To think this school's plan won't work

[Poppi89]

I work in a secondary school ( not as a teacher) and we have been kept up to date by email and zoom staff meetings.

There has been a lot of talk of when we will re-open and what will happen as like most schools it was very stressful closing the school and not being prepared so they are trying to put plans in place and keep one step ahead.

Due to a lot of parents in the area wanting the school to re-open and for life to go back to 'normal' they think the government might re-open schools sooner rather than later maybe before May half term, so the school has put in place an outline of what will happen:

• School will re-open but will continue sticking to the guidelines of social distancing - as this is not possible in a school with full capacity students will be split into halves or thirds to ensure they are spaced far enough away from each other. This means that the kids will only be in 1/2 days a week.

• Due to adults spreading the virus more than children (it seems) they don't think all staff should be in each day. So will be depending on parents to do a rota system - so one qualified member of staff to 2 parents to supervise.

Does anybody else think the school would be better to remain closed if this is the case?
It seems they won't be learning much and the risk of getting the virus will still be high.

I do get that this is the best plan they have come up with to keep everyone happy. My DD is missing her friends and wouldn't mind going back to school a couple of days a week and I guess it will be easier for parents to get back to work but I would rather wait until June/July at the earliest as surely the NHS is still overwhelmed.

What do you guys think?
AIBU - thinking this isn't a good plan

You have literally said:
but no member of staff should ever be alone with a child.

And repeated that sentiment, and said you tell trainee teachers to never be alone.

Stop with this ridiculous patronising "surely you've heard... If you worked in a school" nonsense.

Staff exercise professional judgement when working with students. That's the top and bottom of it.

The school will have to follow government guidelines and won't get to decide for itself I wouldn't of thought
How are two parents also adults less risk than two teachers though ? Surely it's the same
Earliest I think any will go back will be after May half term and likely to be year 10:/12 and maybe some primary years but all just a guess
We will have more clarity next week

When you say less risk do you mean the virus?

@LolaSmiles - you've not even answered any of my questions - just repeated the same thing.

Go and be a troll on someone elses thread.

Poppi89
Yes, the same thing you've repeatedly denied saying. You can't say staff shouldn't be alone with students repeatedly and then say 'oh but common sense says all those examples you've given where it's totally appropriate don't count'.

Disagreeing with someone is not trolling.
Posters challenging you isn't calling you a liar.
For someone who works in a school you seem to have a thin skin.

Other people have shared what THEIR school have said. You've made claims that staff shouldn't be alone with students. Very different.

For example,

One of my friends works in a primary school where staff have lockers in the staff room. Their school policy is no personal items, including phones, go outside the staffroom.

It would be reasonable for them to say "in my school we have to keep our phones in the staffroom".
It would be unreasonable and misleading for them to say "teachers aren't allowed phones in classrooms and if they want to make a phonecall then it has to be in the staffroom".

You're doing the latter.

So you have agreed that those without a DBS are definitely not allowed to be left alone with a pupil, yes?

So if this person was to walk down a corridor at the same time as a pupil was walking to the toilet they would technically be alone together, yes?

But it is completely different scenarios and does not mean that the non-DBS person has broken the rules. Just like when you are told not to be alone with a pupil - it does not refer to them coming into your classroom where other staff can walk in and out, or in a corridoor which usually has CCTV etc it would be more like taking them and talking to them in the old shed at the bottom of the playing field type thing - as I said mainly for your own protection.

My situation was me alone with a pupil (not a situation I would have considered high risk due to the pupil and it was a high traffic area) but my SLT and union said when the pupil started talking about a certain crime I should have immediately opened a door or caught the eye of another member of staff so they knew to be aware. If I had been accused of something that day then I would have no back up (I wasn't accused of anything) so I was told to never put myself in that position again. When I moved to my new school that was one of the first things they said to me and I am also told to say that to trainees. Not because it's law but its just protecting yourself - especially before you get to know certain pupils.

It's similar to saying never leave the classroom unattended - if there was an emergency you would leave it to go and get help from next door.

My school says if you are talking to a pupil outside the classroom you have to keep one foot in the door - not many people do it but it's saying don't go and tell one kid off and leave 30 others in a science lab without still keeping an eye on them

It would be unreasonable and misleading for them to say "teachers aren't allowed phones in classrooms and if they want to make a phonecall then it has to be in the staffroom".

Why would it be unreasonable and misleading to say this. If the school doesn't allow teachers to use their phones in the classroom then this is what would be said surely? Or have I misread it.

So you have agreed that those without a DBS are definitely not allowed to be left alone with a pupil, yes?
Keep up. I said that pages ago. That's not my issue.

It's similar to saying never leave the classroom unattended - if there was an emergency you would leave it to go and get help from next door.
No it's not.
Telling someone they shouldn't be alone with a student is telling them they shouldn't be alone with a student. You've said yourself that I've given perfectly reasonable examples where a teacher would be alone with a student, so telling people they shouldn't be alone with a student is misleading precisely because teachers are allowed to be alone with students and there is no rule against it.

