One key worker, child should stay home

[Areyouactuallyseriousrightnow]

Not sure if there has already been a thread but AIBU to think that if only one parent is key worker and other is WFH, child should be staying home as school provision is for key workers who cannot complete their important role if they have to look after child at home, not so that the other parent can continue with work without interruption?

My partner is a key worker, but I don’t consider us eligible as I am home and therefore technically can be with the children.

YABU- if there’s one key worker take that opportunity to send the child in.
YANBU- if there’s another parent at home, child should stay home.

Except it’s not, folk are using childcare bubbles, support bubbles, local teenagers, informal childcare etc per the suggestions that are posted on every thread on this topic. It’s not as simple as key worker kids in school, everyone else work and homeschool, informal childcare of whatever form increases the risk of transmission but no ones suggesting those parents are selfish?

It's unethical to close schools just after they allowed Christmas mixing.
It's unethical to close the schools whilst not closing other industries.
It's unethical to break lockdown rules
It's unethical to vote for Tory
It's unethical to be Dominic Cummings
It is not unethical to send your child to school.
There may be an increased risk of transmission with more kids at school (although primary school has been v low). But there are huge risks to children from missing a term of school, and increasing stress on critical workers.

@Mnusernc

It's unethical to close schools just after they allowed Christmas mixing. It's unethical to close the schools whilst not closing other industries. It's unethical to break lockdown rules It's unethical to vote for Tory It's unethical to be Dominic Cummings It is not unethical to send your child to school. There may be an increased risk of transmission with more kids at school (although primary school has been v low). But there are huge risks to children from missing a term of school, and increasing stress on critical workers.

Agreed.

[quote Jellycatspyjamas]**@Jellycatspyjamas as I've stated, security and confidentiality issues fall under the "can work from home but NOT with children around" category. Like I said it doesn't apply to you. I said the same to a family solicitor yesterday who is regularly "in court" via Zoom about child protection issues

I’m so glad I have your permission, I’m sure the family solicitor was equally glad to have your blessing. The point is, you don’t know individual circumstances, even if you think you do from the outside looking in.

I’d sooner assume that people know best what they can and can’t do, than assume they’re taking the piss.[/quote]
Oh do stop the dramatics. It's not "permission" - you challenged my view and I clarified it. That's all.

@wasthataburp not nonsense, it’s literally what everyone who doesn’t have a KW partner is doing.

All the stay at home parents at my children’s school still sending kids in under the KW provision should be thoroughly embarrassed. It is completely unethical and unfair on everyone else trying to struggle through this and keep transmission low.

@wasthataburp but if they are nursery age then this argument doesn't apply to you. Nurseries remain open for more than key workers - as it should be

[quote NCstaythefuckathome]@wasthataburp not nonsense, it’s literally what everyone who doesn’t have a KW partner is doing.[/quote]
Yes but they are
Both at home sharing the childcare making it easier

@Mnusernc

It's unethical to close schools just after they allowed Christmas mixing. It's unethical to close the schools whilst not closing other industries. It's unethical to break lockdown rules It's unethical to vote for Tory It's unethical to be Dominic Cummings It is not unethical to send your child to school. There may be an increased risk of transmission with more kids at school (although primary school has been v low). But there are huge risks to children from missing a term of school, and increasing stress on critical workers.

👏🏻

All the stay at home parents at my children’s school still sending kids in under the KW provision should be thoroughly embarrassed.

And you’ll have been party to discussions between those families and the school, so you know there aren’t vulnerabilities, health issues, learning issues, adoption issues, that mean those kids shouldn’t be in school.

Not all of them, but yes, most - two of them are close friends. It’s a small private school in one of the most affluent parts of the country and none of them sent their children last time. They are within the letter of the rules, just not the spirit.

@wasthataburp no not necessarily. Not all non-KW are WFH.

I think people are going round in circles with this. It doesn’t apply to pre-school children, so nothing here is directed at those situations. We’ve now also established, that there are some situations where one is KW and one is non-kw parent, but who works outside the home....that’s fair enough too.
There are also people commenting where children are attending school due to particular vulnerability or learning need...again, all fair & square. It’s the category that have one KW and one non KW wfh, that in my opinion, should NOT be taking a place. Having just heard from a friend who works as a GP, and whose DH is a hospital consultant...they were refused a place as their child's school had sent the request forms out with a 4 hour window to reply..on a first come first serve basis. Due to excess demand..there were no places left. They’ve had to make a ‘special case’ for them....I’m sorry but that’s just a joke.
Everyone is frustrated with this pandemic in some way..many of us are having to make huge sacrifices. And I’m not angry from my own perspective, but from the perspective of every family that has to endure this for longer than we should. My DH could technically claim KW status..but I’m self employed so have scaled back work. It’s costing us, but that’s how it is. It just angers me to see a loophole of opportunity being abused in this way, knowing the effects of it, will affect us all. I’ve taken pen to paper and have written to our local MP, and suggested he take a walk past our local primary at kicking out time....

[quote NCstaythefuckathome]@wasthataburp no not necessarily. Not all non-KW are WFH.[/quote]
I'm talking about if one parent is wfh and the other is out of the home kw.

Not all of them, but yes, most - two of them are close friends. It’s a small private school in one of the most affluent parts of the country and none of them sent their children last time. They are within the letter of the rules, just not the spirit

I didn’t send mine last time, circumstances are different this time and I’ve asked for places for mine. Many people didn’t send last time but now need to for various reasons, which may not be apparent to folk from the outside looking in. It doesn’t mean they’re taking the piss, just that circumstances change and those circumstances aren’t always made public.

