To think secondary school parents are more likely to be happy about their dc going back to school and they should have been first.

[sunshineanddaffodils]

It’s annoying for me to hear all these parents of children at primary school aren’t going to send them back. It’s their choice though and that’s that. But I don’t know anyone with a child in secondary school who’s not worried about their education and desperate for them to be back even for a day a week. God knows when the current years 7,8 and 9 will have any time in school and the educational impact on them will be far greater than primary dc. I know logistically it’s more difficult at secondary but that’s got to be sorted at some point.

I agree. If they let secondary school children go back part-time classes would be empty enough for social distancing and they could also get an education.

The fact that they are opening schools for reception and year one i.e. those most likely to get infected and least likely to benefit given the likely experience when at school demonstrates that school opening has nothing to do with education or even benefiting the child. It is all for childcare. I don't blame the parents of primary school age children who don't want to send the children back as they will get nothing from it apart from potentially infected.

Not sure how secondary especially yr 10 and 12 could create an even educational plan that would not be detrimental to pupils who cannot get in, especially as exams are heavily based on peer performance. It’s already going to be a problem with varying resources for a level playing field (not that it is already) and it will be even bigger.

Lots of secondary school kids travel to school by bus which is higher risk, and they then mix with different groups of kids for each subject which also increases the spreading risk. Plus they're not taken to school by adults so they're unsupervised on the way to and from school. I think for all those reasons secondary is a bigger challenge.

They are more likely to conform with hygiene measures and social distancing

You really think so? What about the many many disengaged teenagers who hate school and just don’t want to be there? How do you propose to keep these pupils in school even if they turn up, never mind get them to comply with social distancing Alll they need to do is deliberately go too near people or sneeze and cough on them deliberately and they would have to be sent home. (This happened in my school just before lockdown) Behaviour is a massive issue in some secondary schools. Teenagers, boys especially, know how to game the system. They know safeguarding is a thing and then no-one will be able to go and get them back if they walk off and out of school.

This will be very difficult in secondaries when it comes to disengaged kids. at least in primary the kids are trying to behave and do what they’re told for the most part.

Even though there’s many more dc in secondary schools most are massive too compared to primary so there should be enough space to socially distance a year group of say 160 in a school that normally holds 1200.

^^ if they do a year in at a time.

nothing to do with mental health or education

it's everything about parents claiming they can't work until their children are back at school.

it's not solving childcare issues at all I disagree with you there. The reduced hours, no wraparound care etc may not be much help for people to go and work outside the home, but will be a massive help to parents who are trying to wfh and also home school their 5/6 year old. Nightmare! Secondary age children are generally more self sufficient.

I do agree with you that the educational impact is worse for secondary age children, and I would like to see them going back later in June.

Lots of secondary school kids travel to school by bus which is higher risk, and they then mix with different groups of kids for each subject which also increases the spreading risk.

DD and her friends do usually catch the bus but they can walk and sometimes do. It's about 3 miles so they would do that if necessary. Many other children who generally catch the bus would get a lift from their parents. There will be some that still have to get the bus obviously but the numbers would be much lower so with facemasks the risk would be reasonably low.

I think yabu to think secondary school parents will be less worried. You don't care less about your children as they get older.
Plus many secondary school kids have to travel on buses/trains to get to schools as catchment areas are much larger than primaries (with potentially more exposure to the virus too).
My DD is Yr8 and I am not bothered if she doesn't go back this academic year. I think secondary schools should be able to prioritise students studying for GCSE and A levels. If they need to reduce capacity in schools to do so, then it's the yr 7/8 who arguably can make that space.
My DD is of an age where she can be responsible enough to study at home for a few months if need be.

@CurlyhairedAssassin I agree, but you cannot allow a few badly behaved dc to disrupt the education of the majority. And those dc will still be here when secondary schools do go back. You get badly behaved dc in primary too and most of the dc at primary will have less ability to self distance compared with older dc and they are going back

My dd is in year 7. We live in a small town in rural area. A huge number of kids get there on school buses. School buses dominate everything here! The council is not going to start supplying double the amount of school transport. If school is open they have to provide transport. Schools will remain closed.

And it's frustrating for those of us whose dc can walk there but that's just the way it is. People can't even lift share legally .

