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

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
Exactly. This is why it's important that there are posters who challenge misinformation or muddled information.

Posters can then judge on balance what they want to follow.

And you could say that with anything online. Or even sims and things in schools that contain personal data.
Forums online and MIS for schools aren't comparable.

Forums online and MIS for schools aren't comparable.

Yes they are different things but both contain personal data all of which can be accessed using the internet and that can be breached.

Trainee teachers are not allowed to access sims for that very reason.

Posters can then judge on balance what they want to follow.

How can posters judge if some people are saying one thing and the same amount of people are saying something different? Without being verified they could all be wrong.

Poppi89 - I specifically said targeted data breach by a staffer. The external user access being incredibly secure does not have any impact on internal breaches. Forum users can make up their own minds what information they want to share with Mumsnet in order to post anonymously.

FWIW I was indeed told during my training not to be alone with a student - or at the very least, to keep the door wide open. This was in the context of avoiding false allegations and so was to protect teachers, not students.

It was one of many things I was taught that were completely unrealistic in practice.

Trainee teachers who are not employees can’t access school MIS - because they aren’t employees who have to follow internal data protection policies. Not because they are trainees. An employed trainee’s access to an MIS would be up to individual school policy.

Thank you HipTightOnions

2ndStar - that's why I said it would have to be made more secure if it were to verify members.

I would hope that anyone reading a thread like this would think: 'hmmm, various posters think the OP is misinformed about safeguarding. Therefore either she, or they, will be wrong. This is clearly a complex area & I should discuss any concerns with the Safeguarding Lead at my school, rather than listening to any unverifiable randoms on t'internet'.

That's why people will challenge misinformation. It's not because They're All Out To Get You, or merrily sockpuppeting!

Anyway - I think we can all safely say that dragging in parents on a shift basis to supervise hoards of students is a bonkers & unworkable proposition, so on that basis, OP, yanbu .

It’s not the website that would need to be more secure. The access to the database that holds personal information would need robust controls and reporting.

PurpleCrowbarWhereIsLangCleg - This is why I welcome a verification system on Mumsnet so those who have the experience and qualifications can give accurate advice and those merely pretending to know or blatantly giving inaccurate information can be seen.

Thank you for your opinion. I will know more about it tomorrow. I am looking forward to telling them what a fantastic success I think it will be

2ndStar - Yes I agree - it would definitely be worth it though. I would be willing to pay then.

I would hope that anyone reading a thread like this would think: 'hmmm, various posters think the OP is misinformed about safeguarding. Therefore either she, or they, will be wrong. This is clearly a complex area & I should discuss any concerns with the Safeguarding Lead at my school, rather than listening to any unverifiable randoms on t'internet'.
I agree.

It's also why there's often several posters on relationships threads suggesting reputable organisations if someone is in a domestically abusive relationship as it means the OP can find somewhere neutral.

I'm on a breastfeeding support group and one of the noticeable patterns is the difference between those who stay consistently on message, clear with advice, signposting services and those who get argumentative, push their opinion as fact and pass on what someone said to them so it must be right. The first group are infinitely more useful to listen to.

Same on education threads here.

This is why I welcome a verification system on Mumsnet so those who have the experience and qualifications can give accurate advice and those merely pretending to know or blatantly giving inaccurate information can be seen.

It's a CHAT FORUM. With what, 20 million users or something?

How do you want MN to verify them? & just teachers & others with safeguarding experience, or everyone?

If I say I'm a hairdresser or a solicitor, I'm then needing MN to verify whether you can trust me that a layered bob would suit you or that your ex isn't entitled to shared custody of the cat?

Why would they do that? How would that assist their business model?

If I say I'm a hairdresser or a solicitor, I'm then needing MN to verify whether you can trust me that a layered bob would suit you or that your ex isn't entitled to shared custody of the cat?

Mumsnet HQ are sometimes delayed at getting to the PBP with a love of school toilets/periods in schools/teacher and the popular girls. I highly doubt they have the time or inclination to check everyone who shares information.

PurpleCrowbarWhereIsLangCleg

I don't know. The same way they verify OLD, Instagram and everything else OL these days.

