Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

What would you actually like the government to do on schools.

585 replies

StatisticalSense · 09/06/2020 20:53

The demands on this site with regards to schooling are simply incompatible. Schools physically do not have the room or staff to reopen to their normal numbers of pupils with any form of social distancing in place, so it clearly isn't possible to get all kids back to school full time with social distancing in place.
What exactly would you like the government to be doing on schools that is actually feasible?

OP posts:
LockdownLou · 10/06/2020 11:39

@goldpendant

I agree. It won’t be perfect but anything will be better than the current shit show.

Iknewyouwerewaitingforme · 10/06/2020 11:42

Back to normal, no social distancing.

luckylavender · 10/06/2020 11:52

@Springhere - you may like the Welsh approach but believe me it's impossible for working parents. Especially as siblings will not be going in at the same time & as Wales is in a much stricter lockdown, childcare is impossible. Plus you can only travel 5 miles.

YeOldeTrout · 10/06/2020 11:57

"not because they'd missed a few weeks at school"

So far 12yo DS is on schedule for missing 18 weeks of F2F education. Does 18 = few? How many weeks of school for one child equates to being worse than one death, maybe 180? So it's preferable that DS has no more schooling again before he's 16, then (I guess).

BackInTime · 10/06/2020 12:01

As long as numbers stay on a downward trend- reopen fully in September and put measures in place for children and families that need to continue to shield. I would also like to see some catch up learning throughout the summer holidays for those taking exams next year.

timeforawine · 10/06/2020 12:04

Open now to at least all in primary and the start and end of secondary and accept they cannot distance in school, teachers can keep their distance as much as possible if needed. Ideally have PPE for any individual who wants it
If needed lunches in classrooms and stagger breaks, dedicated cleaner in toilets to sanitise after each use
Alcohol gel by each room door for use before entering and before leaving

RedCatBlueCat · 10/06/2020 12:05

For me, face to face contact is the most important.
In order for that to happen, we either need to scrap social distancing in schools (dont think the unions will go for this), double the number of classrooms and teachers (I'd rather have less hours with a qualified teacher than FT with someone who has done some internet courses over the next 12 weeks and decreed fit to teach, and the classrooms areca big problem), or go to PT schooling.
It probably needs to be the latter, but then as a household we are not facing a drop in income (I havnt managed to get a job in a year of looking) and also have no childcare issues for the same reason.

Moving to properly funded and organised (and marked - my kids havnt had a single piece of work marked by a teacher since remote learning started) doesnt solve the issue of households where electronics or broadband are not available in suffucient quantites for the households current needs. These kids need to be in school NOW.

MNnicknameforCVthreads · 10/06/2020 12:05

@HipTightOnions can you explain the difference in death rate and risk then?

Surely if the death rate is 1 in 3.5m then the rush of dying from it is also similar? Or are you saying “the risk” encompasses other risks like passing it on to someone else who may die?

Have you looked at “the risk” of the average car journey? Of winning the lottery? Of being at home with an abusive family member? Or not getting an adequate education? Of being struck by lightning (see today’s headlines)? Of living in poverty?

Stressedmummyof4 · 10/06/2020 12:18

I'm very interested to know why so many are calling for schools to reopen with no social distancing? Not having a pop I'm just genuinely interested to know.

At the beginning we were told that children were the biggest carriers although no real symptoms generally. Has this all changed now?

I have obviously missed something but I honestly thought it would have been hard to know this wasn't still the case given children haven't been included in much of the testing until recently unless they were ill enough to be in hospital.

I'm genuinely interested to know what's changed. I have missed a lot of news etc as have a very anxious young lady at home so I avoid news being on in the house she was becoming unwell with worry.

Bollss · 10/06/2020 12:20

At the beginning we were told that children were the biggest carriers although no real symptoms generally. Has this all changed now?

Yes. Lots of studies with evidence to the contrary now.

HesterShaw1 · 10/06/2020 12:20

Has this all changed now?

