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

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

Do you think they fact check every single post?

It’s like a reverse Spartacus grin
It is, if Spartacus had a cluster feeding baby and dared to leave mumsnet to find another breast pad.
"I'm Brian and so's my wife"

Thank you 2nd, Myrtle and purple.
The OP is being muddled, and sadly is still taking the view that disagreeing with them makes me a troll.
Ultimately there's a lot of misinformation on Mumsnet regarding safeguarding. The least we can do is be clear about the law and statutory responsibility, individual school policies, professional standards and personal opinion. Jumping back and forth between them and getting annoyed doesn't help anyone.

I have seen posts where MNHQ has put a message saying something like there has been reports the information isn't accurate and we cannot guarantee that they are a professional or something.

I am not the only one to have said the things I have said, so surely they would have definitely commented or taken the post down.

I get when it's people's opinions but if people are saying eg. you don't need a driving license to drive then that is fake information so would surely be removed.

flamingoAndJohn - no but I would have thought they would check it out if there has been reports against it.

As children seem to be asymptotic generally surely they are most at risk of spreading the disease. If schools go back too early I really pity the teachers, potentially stuck in a classroom of carriers.

I posted that my school had been discussing a plan - lots of posters saying I have misinterpreted/ it's faked because they won't be discussing school re-opening yet.

I said that parents volunteer in schools - lots of posters denying a parent volunteering at a school is ever a thing.

I said you don't need a DBS check to volunteer in a school - lots of posters said that was untrue.

I then said schools will tell you to avoid being alone with pupils for your own protection - oh guess what more people saying I am wrong.

I am not annoyed that people are 'disagreeing' with me (they are actually agreeing with my OP) but to be constantly told I am wrong (when I have given examples of every single one of them) means that these posters have an issue with me and not what I am actually saying.
There have been posters who have said the exact same thing I have said but no-one has disagreed with them - I get it's my post so it would be directed at me but I can't be completely wrong/lying every single time if others are saying it too.

I have to accept that I am wrong about everything and you are more qualified and knowledgable than me in every single way. You obviously know what my school says and does a lot more than I do.

Mumsnet don't fact check every post on threads.

Some of the things I've seen stand on here regarding safeguarding include:

• if someone has a concern about a child's welfare they shouldn't speak to school or social services (depending on the concern) because the parents probably are having a bad day
• keep wash stuff at your house for a child and bath them / give them head lice treatment or cream for eczema, something like that.
• if you have a concern about a child then approach the parents and see what you can do to help them out, even if you don't know them
• School was wrong to pass on concerns about a child to social services. They should have spoken to the OP first.
• if you call an issue safeguarding in an email then school have to deal with it the way you want because otherwise Ofsted will come down on them

That's terrible.
I just assumed if you report a post then they check it to see if it's factual or not. It is different from personal opinion but things like safeguarding, SS etc I thought would be removed.

Don't go on the Coronavirus is a hoax threads OP if you're expecting fact checking! (to be fair to MNHQ most of those posts were beyond satire and so probably weren't reported...)

Poppi89

If they were fact checking most of the school threads in AIBU would be closed down.

It's not really MN's job to fact check what people post on threads.

Why would a moderator for a forum be responsible for becoming sufficiently clued up on safeguarding to check that posters are irresponsibly misinforming people?

I couldn't bring myself to read corona hoax threads! But I would have thought that comes under personal opinion anyway. But I guess there are so many fake 'facts' that they can't check them all out anyway.

It would be good if you could somehow verify your qualifications and then when you post people will know you're giving factual advice or opinion.

If they were fact checking most of the school threads in AIBU would be closed down
Cross posted with this

Any thread regarding a detention where some posters get irate claiming schools and issue detentions by law would be the first to go.

That's why I thought when it is reported and they don't know themselves they put a message to say that these 'facts' may not be accurate. Or they completely remove it to be safe.

It would be good if you could somehow verify your qualifications and then when you post people will know you're giving factual advice or opinion
Anyone asking for advice on MN, or any forum, takes the advice at their own risk.

Why should posters on an anonymous forum have to prove themselves to account for the fact that some people want to spread misinformation or present their opinion as fact?

Why should posters on an anonymous forum have to prove themselves to account for the fact that some people want to spread misinformation or present their opinion as fact?

Because I have seen lots of people asking if there is any domestic violence workers/police etc because they need factual advice and then someone says yes I am you need to do XYZ.
I don't think you should have to prove yourself but if you want people to believe you know what you're talking about then it is a good idea.

Like on Instagram there are loads of fake celebs but the real ones have a blue tick next to them just to prove they are who they say they are. OLD does this too. It's just to prove your actually a 25 year old female teacher in the UK and not some 60 year old male plumber living in Australia.

the "facts may not be accurate' type posts from MNHQ tend, in my experience, to be more of the "you don't know who anyone is on the internet and so only give of yourself what you are able to" - basically a warning on possible scam/begging threads....

Mumsnet makes it quite clear on the top of the relationships threads where to go for advice.

Nobody should be making any significant decisions based on what a random person on the internet says.

"I'm Brian and so's my wife"

I don’t think any Mumsnet staff member would need to know safeguarding tbh. Data protection and libel - yes at least enough to refer on.

It’s a thankless task correcting safeguarding misinformation on the internet - but it is incredibly important. Someone who has read the right information may come across a situation - having good information could make the difference between a child receiving help or not.

There's one I'm on at the moment saying - we haven't checked the qualifications of posters. If you need domestic help go to this website.
But I suppose that could be due to scammers posting they are in DV relationships.

If you are in an abusive relationship sometimes the only people you can talk to are those on these types of forums. I don't judge someone from following advice that is given by 'experts' because they are usually removed from the real world. They often have their internet history checked so DV or police websites would show up.

Someone who has read the right information may come across a situation - having good information could make the difference between a child receiving help or not.

This is why it is a good idea that you can be verified - so you can choose the right information from someone who knows what they're talking about.

It would be. But after a targeted data breach by a mumsnet staffer you might struggle to get people signing up.

I think there is a general 'can't vouch for anyone' post on most thread topics and then MNHQ reinforce if needs be.

They would have to make the website as secure as physically possible. And you could say that with anything online. Or even sims and things in schools that contain personal data.