To resent parents who are still sending their kids to school on Monday

[letmeinthroughyourwindow]

Not the genuine cases, obviously.

But I'm a teacher and we will be opening for the duration because 40% of our pupils have at least one parent who is a keyworker.

Before the list was released, the government told us to expect 10% and we planned accordingly. In fact, we planned for 20%.

When the list was released, it was so broad that far more parents than we ever expected fell into one of the categories.

Now, if your need is genuine then of course I want to care for your child. I'm happy to do it, and proud that doing so keeps you working.

But we have so many parents who are allowed to send their child to school, but shouldn't be, that it's infuriating me.

If you are a keyworker but your partner is a stay-at-home parent should you be sending them in?

If you are a keyworker but your partner works from home or is allowed to work from home indefinitely, should you be sending them in?

My sister's employer is allowing all employees who are parents to work from home on full pay, but many are saying that they don't need to, because their partner is a keyworker so their kids can still go to school

Just because you can send them, doesn't mean you should. It shouldn't be the best or easiest option for you, it should be a last resort if there is nowhere else to keep them safe.

The number one, most critical piece of advice for keyworker parents is, 'if it is at all possible for children to be kept at home then they should be.'

Please don't think I'm lazy and cba babysitting these children. I cried when my class went home yesterday, and care about every child in school. If I am in work full time anyway, then it really doesn't matter how many children are in the classroom.

But so many people don't understand social distancing. They are walking around like they are immortal, or only thinking that they themselves will probably be ok if they get it. For social distancing to have the desired effect, then everyone who can be at home, should be. If there was a chance of your child dying from this, would you send them to school? Well then think about who might die because they came into contact with your child.

And all of this brought on by a friend who called me last night to say that she is thrilled to be able to send her child to school on Monday because she is a deliveroo driver, even though her unemployed bf will be home all day on the PlayStation.

@Underhisi "their child being violent and impossible to manage." Don't worry love you wouldn't last 5 minutes.

What wouldn't I 'last 5 minutes' at, @Underhisi?

patience ffs

My colleagues are sending children into school as apparently we are key workers , i work for Greggs most of us thought we would be shut down but nope.

@LaurieMarlow @LondonJax @PertEllaTitsahoy
My OH can do his 39hrs whenever. Doesn't get away from the fact that I work 10hr days and get home at 5.30. He would have the baby all day then do an 8hr stint into the early hours, then get up at 6 again with the baby? It's just not going to work. Must be nice to have the option to keep them at home but we can't afford to take 12 weeks unpaid leave! You think we haven't thought of everything? The baby's basic needs come first and they won't be met sufficiently without going into nursery. I am a key worker so chances are I will be exposed just as much as the baby will!

Unless you have a similar child or work professionally with children of that level of need ( we are talking non verbal teenager with the understanding of a toddler who attacks you repeatedly without warning when distressed) you would get very hurt very quickly. You also would put the child at risk because you wouldn't understand them.

My colleagues are sending children into school as apparently we are key workers , i work for Greggs

Very important job that, front line in the fight against Covid-19. We built our cities on vegan sausage rolls.

All humour aside, this shows what a joke the keyworker list is. I hope your colleagues schools are strict on who they allow in, or else closing schools will have been pointless.

Vets dont have to work 9-3 though.

Well I am glad my vet was working those hours (actually it was more like 8:30 - 19:00) when my dog was rushed in for emergency surgery. We haven't come to the situation when animals have to be left in to die horribly in pain.

You think we haven't thought of everything?

Do you think your situation is somehow unique?

Let me tell you it isn’t. Like I say, my whole country is dealing with this right now. I have a friend with a baby the same age as you and three older children she’s supposed to be homeschooling. She works crazy hours for a multinational. Her DH is a doctor. He’s pretty busy right now.

Your DH will be working into the night and in the early hours. He’ll be working weekends. He’ll be snatching an email here and there when the baby naps. He’ll be jiggling a baby while on conference calls. The quality of his work will go down.

We’ve been doing this a week. We’re exhausted.

But this the new reality. Get fucking used to it. I doubt your nursery will be open for long.

Fullmoon28 so he cant stretch his hours and do some at the weekend? And are you confirming that his employer is giving absolutely no leeway in his working hours at all? Is he required to sit at a computer for the full 8 hours working solidly?

As I said earlier, I've a 1 year old no longer going to nursery so I get that it's tough, but I seem I work for one of the few employers who are actually willing to make concessions for the situation

@Underhisi Unless you have a similar child or work professionally with children of that level of need ( we are talking non verbal teenager with the understanding of a toddler who attacks you repeatedly without warning when distressed) you would get very hurt very quickly. You also would put the child at risk because you wouldn't understand them.

I worked for two years in a nursery for children with special educational or social needs run by the council. So I think I'd probably last just fine; thanks for your condescending and ignorant comment.

