So who will be returning their children to school in June?

[Bigfishylittlefishy]

Just that really. Parents of reception, year 1 and year 6, IF schools return on the 1st of June, will you send your child in?

My son is in reception and I would be willing to send him in.

@MonkeyToesOfDoom @CleanUpWoman

I can tell you that having 3 hours a day childcare would be great for me as a part time working woman. I would usually do 25-30 hours over the course of 3 days but if I had 15 hours over a week then it would be much easier to make up the other 15 in evenings and weekends

If you are currently trying to work from home with a small child it is a disaster and I would take any childcare I could. It is far far better than nothing.

Parents that have to go back to work and rely on grandparents doing pick ups or drop offs, how is it going to work if you can't mix with another household? Quite a few grandparents do this at grandaughters nursery and school. Some I imagine won't have a partner at home.

Yes, I agree. The vast majority of parents should be trusted to make the best decision for their own children. But that needs to be an informed decision based on what children will be expected to return to and there seems to be vastly different scenarios being suggested by different people at the moment.

I am currently trying to work from home with a small child and I'm a single parent. I get it.

I'm not suggesting schools shouldn't go back at all. Quite the opposite. I'm all for it. But reception children are too young to put this on. Right now I mean. Certainly not when schools are testing the waters to find out the best way to implement it.

Years 4, 5 and 6 would have been far, far better.

"Where settings can keep children and young people in those small groups 2 metres away from each other, they should do so. While in general groups should be kept apart"

From government guidelines. Even this, sitting far away from their friends they haven't seen in 7 weeks. What a head fuck is that for a 4 year old?

I think the overwhelming majority of parents care deeply about their children. I'd never suggest otherwise.

I'd never suggest otherwise

Maybe you wouldn't but plenty are.

Well, they are cunts, I think we can agree on that, at least.

It says where settings can. But it's does also say in the guidelines that this won't always be possible. Such as with reception children.

We certainly can

It won't be possible at all, unless you are on at the children constantly.
Then what's the point in anyone else socially distancing?

Well I'm not a scientist. But I think the idea is that you stick to your 'bubble' of 15.

There's obviously far less risk when you're exposed to 15 people then there is being exposed to 200.

So that 15 use the same toys, play together, gave the same teacher.

Then what's the point in anyone else socially distancing

Ahhhh. So you don't get it.

The point is that there are many measures we can take to keep the R below 1.

So we could potentially have kids at school, but carry on queueing outside Asda and washing out hands like mad things and keep the R at say 0.9

If adults stop social distancing it might go up over 1 and then it becomes a problem.

I have said it before and I will say it again. It's not all or nothing.

If those 15 are only exposed to each other. It breaks the chain of transmission.

Whereas before, children and teachers would potentially be exposed to the entire school, through playtimes, assemblies and so on.

Not EVERYONE in society is socially distancing.

For example the bin men share lorries (I'm not comparing bin men to teachers either btw). But they don't mix up who shares vans. It limits the amount of people you are exposed to.

I think the government have drummed social distancing into us a little too well. There are times when it won't be possible.

I do 'get it.

I just think reception is the wrong age group to go in. Why send them in when older children are much more equipped to deal with social distancing and perhaps able keep the R lower still?

I really dont think this snippy tone is necessary. Everyone is stressed. I'm simply putting forward my views in a measured way.

Exactly trustthegenie

You clearly get it.

It's all about keeping the r below one.

You clearly don't get it if you can't understand why 15 children might not be able to be in a group together but why adults should still social distance.

We cannot stop educating small children. Whether now or September it will still be a risk.

It's the age. Nothing more.

The opportunity to get children in school and help the workforce while trying to keep the R number low is wasted on small children.
Older children will cope MUCH better and be able observe hygienic practices far easier than 4 year olds.

Cleanupwoman no one is being snippy.

You won't be expected to keep the reception children apart.

The older children may need to be kept apart.

We will still queue to get into Asda.

The r will stay below 1

Oh my god.
IT'S THE AGE THAT IS THE WRONG DECISION.
If schools can only cope with 3 year groups right now then reception and year 2 should not be those groups.

They have decided the youngest should go back first because they are at a crucial age in development.

Jenny Harries explained this in the briefing today.

I disagree. As a reception teacher of over 10 years.

As do all of my EYFS colleagues without exception.

Please don't shout at me. I didn't make the decision.

It's not wasted because it's been decided that the youngest children need priority at a crucial time in their development.

The r will hopefully stay below 1 even with 15 reception children mixing, providing that everyone adheres to guidelines.

They have decided the youngest should go back first because they are at a crucial age in development.

But do you think their developmental needs will be met if the distancing measures employed look like those in France, seen above?

In that case you might want to offer yourself up to the government as you obviously have information they don't.