You really think so? What about the many many disengaged teenagers who hate school and just don’t want to be there? How do you propose to keep these pupils in school even if they turn up,

I don't think the fact that some teenagers will not turn up is a good enough reason to deny all secondary school aged children an education.

The fact that they are opening schools for reception and year one i.e. those most likely to get infected

Except that if the evidence turns out to be that younger children transmit the illness less readily, then it’s the secondary children more likely to transmit.

I’m not sure it’s true that secondary are going back everywhere else. Some have only sent primary back and even in countries that never really shut (Iceland, Sweden) children 16-19 year olds aren’t in school.

The evidence is far from conclusive either way, but it doesn’t make any sense at all to start with secondary.

Primary school children are more likely to be driven to school or walk with an adult. Secondary school children are likely to walk on their own or with friends or use public transport so the risk of transmission and the possible number of contacts is greatly increased.

Foundation and Year 1 children will find it hardest to socially distance and will find the new systems most alien but these are also (along with pre-school years) are the most important years in terms of children's development. Early development and early education is crucial in terms of future learning and life chances.

Primary school children usually have most lessons in the same classroom with the same teacher so it is much easier to keep them in a bubble. This reduces the chances of infection. If one child (or their teacher) does show symptoms then only that bubble need to isolate.

Secondary school children are taught by subject specialists in a variety of rooms. If they return they either move around the school (impossible to socially distance) or they stay in the same room and the teachers come to them (how's that going to work with subjects like science?) or they stay in the same room and are taught by the same teacher for each subject (completely pointless).

My dd is in Year 12 ( I think - I can never remember the numbers, but it's first year of A levels). She's getting live lessons 3 times a week for one subject and has plenty of online work for the other 2 subjects. I'm more than happy for her to stay off for the rest of the year.

My dd is in year 7. We live in a small town in rural area. A huge number of kids get there on school buses.

Given many parents are currently working at home would many not get a lift at moment. That's what I intend to do as schools won't be shut for ever even if they don't open this term. It will mean less children on buses than usual.

@Beamur I don’t think secondary school parents are less worried. I think they’re more worried about the impact on their dcs education.
My year 8 dc is also capable of studying at home and has been. But we’ve got another 8 weeks of this term then carrying on into September! She’s 13 and trying her best but it’s nowhere near ideal.

• Lower risk to the kids: The risk is far lower for younger children.
• Minimises risk from disadvantaged children falling behind young and never catching up
• Reduces risk to vulnerable young children stuck at home in abusive or neglectful situation
• Teenagers are far more capable of learning online

And yes, there's the economy as adults can work from home or out of home with older children far more than with younger ones. But there are so.many other reasons

DH and I were discussing this last night. We are in the slightly unusual position of living in a small city with two Unis (with loads of empty lecture halls) and an FE college (also empty). All are easily accessible for most kids on foot/cycling/bus.

It would be really easy for the local secondary schools to send a couple of year groups to each so that they had space to educate the rest in the schools. Yes there would need to be some extra cleaning, and maybe some forms would need to be juggled so the pupils all had the same options, but it seems very doable.

I'll caveat this by stating there has been minimal illness here (most were ill after February trips to Italy). Most of DD's teachers are

No offence @cariadlet but if my dc we’re having a full timetable of live lessons I wouldn’t be as worried either. However only a tiny percentage of secondary school dc are in your dds position.

"I think 10s and 12s should have gone in part time. Transport isn’t an issue round here as they mostly walk. Buses are empty too.

It would be different in London etc. but on a school/trust basis some could have gone back."

So that scheme would probably benefit just a few of that group then. How would that be at all fair?

I don't think the fact that some teenagers will not turn up is a good enough reason to deny all secondary school aged children an education.

That wasn’t what I was saying. I was simply saying that there are issues with whatever year groups you pick.

Most of the year 10 parents at ds’s school are not going to be sending them in according to our local Facebook group

Most are very concerned about their education, but having outweighed the potential risk to the benefit of them spending 2 hours per day with their form tutor not doing any new work, they have decided that They are better off staying at home.

I fully agree. I would have some concerns about my teenagers going back to school but I would be far more worried if they were only four years of age.