AIBU to think that my Child's school should not be asking all teachers to go into School to deliver "remote lessons"?

[bob1234bob]

Our children are in an independent school which is part of an association. Just heard that the association has decided that all their teachers should go into the schools to deliver their "remote lessons". They are expected to have the key worker children physically in their classrooms (even if only 1 or 2) and deliver to everyone at once. Seems as if they are determined to flout the regulations as much as possible and I can't see what the benefit to the association is. Presumably they don't trust their staff to deliver lessons from home (which is weird because "dropping in" on remote lessons would be easy enough). I am starting to think that the association leaders are a bunch of idiots and also probably not a very nice employer.

Presumably the benefit to the association is that they don't need to pay someone else to supervise key workers' children.

I'm not understanding the outrage? The worry was always being in a classroom full of children. Most children are now gone.

Safeguarding nightmare working from home

Do you think the key worker children should go to the teachers homes instead?

I think it makes sense - the teachers will have access to all the resources they need, and will also be able to help and support one another, as well as teaching the children of keyworkers and the vulnerable children.

As previous posters have said, drastically reducing the number of children in the classroom will cause a corresponding reduction in the risk to teachers.

I work for an independent school and we’re not to go in unless there is a pressing reason. The KW children will be supervised and access their online learning whilst being supervised by skeleton staff.

Or head has been very clear there should be no unnecessary visits.

@Merryoldgoat

I work for an independent school and we’re not to go in unless there is a pressing reason. The KW children will be supervised and access their online learning whilst being supervised by skeleton staff.

Or head has been very clear there should be no unnecessary visits.

Can I ask how you or your colleagues manage with your own children if you are doing lessons from home, if the children are younger eg lower junior age?

@Merryoldgoat

I work for an independent school and we’re not to go in unless there is a pressing reason. The KW children will be supervised and access their online learning whilst being supervised by skeleton staff.

Or head has been very clear there should be no unnecessary visits.

This was just how the school managed in the first lockdown last year. I had expected them to take the same route this time. I do see the point that, with far fewer children in the school the teachers must be "safer" than in a full school but I imagine that 50% of the teachers (or at least, 50% of the teachers' time) will be out of contact with live children there is really no justification for them travelling in to their place of work.

I am not a "critical worker" but my employer doesn't want any of us anywhere near the office unless it is absolutely vital. I can't see why the school is taking effectively the opposite view (i.e. 'come on into work, we can get away with it because you are all "critical workers" even if your actual job could be performed from home at the moment').

The government's headline on this is "You may only leave your home for work if you cannot reasonably work from home" . Well a substantial number of these teachers could reasonably work from home and so surely they should be encouraged to do so, instead of forced to do the opposite?

In the independent school DS attended until August, over a third of the pupils were in during the "closure" because their parents were key workers. Staff had to supervise those in school while providing live lessons to their classes.
They rarely got a day teaching from home.

@W00t

In the independent school DS attended until August, over a third of the pupils were in during the "closure" because their parents were key workers. Staff had to supervise those in school while providing live lessons to their classes. They rarely got a day teaching from home.

Surely "over a third of pupils" being in suggests that "nearly two thirds of pupils" were not in. As a result "nearly two thirds" of the teachers could have worked from home?

In the last lockdown our school covered a number of key worker children but they created some mixed age-group bubbles and supervised them with the minimum number of staff able to give safe ratios. The children then sat in classrooms and logged on to the same virtual lessons as their classmates who were at home (so they all benefitted from the same teaching).

I can't figure out why they think this time they will take almost the opposite approach. Some classes will inevitably only have one or two children in but 100% of the staff will have an exposure to the risk when probably 66% of them could stay safely at home.

It's tricky to remote teach with your own at home but not impossible. I went through each of my kids' Teams first thing and downloaded or printed or whatever what they needed to get them to a point they could do as much as possible without me and they each have a little laptop. When I was actually teaching live I put them next door in the living room and they were v good for the most part. We muddled through.. They are 8 and 10 though, would be different if younger.

Maybe not all staff have adequate WiFi ? We had remote parents evening last time - most staff it was fine, some I noticed were in school (or they favour a very industrial style of decor!) and some were at home but with terrible connectivity. I guess it’s easier to say all staff must come in rather than point out to a handful that they aren’t able to provide adequate online teaching.

What's the real issue? They may as well be teaching from their classroom, with very few pupils in it is way safer.

Well a substantial number of these teachers could reasonably work from home and so surely they should be encouraged to do so, instead of forced to do the opposite?

We are largely doing this at my school. Mostly so that we can have a teacher in a classroom with a very small number of keyworker/vulnerable children.

Last lockdown, not only did we have less uptake for this provision but also we kept different year groups together as per the guidance back then.

This time round, the uptake is much much larger and therefore, we are using as many of the classrooms as we can.

As a result, most of the teachers are needed to supervise this (whilst doing their remote lessons at the same time)

In this case, it is simply not possible to work from home and safely look after these children in school.

As a result "nearly two thirds" of the teachers could have worked from home?
Well no- to allow social distancing, and no mix of bubbles, all classrooms were in use, therefore all teachers needed in.

Sorry, should make it clearer that we are not mixing classes within year groups and also year groups themselves anymore, like we did last lockdown.

I don't see how they can effectively teach remotely and in-person at the same time. Sounds like both groups of children are getting a raw deal. Not to mention the pressure on the teachers.

Maybe that system just works for their school for whatever reason.

The secondary I work in has given staff the option as we have a large space where vulnerable/KW children can be based, supervised by SLT/pastoral staff.

I am teaching from school because my home wifi isn't great, plus, DH and DS are home and it would just be difficult to get peace and quiet to do lessons.

My mam works in a school, they’re expecting every teaching assistant to work their normal hours to supervise key worker children. They’ll open as many classrooms as number of TAs. The idea is instead of having 2 classrooms with 10 children in each there will be 8 classrooms with 2/3 children. It’ll hopefully reduce the spread of virus because fewer people are mixing with better distancing, and mean fewer people need to isolate should there be a positive case.

This is actually illegal as they are perfectly able of WFH

This seems to be quite common. I have just discussed this with eldest DH who is SLT. Apparently, many more key workers are taking up the places than last time, therefore, many more staff on-premises are required.

We’ve been given the choice and tbh, I think I’m going to prefer going in. I won’t disturb my dh who works shifts, I won’t be harassed by the dogs who think they should go out by 11 and bark at deliveries. It makes sense, plus I get company, tech support etc. Being at home doing live lessons would be a trauma. Obviously this isn’t helpful if you have small children at home.

This seems to be quite common. I have just discussed this with eldest DH who is SLT.

How many DHs do you have?!

So sorry, this typo just made me chuckle. Thank you for cheering me up

I don't see how they can effectively teach remotely and in-person at the same time

Many teachers have been doing just that since September.

This is actually easier now (in Secondary) because the children in the room are being individually taught by their actual teacher through Teams and the teacher supervising is teaching their own class through Teams, rather than the supervising teacher teaching both those in school and at home.

Obviously Primary is different.

@OhBaublesBaubles

This is actually illegal as they are perfectly able of WFH

It's not illegal! The guidance says Public sector employees working in essential services, including childcare or education, should continue to go into work. So school based staff should be in school.