It was really the idea that while my husband and I are trying to manage working from home and looking after our own children at the same time, we should ALSO for some reason offer childcare to people who either aren't working or who think that their own 'corporate conference calls' are SO much more important than any job anyone else is doing.

Really the definition of entitlement.

We haven't come to the situation when animals have to be left in to die horribly in pain

No, but they are generally on call for emergency situations anyway, are they not? Or do they only deal emergencies that happen within certain times?

Patricia if that’s true then said child needs removing from their fuckwit parents, not sent into school to spread infections around.

The more people try to make out they should be the exception, the longer we will have to do this for.

God forbid how you'll cope if we do go into full lockdown, which will be the end result if we dont get our shit together now.

You think working with toddlers means you understand the needs of profoundly disabled teenagers. Did you learn how to handle a teenager grabbing you by the hair and try to drag you around the room whilst trying to bite your face? I doubt it.

Who was that aimed at under?

The more people try to make out they should be the exception, the longer we will have to do this for.

EXACTLY

@Fullmoon28 - my DS isn't home through my choice. He has a heart condition so he's on the 'at risk' through an underlying condition list. However, I'm working in a school (as I said upthread) and I'll be expected to go in next week to look after all the children of key workers. Which is fine. The NHS saved his life - I owe them. My supermarket is keeping us fed - I owe them. However, some of those people will have a partner who is working from home. So I bring home everything that those kids bring in from their key worker parent because the other parent can't or won't step up to the mark to keep their child safe and my one safe - but it's OK for me to step up to the mark and look after their child?

And, as @LaurieMarlow said - do you really think nurseries and schools can carry this on for long? We lost 25 staff to self isolation for two weeks, last week. How many do you think we'll lose next week? They are dropping like flies. We've got 200 staff in our school (including caretakers etc). At this rate we'll be a quarter of staff down before the first lot are out of isolation. That's not counting the ones who are now going to be off because they're an at risk person - diabetic, asthmatic etc.

And if the lockdown comes with more places shutting, more people going on the 'now at risk' list - so extending age groups, extending underlying conditions, those teachers, like NHS workers et al will have to make stark choices as to job or family health. At that point your DH may not have a choice.

Must be nice to have the option to keep them at home but we can't afford to take 12 weeks unpaid leave!

No one can

@Underhisi You think working with toddlers means you understand the needs of profoundly disabled teenagers. Did you learn how to handle a teenager grabbing you by the hair and try to drag you around the room whilst trying to bite your face? I doubt it.

You seem completely obsessed with this one example and refusing to actually address any of the questions asked.

Could you explain why you think I should offer free childcare to the people on this thread that I've enumerated and outlined, in detail, who apparently won't look after their own children because they're working from home and making 'important calls' - when I'm already working from home and having to make my own work fit around the needs of my own children?

Or the woman who won't look after her own toddler because she's pregnant and tired?

Or the man who prefers to go on his playstation?

Or indeed, anyone at all?

Must be nice to have the option to keep them at home

You understand that the reason people are being told to stay at home is to stop the spread of a virus that will kill tens of thousands of people in the UK? More if we don’t get a handle on the spread?

YANBU OP

I know someone who’s managed to get her boss to class her as a key worker just so she can send one child to school.

She’s going to be WFH

Dawnofanewmillenium the poster who thinks working with toddlers ( even ones with sn) is the same as looking after teenagers with severe learning disabilities and challenging behaviour. Teenagers who go to independent specialist schools and are on £100000 a year EHC Plans and who every time you see the disability social worker they ask if you still want them at home. Teenagers who no member of staff is allowed to work with unless they have training in breakaway and holding techniques.

Yes some people are taking the piss but I am sick of everyone with a disabled child being tarred with the same brush.

"You seem completely obsessed with this one example and refusing to actually address any of the questions asked."

Because it was a wrong example. I'm not interested in the others and have no interest in you helping anyone.

Let’s do the figures:

School A- lots of kids in because parents who are ‘key workers’ with a parent actually at home insist.

One infected child in a densely packed group= 300 associated infections after 30 days. If more than one child in school infected expect 600 or 1200 infections in that local community, including 3% fatality.

Best case scenario= 9 additional deaths

Worst case scenario= 36 additional deaths.

School B is sparsely packed. Parents only used when needed. Social distancing achieved. One infected child infects two and a half other children.

One infection= 30 additional infections 30 days later. Or 60 or 90 if more infected students.

Best case scenario= 1 additional death in the community.

Worst case= 3 additional deaths in the community.

STAY AWAY. SAVE LIVES

Patricia if that’s true then said child needs removing from their fuckwit parents, not sent into school to spread infections around.

I completely agree. That's what should happen... only it doesn't. The threshold for removing children is ridiculously high, and hinges on evidence which is often only the visible tip of an iceberg.