I think the children of this generation...

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

Will, in future years, legitimately ask us why we let them down so badly. Why we allowed them/their peers to be left at home for months with abusive/neglectful/drug addicted/alcoholic parents, with no outside contact, no adult help, relief or respite whatsoever. Why some of those children disappeared, never to be seen again, or were so badly hurt as to have years and years of horrendous struggle ahead of them.

It's only now beginning to be talked about, months too late: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52876226

When everyone is talking about 'protecting' children, where is their concern for those children for whom home is a dangerous place? For whom school is their only sanctuary?

Ah, OP, your agenda is showing. This isn't about vulnerable children. This is about getting children back to school and releasing lockdown.

Agree - just own the agenda

And hats off to the UK government ( ) for keeping schools open for vulnerable children and not just key workers

@aridane

And what percentage of vulnerable children have been attending during lockdown? 5?

Several scientists feel it's too early to reopen schools. And in South Korea schools had to be closed again after the R rate rose

couldyoubeanymoreme
I do understand you must be worried about going back.
I've never been off, worked in hub from start with children who can't distance and spread bodily fluids like confetti, but don't let that stop you being condescending. I've never been bothered about having kids in schools I am more bothered about the vocal, get them back to school group, who will hold teachers responsibile for anything that goes wrong.

I'm sure you both realise pretty soon all children will need to return to school. And be in the existing classrooms. With the existing staff.

My class are in 😂😂 however a full class with all staff in my dept can mean up to 6 adults in 1 room with potential for very close support/restraint whilst being spat at, hit, etc. There are no teachers in my school who don't want back, being in school is far easier. It's much better for the kids and us, it's how we are trained to do our jobs, which on the whole most do pretty well. No is refusing, nor are barriers being raised but we, as teachers have a legal responsibility to risk assess, care staff may not be personally responsible for producing risk assessments for every little thing but we are. And we do need risk assessments because we are responsible for underage children and quite rightly are expected to ensure safety for them all.

It will be ok. People who have worked throughout have realised you get used to the new normal very quickly.

The nee norm, has been my norm the whole way through 🤔🥴

Let's start putting children first rather than last. They'll thank us one day!

Totally out of order and the sort of silly statement that will means teachers withdraw, over time, the extra freebies that parents take for granted. Teachers do put kids first, every day. That's why the demand schools are safe for kids, not just now but everyday. It's why they work extra unpaid hours to: support familes, run lunch and after school clubs, take groups out at weekends to events, go on residentials, not run a system that means parenta have to wait a month until they have a time slot for a parent, but resources to ensure the kids don't miss out, provide clothes and food to all the kids who fall through the gaps, suppirt parents and families who are struggling. I can't say all teachers do their bedt or put kids first, those who don't should be out of a job. However most do and care very much, you may put your patients last and expect schools to do tge same but that is not the case with the majority of schools and teachers.

And what percentage of vulnerable children have been attending during lockdown? 5?

If they aren't attending then teachers should have raised it to SS. If a child is abused and not turning up to school when they should, you take action.

I am sure ither children under 'vulnerable' haven't been attending for many reasons. The vast majority if parents keeping their 'vulnerable' (not the ones that are abused buy den, health issues etc) children at home, will have ck tact and discussed it with the school. Thats what responsible parents do.

The fact that the school was there and open for them, gives the teachers a chance of spotting something isnt right or getting worse. Either the abused child attends and the teacher can speak with them in confidence....or the child isn't and it needs reporting to SS.

Most vulnerable children havent attended, arent abused and its bene in the children's best interest, not not attend.

@EachDubh I don't know any body that does their set hours then clocks off! We all do what needs to be done.

I'm not really interested in the long rants posts from some teachers on here. Teachers will have to work as their employers ask them to. Like everyone else.

My only interest is the harm lockdown is doing to children. That concerns me. Hugely.

Will, in future years, legitimately ask us why we let them down so badly. Why we allowed them/their peers to be left at home for months with abusive/neglectful/drug addicted/alcoholic parents,

I wholly agree @TheDailyCarbuncle but it’s got fuck all to do with lockdown or the pandemic and everything to do with the utter erosion of social work and social care systems and the austerity agenda followed by this government that cuts family incomes to the bone.

Social workers don’t get the time to spend supporting families in the way that they did, and case loads are ridiculously high for too many workers - the legislative framework is complex and cumbersome which gets in the way of removing children who really need removed, the foster care system is grossly underfunded as is the wider care system, too often children are subjected to decisions that are resource led rather than needs led.

