schools this would be impossible so part time/blended learning will have to happen.

The education of children is important but so is their health and the health of the adults they mix with.

Walkaround Mon 26-Oct-20 10:48:57

@Lavendersy - that’s just evidence that the way society was already set up before the pandemic even started wasn’t working. Keep schools open and which ones do you think will suffer more disruption, semi-closures and full closures, etc? Home learning wasn’t working because society isn’t functioning in a healthy way and hasn’t for decades.

Remmy123 Mon 26-Oct-20 10:51:19

In 'real life' I do not in know anyone up for blended/part time learning but there are many mumsneters that have been banging on about it like they are experts and not really understanding the negative impact on children this wouid have.

Many also want to say 'I told you this wouid happen'

Walkaround Mon 26-Oct-20 10:52:42

And also, because self-evidently learning fully from home is crap, because only theoretical, academic subjects can be fully taught that way.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in