@wasthataburp - “But there are huge risks to children from missing a term of school, and increasing stress on critical workers.“
.... and by many opinions on here, their partners too. Partners of KW should not have any special status.

I appreciate that sometimes circumstances change but it’s a 15 fold increase in the numbers and I do know a number of these people very well. They are stay at home Mums, that has not changed.

@wasthataburp if there is a non KW parent at home they should care for their kids I’ve been really clearly that I believe that strongly. If you have toddlers this conversation is not relevant as your toddlers can be in nursery thankfully. For school age children yes one non KW parent can care for them. This is what all the families who are not KW and have one parent out of the hone are doing so it’s not impossible. Shit yes but not impossible.
The numbers in London where I am are 1 in 30 it says today. That means of the 150 kids who’ve been trotted in, up to five may bring covid into that school community. If the numbers were as low as last time (10) that probability would be much reduced.
This is about bringing this to an end as quickly as possible. Jobs are at much more risk if this continues longer, than if people see a toddlers bottom in a zoom call or hear a child saying they want a poo.

@Schoolmummmy

I think people are going round in circles with this. It doesn’t apply to pre-school children, so nothing here is directed at those situations. We’ve now also established, that there are some situations where one is KW and one is non-kw parent, but who works outside the home....that’s fair enough too. There are also people commenting where children are attending school due to particular vulnerability or learning need...again, all fair & square. It’s the category that have one KW and one non KW wfh, that in my opinion, should NOT be taking a place. Having just heard from a friend who works as a GP, and whose DH is a hospital consultant...they were refused a place as their child's school had sent the request forms out with a 4 hour window to reply..on a first come first serve basis. Due to excess demand..there were no places left. They’ve had to make a ‘special case’ for them....I’m sorry but that’s just a joke. Everyone is frustrated with this pandemic in some way..many of us are having to make huge sacrifices. And I’m not angry from my own perspective, but from the perspective of every family that has to endure this for longer than we should. My DH could technically claim KW status..but I’m self employed so have scaled back work. It’s costing us, but that’s how it is. It just angers me to see a loophole of opportunity being abused in this way, knowing the effects of it, will affect us all. I’ve taken pen to paper and have written to our local MP, and suggested he take a walk past our local primary at kicking out time....

This times a million

I appreciate that sometimes circumstances change but it’s a 15 fold increase in the numbers and I do know a number of these people very well. They are stay at home Mums, that has not changed.

I take it you’ve told them you think they should be embarrassed.

And there we have it. You're self employed @Schoolmummmy so can therefore take on or scale back work accordingly. You have flexibility, you work for yourself and have no demands or expectations placed on you by an employer. Many admin workers cannot afford to scale back financially and cannot ask their employers to scale down their workload. You are speaking from a position of privilege.

@Schoolmummmy

I think people are going round in circles with this. It doesn’t apply to pre-school children, so nothing here is directed at those situations. We’ve now also established, that there are some situations where one is KW and one is non-kw parent, but who works outside the home....that’s fair enough too. There are also people commenting where children are attending school due to particular vulnerability or learning need...again, all fair & square. It’s the category that have one KW and one non KW wfh, that in my opinion, should NOT be taking a place. Having just heard from a friend who works as a GP, and whose DH is a hospital consultant...they were refused a place as their child's school had sent the request forms out with a 4 hour window to reply..on a first come first serve basis. Due to excess demand..there were no places left. They’ve had to make a ‘special case’ for them....I’m sorry but that’s just a joke. Everyone is frustrated with this pandemic in some way..many of us are having to make huge sacrifices. And I’m not angry from my own perspective, but from the perspective of every family that has to endure this for longer than we should. My DH could technically claim KW status..but I’m self employed so have scaled back work. It’s costing us, but that’s how it is. It just angers me to see a loophole of opportunity being abused in this way, knowing the effects of it, will affect us all. I’ve taken pen to paper and have written to our local MP, and suggested he take a walk past our local primary at kicking out time....

A lot of sense in this post. Other than perhaps that in the case of your GP friend - the fault there lies with the school and not necessarily with other parents.

Schools should, by now have devised a method that appropriately prioritises place, where places are limited.

And if they haven't got a suitable method then the response, is "we are terribly sorry for our oversight, of course your child can have a place" not "oh, we'll have to make a special case for you". School comms sound at fault there.

Well I'm a key worker and DH isn't and is WFH. He is also a higher earner so his job is a priority.
All that aside my workplace issued key worker letters and even on the few days I can WFH I'm not allowed to work and have a child around...It wasn't such a big issue last time, they didn't issue nearly as many letters as they have now. This time it is expected I will take the place in school..
I'm grateful our school only requires one parent to be a key worker.

That's a good point, my employer have offered letters to schools. They don't want us to refuse the places.

@Whatafustercluck - And there we have it. You're self employed @Schoolmummmy so can therefore take on or scale back work accordingly. You have flexibility, you work for yourself and have no demands or expectations placed on you by an employer. Many admin workers cannot afford to scale back financially and cannot ask their employers to scale down their workload. You are speaking from a position of privilege.”

I’m speaking from a position of privilege??The privilege of not being able to work because I need to look after my own children? I’ve been employed too...and in a situation like this, I would be speaking to my employer, just as many are people are having to do. When I have had client meetings online, my husband has had to rearrange some his diary to help...he’s also had to take a few half days vacation here & there. it’s called working together. Which is what we should all be doing. Whether we are ‘employed’ or not. This defence of smug entitlement is beyond real.