While lockdown won’t have helped by any means, please don’t think for a second our vulnerable children are well served and frankly no one gives a shit unless it suits their agenda. Rishi Sunaks focus on child sex abuse, while admirable, takes focus away from the levels of adversity faced by people living and raising children in grinding poverty, the lack of practical support for parenting, the utter dearth of mental health services offering long term support fir people who are living with the impact of their childhood trauma.

And poverty is a fucking huge issue, if the stare benefit system was in any way fit for purpose there would have been no need for furlough or self employment schemes because they would have slotted into a well working, well funded welfare system that provided a reasonable income.

By all means want school open etc but it’s pretty tasteless to do so under the guise of being concerned for poor, vulnerable, abused children who wouldn’t otherwise cross your mind.

Most vulnerable children havent attended, arent abused and its bene in the children's best interest, not not attend.

There is a very small minority of children for whom not attending school was in their interests. For all others they were just sacrificed in the interests of adults and wider society.

couldyoubeanymoreme

You are only really interested in your own ideas, which is fine. I however will continue to do my job that my employer asks me, as I have from the day I qualified.

Lots of workers don't do overtime, healthboards here give flexitime or pay for anything over 15 mins, call centers clock in and out council staff all have flexitime, overtime pay for lots of jobs 😒

You are lucky that the people who work with kids daily will continue to do this and to dobtheir best. Schools will all go back and we will keep kids safe. Of course you will know about the massive drive to ensure mental health needs will be met as a priority on return to school. So things are being planned.

Like you, I am not to interested in the moans of those who know little about my job. So with hope that you have a lovely day I will end my discourse with you. Take care and may all our children enjoy their childhoods.

Schools are not open for all vulnerable children. If a child is in a special school in my county, they would not have been able to go to school. That option was not available for them.

Well said @Jellycatspyjamas

There is a very small minority of children for whom not attending school was in their interests

Nope. I am talking about 'vulnerable' children attendinf during school closures. Not children in general or whether schools should not have closed.

Lots of the children classed as vulnerable, are so because they have health issues. So yes, it was in their interest to keep them home.

Lots of children who are 'vulnerable' also have SEN. School gives them routine. But ehen the decision was made to close schools, many children with SEN routines went out of the window.

Some each parent needed to decide. Is their child, who has SEN, better in school in these circumstances.....or better at home. Many chose to keep them home. Which is right for them.

The schools were closed to try and save adult lives. You may see that as sacrificing children, for adults best interests. But the majority of adults, has children in their family. Children would have been impacted, negatively by adult's in their family dying. More would have been.

And remember, the governement had make the decision when we knew very little. Looking back, we may have made different decisions. But that's easy to say now.

@fascinated
@Grasspigeons

Schools have been about the 'whole' child since the 'every child matters' campaign was started. They can implement and carry out upto stage 2 child protection plans. They are often better placed to do that and Supervise the plan. Schools are about the education and welfare of their pupils. The funding situation is shocking and even ic the extra funds are given, we still won't be anywhere near what they were in 2010.

@Lavenderblues
"in South Korea schools had to be closed again after the R rate rose"

The infection route came from local factories. They closed the schools because they went back into lock down, not directly connected to the schools. The schools tested negative. The factory workers were covered in Covid, clothing, shoes, surfaces, floor etc. Schools are open in 22 countries.

@Trevsadick

I wish it was true that if kids are vulnerable and ss thinks they should be in school they have been but it’s not true.

In my professional role I was working with a social worker to support a family really struggling but as the council had closed all special schools we couldn’t get the kid into school despite them being vulnerable and parent social worker and dr all agreeing kid needed to be in school. Nearly ended up with the child in foster care.

But it’s really not all about schools. I’m massively worried about the reduction in health visiting and there being no playgrounds or libraries or youth groups.

The whole thing shows to me how little we value children. Premiership football has restarted, golf is back on non essential retail is due to open but no talk about sure start or youth clubs. Kids have been forgotten.

Much talk about more horrible time’s in the past. Of course this isn’t as bad as living in nazi occupied Europe but most previous global crises have allowed children more freedom not less. Kids were often essentially left to roam free with each other - same with stuff like the 3/7 week in the 1970s kids could still interact with other kids. And schools and normality and routine where important - so many examples of schools being set up in refugees camps, even in concentration camps - this separation of children from each other when we are pack animals is the untried bit and we just don’t know what effects it will have on them

And I’m not just getting on the band wagon now because I want lockdown to end. Child health and well-being is my job and it’s what I do day in and day out. I have always cared and always fought for the kids who are left behind, it’s just now there’s an awful lot more getting left behind.