Why would it be unreasonable and misleading to say this. If the school doesn't allow teachers to use their phones in the classroom then this is what would be said surely? Or have I misread it.
Because the first is commenting on what THEIR school has as a policy, but the second is making a misleading claim about what teachers are allowed to do.

You've repeatedly said staff shouldn't be alone with students, used advice from a supply agency and the fact you tell trainees this to back it up and have implied me challenging you means I mustn't work in a school with all your "I'm surprised to haven't heard... Surely if you worked in a school..."

There's too much misinformation on Mumsnet concerning safeguarding without school staff being misleading.

LolaSmiles - you are doing sterling work.

If nothing else good comes out of this, it shows how easily safeguarding principles can be miscommunicated.

Because the first is commenting on what THEIR school has as a policy, but the second is making a misleading claim about what teachers are allowed to do.

But the whole thread was discussing parent volunteers and staff at MY school.

Every single school I have worked at (and others have agreed) have said you should not be alone with a pupil (as an intelligent person I would know what this means) but your school and every other school would definitely have been told to not put yourself in situations whereby being alone you could be accused of something. When you say you have not heard this it makes me think you have never worked in a school.
If a chef said they have never been told to wash their hands or that it is important - you wouldn't believe they were a chef.

Yes, I am extra safe when it comes to safeguarding (it's my job to be) - but I am not misleading.

If I was saying the opposite eg those without DBS are allowed alone with pupils - then you would be reasonable to keep picking me up on it. But you're coming across as just being petty and somehow annoyed that you think as I am not a teacher I wouldn't know as much as you.

@2ndStar - another troll - you and Lola are obviously the same person/know each other which is why you both stop commenting at the same time. Pathetic!

How do you help supervise if you have a job... Or other non school age kids...

12stepCAKE - I am assuming there would be an availability form for parents to fill in - those who work full-time or have young kids etc would say they have no availability so they won't volunteer. They would probably see how many volunteers they can get and if it's not enough they won't do it.

LolaSmiles has been consistent (and has a long posting history in education threads) that application of safeguarding principles, learning and frameworks is vital. OP - you're the one that has made sweeping statements and then expect people to understand that you didn't actually mean the literal text you typed, that plus your insistence in seeing personal attacks (the frequent assertions of claims other posters are saying you're a liar in complete inverse proportion to the actual number of instances when a poster has questioned your veracity, stand out) is really draining the life out of this thread.

myrtleWilson - then stop posting - I don't understand how so many people can be reporting this thread for being fake but then it's not getting removed?

@MHNQ

You are all way smarter than I can ever be - you are right and I am wrong. As a PP said I must just be a frustrated TA (not that I'm a TA) so therefore my little brain must be so confused.

Because
a) if people are reporting that the thread is fake (which is not a given) - MNHQ will decide if you're a troll poster - if so they'll post a "thanks for the reports, we're taking this down whilst we look behind the scenes" message.

the fact that MNHQ haven't popped on to the thread at all suggests they're either not receiving reports, or have received reports and decided its all ok

A couple of people have said they have reported me and some have said I am lying/ it is a fake post. I have also asked for it to be removed too. As they haven't removed it then I must not be a fake poster or putting things up regarding things like safeguarding which are lies.

Sorry OP - I'm not LolaSmiles either, but I AM another teacher with fairly extensive experience in safeguarding, & you're getting muddled.

I think you've probably also got muddled with what your HT said - although I wouldn't put it past some of them...always at least one gung ho daft haporth making stupid suggestions on every SLT. Now that is a rule that seems to apply to every school!

How will large schools cope?

The better thread that has a discussion on school's plans.

I’m not LolaSmiles and I’ve got no idea when she (assumption) posts on any threads. I don’t know why you interpret questions as attacks, but your attacks require no interpretation.

I’m presuming LolaSmiles is a safeguarding lead. I am not, I do have to know, understand and apply safeguarding principles when I am in work. The specific role I am in means I am rarely with children so the everyday embedding of principles doesn’t happen. This means I regularly refresh my safeguarding knowledge to make sure my understanding is clear and present.

It’s like a reverse Spartacus

I don’t know why you interpret questions as attacks, but your attacks require no interpretation.

How convenient.

I also have safeguarding knowledge. I've not said my role title incase it is outing but I am not a teacher or TA.

I do not believe Mumsnet would allow me to post untrue things about something as important as safeguarding.

OP - MNHQ don't fact check but if a poster has said on one thread 'I'm a trucker from Hull" then on another say they're a nun in a Devon convent, it may arouse suspicion.

If MNHQ have received reports that you're 'fake' - they'll have checked your posting history and that you're not a PBP so will leave the thread up. Thats not the same as fact checking.

Similarly if you've asked for it to be deleted, and they haven't it will be because they (usually) don't like to delete unless for specific reasons - for example a thread becoming Swiss cheese with multiple deletions for breaking TG, a massive goady bun fight, causing trouble IRL etc