And whoever wants to be verified. I can guarantee some people would refuse this because they're not who they say they are.

You can ask a hairdresser if you would suit a bob but you could also ask your mates. It depends on what you want and if you have any mates I guess lol.
But it would obviously be more like police, SS, lawyers, etc - where wrong advice is dangerous. Getting a bob and looking like a twat is not exactly dangerous.

If you have ever seen catfish you will know how easy it is to pretend to be a different person if you are not verified. As long as you articulate yourself well, so you can talk the talk and have a bit of knowledge (google) you can make people believe whatever you want. Some catfishes will have several email accounts just so it looks like they are different people.

And they are on here giving people advice. I thought that if this advice was not facts it would be removed but apparently it doesn't!

And whoever wants to be verified. I can guarantee some people would refuse this because they're not who they say they are

I suspect most people would refuse simply because life is too short. If someone asks a question that is within my sphere of expertise, I simply answer it. If, before doing so, I have to go away and dig out my certificates, submit them to MN, wait for MN to get around to checking them and whether I've cunningly forged them, and wait for their authorisation, any interest I ever had in answering the original query will be long gone. It's just not going to happen.

I personally wouldn't refuse.
You wouldn't verify yourself before answering every question. Like you don't verify your email address each time. If you want to show you have qualifications and expertise you would just have a blue tick so people know you're not a catfish or troll posting random fake advice. If you don't then you would still be able to post advice it just wouldn't be taken as facts.

And whoever wants to be verified. I can guarantee some people would refuse this because they're not who they say they are.

If I give my friends advice about a situation regarding their DC and their DC's school, I'm giving it as their friend and (although drawing on professional training and experience) aren't speaking in a professional capacity.

People advising on Mumsnet are doing the same across a range of topics.

If I wanted some advice on SEND and the school system then there's lots of posters on here who have a wealth of experience as parents and staff, but it would be up to me what to do next having read those posts.
If someone seeks advice on assets in a split then posters can read what people suggest and then do what is almost always suggested and take appropriate legal advice.

If anything having a VIP poster option creates a situation where posters may wrongly think that Mumsnet approves or has fact checked what the poster is saying.

It's much easier for adults to take responsibility for their situations and do appropriate research.

The trouble is with being anonymous is there is a higher chance of fake posters. I have seen some that I know they are underage. But people are giving advice which could be mistaken for facts.

Yes, I do see what you're saying but I hate the fact that it is too easy to sign up and pretend to be someone else. In my personal opinion, I would prefer it if there was some way to be verified.

If you want to show you have qualifications and expertise you would just have a blue tick so people know you're not a catfish or troll posting random fake advice. If you don't then you would still be able to post advice it just wouldn't be taken as facts.
A tick next to someone's name doesn't verify anything regarding the factual content of their response.
Celebrities have ticks next to their name and are routinely paid to endorse charities and causes the have nothing to do with and know nothing about.
Andrew Adonis was on twitter this week talking bollocks about schools. The tick and his title didn't make his assertions correct.

It sounds very much like you're suggesting you'd be willing to be verified and anyone who wouldn't and disagrees with you must be some sort of troll, which is what you called several of us earlier.

Someone could still be a qualified professional and still be shit at their job and know fuck all.

For example many people get their teaching qualification, teach for a year or so but never do again. They could show a piece of paper saying they have been a qualified teacher for 30 years but haven’t set foot in a school for 28.

It sounds very much like you're suggesting you'd be willing to be verified and anyone who wouldn't and disagrees with you must be some sort of troll, which is what you called several of us earlier.

I am not suggesting this at all.

If you read my earlier posts I was not aware that if someone gets reported then their posts aren't fact-checked, deleted or MNHQ posts a note saying they are not definitely facts.

Multiple people have said they reported by post which I would assume would mean it would get deleted - just in case. Just because I'm a long term member doesn't mean that it proves I won't post something that is a lie.

That coupled with the fact I know there are many trolls on here - more so than other places where names and photos are seen - then it makes me question whether I want to be on here and I wish there was some way to prove that people are not fake. As I've said before I have had great advice and opinions from here.

You could be a complete liar and be the opposite of everything you are saying and so could I.