At the start, everything was new and we didn't know enough. We know a lot more now, though we might not understand why. And it has become clear that the harm of lockdown for children is very much worse than the tiny risk of harm from Covid.

HipTightOnions · 10/06/2020 12:21

The “death rate” isn’t explained in the newspaper article but is presumably based on the number of children who have died during lockdown. That’s not the same as the risk if the virus is allowed to spread without control in a population.

I agree that the risk to children is small, but if people are going to quote “statistics” they should use them accurately.

EmpressoftheMundane · 10/06/2020 12:24

There are experts saying that kids aren’t getting this or spreading this. Given that the risk to children and even teachers under 60 is so low, the Covid risks to children just do not outweigh the harm to them socially, emotionally and academically by keeping schools hobbled.

Life has never been 100% risk free. The flu is actually a greater risk to this group statistically, but we don’t close schools every winter.

Put another way:
“Ships are safe in the harbour, but that is not what ships are for.” Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

Stressedmummyof4 · 10/06/2020 12:25

I always understood that the risk to children catching cv19 was minimal but I thought I was around them passing it on to adults and vulnerable people? I'm all for schools going back my kiddies are also really missing their friends but I was supporting the social distancing and part time rota just now.

Hadenoughfornow · 10/06/2020 12:28

At the beginning we were told that children were the biggest carriers although no real symptoms generally. Has this all changed now?

Was this ever believed to be the case scientifically?

It was an assumption made by many but never backed up by evidence as far as I am aware

EmpressoftheMundane · 10/06/2020 12:34

Government listened to Neil Ferguson at Imperial rather than Sunetra Gupta at Oxford.

It’s unfolding as she has predicted and Neil’s predictions have been in line with his foot and mouth predictions which in retrospect appear to have been off the mark resulting in more harm to farmers and live stock than necessary. Given his track record, not sure why he was seen as more credible.

ghogday · 10/06/2020 12:39

some schools have space for portakabins, many schools don't, some schools will be able to recruit extra TAs and teachers, many schools won't, rightly or wrongly many private schools could open further now, but can't...

imo finding a best fit is near impossible - we risk creating further inequity introducing measures or 'creative solutions' that are harder or near impossible to implement in the schools that need support the most.

Return for all, support the extremely clinically vulnerable. I'm going back in to school, at 'increased risk', and like many of my colleagues, feel on balance I can take sensible enough precautions, not 100% safe but enough not to let a generation of pupils down.

Bollss · 10/06/2020 12:55

@HipTightOnions

A childs chance of dying from corona virus (as in when they have already got it) remains exactly the same in lockdown or out of it.

They might have a higher chance of catching it out of lockdown, but they dont have a higher chance of dying from it

IndecisiveMama · 10/06/2020 12:57

Back to school with no social distancing but with attendance optional (health impact on kids is negligible). There will be fewer teachers (as some are vulnerable) so employ university leavers as TAs whilst the vulnerable teach remotely. Give teachers PPE. Whatever it takes to get the kids back into full time education.

HipTightOnions · 10/06/2020 13:01

TrustTheGeneGenie I don’t think that’s what the figure is claiming to mean though. Have 3.5 million children caught it?

Microwaveoven · 10/06/2020 13:03

Every school pupil back to school. No social distancing. Just get on with it.

I now have 2 at school and 1 at home and the 2 at home are happy and the 1 at home is suffering.

Microwaveoven · 10/06/2020 13:04
  • school, obviously!!
Bollss · 10/06/2020 13:06

@HipTightOnions

TrustTheGeneGenie I don’t think that’s what the figure is claiming to mean though. Have 3.5 million children caught it?
what do you mean?

a 1 in 3.5 million chance of dying from corona has nothing to do with how many children has caught it?

Kljnmw3459 · 10/06/2020 13:07

Welsh approach or just open fully with no social distancing but offer supported blended remote learning for those kids who can't attend. I'll admit I'm not an epidemiologist and not in a vulnerable group....

HipTightOnions · 10/06/2020 13:12

a 1 in 3.5 million chance of dying from corona

I mean, how was this figure derived?