KW families means both parents

[Showers3]

AIBU to think if you’re going to take a KW place at a school, either you should be a KW who is a single parent or both parents should be KWs?

Sorry - just saw there’s already a thread for this!

No,absolutely not.it’s a case by case basis.Not all keywokers have a kw partner
Why do you think this?why dud you start the thread?

Nope. That's not the rule.

Not the rule.

I personally think it should but that is not the rule.

If you think this you are obviously not a critical keyworker and haven't a clue about different circumstances!
Nurses often earn less than their partners. The partner may not be a keyworker but may be working flat out in a high powered job and unable to care for the children. Guess which wage pays the mortgage!
So does the nurse risk her children being neglected and not getting a education whilst she risks her life working face to face with patients, she can't really concentrate on her work and still her children suffer for her efforts or does she quit work and be a good mother then the NHS looses out or perhaps she takes the school place and can concentrate on her job and actually do something that helps society?????
Not all jobs can conviently be done early morning or late at night!
If you do not work on a front line job do not comment on this subject.

If it's not the rule it should be. We need as few children in school as possible to keep interaction low, slow the spread and get case numbers down. If there's a parent at home who either doesn't work or is furloughed it's monumentally selfish to take a KW place.

It is the rule at my DS's school in Wales.

@Muminho what about where two parents work, one of which is a key worker?

Actually, I am a KW. My partner isn’t. I earn more than my partner. We thought it would be against the spirit of the offer to take the places (despite how bloody hard it is to juggle our childcare and homeschooling with both of us trying to also work). I also thought it would be a kick in the teeth to all the other parents out there is the same position as us but don’t have a KW parent. Had we both been KWs then yes, we would have considered it.

YABU - I am a key worker, DH is not. We did not take up a place last time, which resulted in us working around each other and as I work shifts (and a 68 hour week), meant me doing childcare for a 10mo and 4yo when I should have been sleeping. It massively impacted on our health and on DS.

This time we have been offered a place and taken it.

Since key workers are often the lower paid in a couple, they may be tempted to give up their job, if the alternative was that the higher paid partner would have to go on unpaid leave.

Not saying it’s ethically right to take up the space but that is possibly the reasoning behind it. My brother and sil were in this position in March.

Makes less sense this lockdown (compared with March) as nurseries are open this time. So most high paid non-key workers (the partners) will be able to wfh without the kids needing to go to school.

(Our school are saying they need both parents to be KWs, although apparently this is against the guidelines/law.)

What is the point of all these judgey threads?
If you have an issue with the rules, take them up with your Mp’s and have the government firstly review what they deem ‘critical’ workers? Secondly review whether both parents should be ‘critical’ workers. My exh and I are divorced and I do the bulk of childcare during the school week. His job is completely irrelevant. So should I not take the place my child can have?

If some of you are critical workers and have decided not to take the place, good for you.
But don’t be hating on others who have. It’s happening per the govn guidelines.

It's the rule where I am. Currently, it means I will need to leave my kids home, under the care of my teenager, and pray they do some school work. Their education will suffer so we can put a roof over their heads. I am putting my youngest to a tutor one afternoon a week, who is doing small group lessons (under 11's so don't need to social distance here), it's all I can realistically afford.

The very real problem, is that work places are open and need staff. Not everyone can work at home. We are both needed at our work places. Sadly, not the only one in this position.

No,absolutely not.it’s a case by case basis.

I agree.

Do 2 wfh IT support staff need a place more than 1 hospital doctor & non key worker both out of the home?

In Scotland both have to be KW (or a single KW parent) and not be working from home. We are in the horrible situation where I am a key worker who can do some work from home but am expected to be in the office 3 days a week while my DH is not a key worker and is still expected to work but cannot work from home (manual outdoor job) and earns more than me by quite a bit. We are using up annual leave since we can't get a KW place for either of our kids which is particularly annoying for our toddler as his private nursery is still open and we would be paying full rate as normal since he is too young for a funded place but they won't take him because of the council rules.

what @sassbott said

Try telling that to my friends two year old who screamed her house down because she wouldn't settle for daddy while Mummy had the door shut to the living room while she presented at a child protection conference.

For ANY parent, having a child at home compromises their ability to work. The difference between KW and non KW jobs isn't that one job is better than or harder than the other. Its that the govt don't want public services to be compromised any more than they already are. They're prepared for commerce to take a hit (to an extent)

The difference between KW and non KW jobs isn't that one job is better than or harder than the other. Its that the govt don't want public services to be compromised any more than they already are. They're prepared for commerce to take a hit (to an extent)

Absolutely, so confused why people don't get it. These are the new furlough are scroungers threads. I had no issue with furlough, it's about the bigger picture.

Your husband isn’t a key worker , you have decided not to take a place, let others make their own decision. You don’t get a crown for not taking a place that you are entitled to use.

Had we both been KWs then yes, we would have considered it.

This confuses me, you don’t NEED a place so why take a place? Regardless of you both being kw or not if you can manage at home (which you are doing) that discounts you straight away!

My children have 3 keyworker parents (1 step). We don’t NEED a place despite being offered one, yes it’s going to be bloody hard, yes it’s going to be frustrating, but the last thing the teachers and kids need is my covid ridden little snowflakes in there, although they are probably super immune from already having it but I’m still not prepared to send them when we can (just) manage

We are barely managing - 2 school age under 8. But we are. Just like all the other thousands of parents not entitled to school spaces - including people who can’t be furloughed or get financial support.

You can think what you like but that’s not the rule in England

@rolliy it’s because unless you work in network infrastructure/ or cyber / or dev ops/ or general cloud/ tech - you don’t actually have an understanding of just how ‘critical’ roles are. Don’t want to get hacked? Well your IT security people need to work. Want to shop online and not have the Ocado app crash? Well it needs a huge app rebuild onto a scalable architecture - that requires huge amounts of ‘critical’ work. Everyone wants wifi to keep working? The NOC’s / engineers need to work. And that’s just one sector.

There is far more ‘key’, than just nhs/ police/ teachers. Critical utilities are the backbone of companies and those people need to keep working.

Yes. I can think what I like.

I have actually taken something from the posters who commented on the lower incomes though for most KWs. I thought they were sensible points.