To feel I can't cope with schools only going back part time in August?

[jbonsor]

Just that. I was coping OK with lockdown, and trying to keep positive about juggling kids and working from home til June, then take a few weeks holiday over the summer just to do things with the kids even if still restricted. This week I have received a letter from my son's nursery to say he has a space for the 2020-2021 school year but that due to covid 19 they can't confirm pattern of attendance, as in, they can't confirm if he will have the 30 hours he was having since August. I also have read a lot that primary school might be 2 days only a week or a very day but only morning or afternoon session.. This has really tipped me over the edge as I am dreading having to keep juggling all this for over a year. This really puts a strain in family life and finances because now we have to basically decide on one income only, and not onky that but I don't feel I am that good at home schooling and feel like my kids are going to fall behind. Sometimes I can't believe how everything fell apart so spectacularly and how is the Scottish government deciding this is the best course of action without any regard for the mountain of problems this will bring to a huge amount of families.

For anyone struggling with A-level STEM subjects, I've heard good reports about UpLearn. They currently offer Maths, Physics, Economics and Psychology. They don't do GCSE but I imagine in the current situation they're working on it.

I'm aware of that. But I think the idea is that they START part-time in August and then go full time, no? Unless I've missed something. I don't think there is any suggestion that it will extend the full year?

For secondary education, particularly highers, I think some students will be learning vital skills around time management and self directed learning that will set them up well for university.

Particularly in rural schools, it used to be be common for higher classes to be combined with modules and teachers to split their time between the two. Also, 20-odd years ago I was the only person in my school sitting highers in one subject, so I was given the books, and saw a teacher to ask questions 30 min per week. I missed out on the practical side (a science), but went on to study the subject at university.

Some students will thrive in an environment where they can take more responsibility for their own learning. Some won't, and I think colleges are going to need to increase provision for highers in 21/22, to give people who do miss out an extra year to catch up. It's easier than in England, as it's only a 1 year course and Scottish uni intakes have a mix of students from 5th & 6th years, and also colleges, so it generally spans a 3 or 4 year age range anyway. An extra year will make no odds in the long run.

I am not denying that it is shit, but I don't think it will completely destroy the future of this generation.

I'm aware of that. But I think the idea is that they START part-time in August and then go full time, no? Unless I've missed something. I don't think there is any suggestion that it will extend the full year?

They haven't said. Lots of discussion about it being the "new normal" and for the whole of the next academic year. The Scottish government have not said anything to deny that. It's all up in the air because the document was so woolly and airy-fairy and full of "possibly", might", "may" language. There is no clear plan. No clear plan for delivering the education and no clear plan for childcare, just vague statements about employer flexibility.

They are playing political games to get one up on Boris. If schools in England go back this week and there's not an increase in cases, then they might relax a bit. Or if there is, they take the moral high ground with their "look at how much more we care about children than those nasty tories" as per usual.

Something like 59% of deaths were in care homes at one point, and all the fuss over schools is taking the focus off that fuck-up, and the Nike conference fuck-up. How convenient.

You are definitely NOT being unreasonable. It’s bloody ridiculous and a complete overreaction, particularly for primary and nursery aged children who have very little risk of spreading the virus. Those of us who have been trying to home school for the past two months (with little more than a suggested timetable and some worksheets each week for guidance) have seen how little can be achieved, particularly when there is also work and other children to look after. That’s before you consider that actually, most of us aren’t really qualified to teach! As it stands children will already have missed out on a ‘proper’ education for about half a year when they go back, and this is set to continue indefinitely. That’s before you even start on the damage to the economy and gender equality as parents (mostly mothers, lets face it) reduce hours to become part time teachers. And since it’s not evidence based (for the younger ones anyway) it’s hard not to assume it must be political.

I seriously doubt there is any plan for all children to go back full time. Even in England, which wants years R, 1 and 6 back full time on 1 June if possible, the DfE is keeping very quiet about where the extra teachers and teaching space will come from to enable all children in the whole of England from years R to 13 to go back to school full time. Just to open to 3 primary school year groups, many schools that have plans enabling them to do this (plus cater for key workers’ and vulnerable children) are using all their available classrooms and staff just to achieve this.

More English schools will still not be full time even for those year groups as they can’t even do that whilst following DfE guidelines in risk assessments.

Surely you would give the children some time for revision for topics instead of doing assessments in September and expecting young children who have only been doing it for a short time anyway to remember multiplication, tables, grammar etc. On the other hand, subjects such as reading will have improved dramatically over the holidays. Even as adults in work situations, if we have to write a presentation or a wedding speech, we will revise it before we stand up to present it.

You’d think wouldn’t you? But many schools insist on assessing in September as a baseline to nudge progress from. Even those who don’t, you can look at children’s writing in the first week and compare it to what they did in July, and see a difference. As you acknowledge, children forget things when they have a break from school (which was my original point).

I can assure, you lots of children’s reading does NOT improve dramatically improve over the holidays. Those who have supportive parents who have carried on daily reading and so on, yes, maybe. Those who have been in a holiday camp all summer because they have 2 working parents and those who, you know, live in a house without any books, not so much.

I have no idea how everyone thinks children will just ‘catch up’. The primary curriculum, for English and maths at least, is packed anyway, barely enough time to cover it all before the end of y6. Unless we just don’t teach some bits (and in my opinion, this would be no bad thing), children will leave primary This year, next year and maybe the year after without the knowledge and skills their peers last year did. I guess it’s a matter of opinion whether this matters or not. I’m no secondary expert, but I can imagine missing 1 term out of 5 to teach a GCSE, so 20% of the teaching time, probably is far from ideal.