Also really pissed of with the distance education market that is pressuring the bbc to stop its education programs.

Also, vulnerable, in terms of SEN children under five, is applied very wishy washy. I don't think my friends little boy will ever catch up, he needs the social interaction to be going on around him, for his development and S&L. He soon gets fed up of Something Special type programmes and it isn't quite the same. He has completely regressed. We are starting play dates for him from this week, but he needs to see normal interaction, which he still won't see.

@Nonotthatdr and what do you expect the sheilding mother to do? Risk catching the virus and die?

Because Im pretty certain that your mum dying is more traumatic than a few months in a flat. Obviously itts not an ideal scenario, but neither is a pandemic.

And its not like that mum will be ignoring her child. The child will still get stimulation, they will still learn.

Critical periods are longer than 2 months, they are years long.

And this is going to sound callous and upset people but on a population level the impact of loosing an elderly relative on children should be minimal and cannot be prevented.

(I am very well aware that not all people vulnerable to covid are elderly - but most are which is why I am talking about population level here)

It is natural for children to have experience of a grandparent die as they grow up, we are not immortal, we age and die and that will always happen. Children for all of human history have watched the older adults in their family units die. Hopefully they can witness a healthy grief process and celebration of the persons life.

Death is part of being human, isolating children from human contact is not. I feel strongly that over the last 20-30 years we have forgotten that death is not escapable and this has lead to the situation we are in.

We know children will cope with the death of the grandparents and parents because all children have been coping with this from the dawn of time. Preventing children from Free play, from peer to peer interactions, From touch we’ve got no idea what this is doing to them

@UncleFoster

I don’t know, but I’m not sure that we know that prolonged isolation is better than some risk. Ideally I would think a service where such children were taken out of the house for some time to play and interact by a care provider. We have had lots of services set up for shielding adults but I have not heard of anything for children stuck at home due to sheildinfbadults.

@Devlesko

Do you genuinely think every abused child has been identified and brought to school?

And it's different now because?
Children who attend school regularly died under the noses of the teachers, they have no idea and aren't trained SS as well as being teachers.

It's different now because children used to go to school, where they had contact with adults and peers and now they don't. So what's different, as I keep explaining over and over is that they're now locked in the house with their abusive families 24 hours a day with no contact, possibly from anyone, for months.

I also wonder how many families have gone from managing with support (including school) to not managing.

There are many children not legally looked after but on the margins.
When the tipping point comes for these families, we rely on outside communities and bodies to note the change. Rarely do families self refer.

Is it really the School's job though?

I good friend works in children's safeguarding/child protection. Their referrals have dropped off massively. Its scary when you stop and think about it. Unfortunately some people just don't think child abuse is a priority right now.

@Nonotthatdr but its just just about the effect on children, its about the effect on the whole of society. Its also about the affect on a child of their parent losing both parents in one week for example. Or their parent being hospitilized

The estimated death rate for people in their 50s is 1.3% for example. Thats pretty fucking high. The death rate for people with diabetes in 7%.

Now these figures are probably higher than the actual figures. But its not just a chance of death for the elderly.

If your taking of the attitude of 'death happens' Im assuming if you get cancer you wont want treatment? What about a heart attack? Sepsis?

Is it alroght if you are under 50?

Its natural to want to prevent deaths. Its a few months of a childs life. They arent being prevented from touch ffs. They can still play indoors.

There are children who spend months in hospital, their are children with longterm illnesses who spend an awful lot of their childhood in hospital, who at certain periods of the year cant leave the house. Children have been coping with that too.

If as a child I could have spent 5 months indoors for an extra 15/20 yrs with my grandparents I would.

If as a child I could have spent 5 months indoors for an extra 15/20 yrs with my grandparents I would.

That just shows you have not even a basic grasp of the facts. Older people don't have a near certain chance of death if children are allowed to live their normal lives. Peoples chance of dying in the next year roughly doubles if they catch it. Resorting to exaggeration highlights how weak your argument is.

It’s not just vulnerable children or those with special needs, huge numbers of children receive adequate care but don’t have fantastic parents or the home environments to exist happily during lockdown. Many families rely on public facilities and school to provide a reasonable environment for their children. I think a huge number of children at the margins are suffering from lockdown.

These boards are full of parents running themselves into the ground working and keeping their children stimulated, but don’t think for a second that is the norm. There are many slightly rubbish but perfectly ok (the state standard is pretty bloody low) parents whose children we should also be worried about.