@meercatmama again with the childcare...couples choose to have 2 jobs after kids go back to school because is the logical thing to do. Why is this seen as bad and "relying in schools as childcare" would you prefer that all families with kids have only one earner contributing to the economy, and paying taxes to cover services like healthcare and education? And of course a teacher will not have the a seers, this is not even your desicion, its about government, and policy makers. They should be offering alternatives the same way they did for key workers. If they are families with a stay home parent, and tax credits top up, or parents who are in benefits and don't have to work, they might feel happy to do the blended learning and leave the space in schools for children that actually need it.

The situation is pretty crap for the education of all but the brightest, most self-motivated children with the facilities to access the materials with minimal stress. For those children, learning from home and not being held back by peers who are falling ever further behind is probably an improvement. However, even for those children, in terms of all the missed opportunities for taking part in school plays and musicals, orchestras, bands, sports, other community activities, school trips, creative and practical subjects, the situation is dire and there is no denying that.

@toomuch where is the science that say that more people will die if returning to school? At least 16 countries have returned to school and have shown no spikes in cases. People shielding have got the virus somehow from home deliveries or carers, so most likely the impact of going back only part time will be negligible vs going back normal hours.

It's very very worrying what's happening. The schools and nurseries need to reopen, our children are being so very damaged in so many ways by this lockdown. Then theres our society in general which I believe is at far greater risk from the consequences of the lockdown continuing than the likelihood of being infected with the virus.

@Y0u I agree it does feel political, this was spot on to justify their inability to provide the 30 hours childcare and @sadie mentioned something about secondary school revision that now will happen After election.

I wonder how serious people are about the importance of returning children to school. Is this simply based on a lack of belief in the seriousness of the situation if the virus were to start spreading uncontrollably again, or based on a belief that children should return to school at all costs? Say the conclusion was that to enable full time education, children should all be evacuated to especially created boarding school sites where they would live in “bubbles” with designated adults in enclosed communities, so that their parents could go back to work without worrying about childcare or spreading the virus with transporting children to and fro... would that be acceptable? Or would people rather try “blended learning“?

Is this simply based on a lack of belief in the seriousness of the situation if the virus were to start spreading uncontrollably again

Most people are fully aware of just how serious that situation is. What people are disagreeing on is the inevitability of schools going back causing that to happen.

If - if - schools going back will definitely cause a huge spike in the virus and overwhelm the health care system and kill thousands, then of course I don't want that to happen. But there is not evidence of that. It is a risk, it is not an inevitability. So we have to balance the costs against the benefits, and it's not ignoring the seriousness of the virus to point out that the costs of massively reducing state education provision for the foreseeable future are really pretty big.

Or would people rather try “blended learning“?

I'd love to try it, but realistically it won't be happening in my house. We can probably manage to work from home if DC can't be at school but we can't manage to work and simultaneously teach them, and I don't fancy either of us losing our jobs with a recession coming up. My school-age DC are early primary so I suppose will catch up at some point? Hopefully?

@Walkaround that would be an even bigger overreaction for a virus that mostly affects people of old age and with underlying medical conditions. Surely the measure should be focus in isolating the vulnerable groups rather than wrecking everyone's lives indefinitely.

GoldenOmber - so, would you go for boarding schools if necessary or not? What if you were told that, as schools are not the real problem, they should all go back for all year groups full time as normal, but businesses that are not providing essential services should not be opening up again at all until a vaccine is found, because that would then tip eveything over the edge. Would you choose education, or business? Or fudge the two, so that neither can go back to normal?

@walk on the contrary I think people are overestimating the severity if the virus and that media has overblown this, here is a study published on the British Medical Journey that indicates nearly 80% of coronavirus infections will be asymptomatic, so if only 20% of the population shows symptoms and from that 20% only 20% will have complications that will take them to hospital, don't you think that denying kids their education is OTT? www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375?=&utm_source=adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=usage&utm_content=daily&utm_term=text

jbonsor - how us it possible to isolate the people who definitely needs to visit hospitals and have close contact with others as a result of their vulnerability?

jbonsor - I think we have a libertarian, capitalist government that doesn’t have to face another election for years, and if they think they cannot fully open all schools yet, then they have a stronger reason for this than public pressure and panic.

We have done a fairly shit job of protecting the vulnerable in this country, and it looks like most other western countries too, so I think the best approach really is to stamp on the virus as hard as possible and try to keep it suppressed until there's a treatment/vaccine.

GoldenOmber - so, would you go for boarding schools if necessary or not?

At my children's age, I'd rather take the hit to their education than send them to boarding schools. What has annoyed me about the current plan is that it's presented as if there's no hit to their education at all because of 'blended learning', with zero guidance about how that's achievable. If we're really going to be reducing state education provision for the foreseeable future then at least present it as such.

Would you choose education, or business?

If it's truly one or the other, then education. But it's not one or the other or exactly 50% of both.

Every country has to decide on which things it's going to prioritise to reopen and under what conditions. By Phase 3 when schools should reopen part-time, we will also be allowing pubs and restaurants to open for indoor service, gyms and cinemas to reopen, and live events to restart. So yes I think it's worth at least aiming to reopen schools fully there even if it means we have to cut back on pubs and cinemas as the trade-off.

Here more information about kids not being super spreaders, some of these studies are done in school settings were kids with coronavirus did not pass the infection to others despite contact adc.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/19/archdischild-2020-319474#ref-10

I think we have a libertarian, capitalist government that doesn’t have to face another election for years

In Scotland which is where this thread is about, we have a social democratic government that is facing an election next spring.

Yes, GoldenOmber, but they certainly aren’t opening schools up full time in England, either.

If vulnerable people can't be isolated because they need to visit hospitals and risk being Infected, then schools opening is the least of their concerns right? And its exactly my point, why are we deprivi g kids from their education if ultimately we will all be in Contact with the virus either way?