Huffpost - leak on School Guidance

[PatriciaHolm]

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/school-reopening-whole-year-bubbles-full-guidance-covid_uk_5ef9dd4ac5b6ca97091288e4?oo9&guccounter=1

Full document due this week, but some "highlights"...(I use the word advisedly)

• secondary bubbles of up to 240 children (essentially a year group) -No in-class social distancing requirement for primary pupils, with secondary pupils advised to stay 1m apart but not at all times -Teachers advised to keep 2m away from pupils, at the front of the class, and away from colleagues as much as possible as if in a supermarket

• Compulsory engagement with the NHS Test and Trace system, with whole classes or year groups liable to be sent home if a pupil tests positive, but whole school closure not seen as generally necessary

-No face coverings for pupils or teachers, on Public Health England advice, as they “interfere” with teaching and learning -Children seated facing forwards in same direction and not at circular tables, with pupils wearing normal uniform and washing hands throughout the day -Teachers advised to spend no more than 15 minutes at any one time closer than 1m to anyone - Fines of up to £120 for parents whose children fail to attend school. In contrast with the “softly softly” approach taken during full lockdown the message will be “education is not optional”

• Heads told not to put in any staff rota or physical distancing that would require extra space or make it impossible for all pupils to return full-time.

- Contingency plans for some or all of the school being put in local lockdown and any temporary return to “remote” teaching needing to be of a high quality -Some subjects for some or all pupils may have to be suspended for two terms to allow catch-up on core subjects such as English and maths, with a full spread of subjects returning in the summer term of of 2021 -Some pupils may have to drop some GSCEs altogether in Year 11 to allow them to catch up and achieve better grades in English and maths. GCSEs and A-levels to take place as planned next summer but with some “adaptations” - First year pupils at secondary school may have to be re-taught English and maths from their final year syllabus at primary level

But a parent who keeps their child out of school due to the parent's anxiety, as opposed to, for eg. due to shielding as per gov guidance, is denying their child an education. It can't be condoned. The school would be wise to work with the parent to overcome that anxiety but ultimately if the parent refuses to send their children to school that is illegal and they must be fined. A parent pre Covid with mental health issues wasn't allowed to keep their child off school to appease their own anxiety. This must be the case now, because otherwise the children will suffer in order to appease the adult. That is completely unethical and against all safeguarding principles.

@SirSamuelVimesBlackboardMonito

Yes, absolutely the school needs to work with parents and a child shouldn't miss school due to a parent's anxiety. However, I think a sensitive approach is possible without 'condoning' keeping a child off. Is anything other than being actively punitive, through fines for absences, seen as condoning this?

I guess it would depend on the parent's willingness to engage. If they were doing nothing but repeated wailings of "but it isn't safe!!" while rebuffing any attempt by the school to show them otherwise, then I guess the school would be left with little choice but to go down the fine route. The school would be remiss in its duty to provide education to the child if not.

But a parent who keeps their child out of school due to the parent's anxiety, as opposed to, for eg. due to shielding as per gov guidance, is denying their child an education

What about if it's the child who's anxious and who's saying 'why are they doing all these infection control measures literally everywhere else in the world, and WHO and CDC and all the top doctors recommend it, and we're doing NOTHING?'. I know a lot of children who are anxious about going back.

How can any teacher, with a straight face say 'all the measures that are sensible to reduce risk are in place?'. If all they're proposing is handwashing, and we know how well that worked out for Boris. Kids aren't stupid.

If they were doing nothing but repeated wailings of "but it isn't safe!!" while rebuffing any attempt by the school to show them otherwise,

Errrmmm, how can schools rebuff the claim "it isn't safe"?

I would guess showing them the infection rates would be a good start. And the stats that show their child is more likely to die from the journey to school than being at school.

And the stats that show their child is more likely to die from the journey to school than being at school.

Unlikely if the children walk around the corner to school. People assess their individual risks and are usually quite good at it.

Statistics across the whole country aren't especially helpful (as is the 'more likely to die from the journey to school'). That is actual government gaslighting, trying to confound one risk with another and confusing people out of asking the pertinent question which is - what reasonable measures have you taken to reduce risk?

We - as a country - do a lot to try and minimise and prevent road traffic accidents e.g. ban on drink driving, ban on mobile phones being used while driving, road signs, traffic lights. Millions and millions spent on it. If they were showing a similar level of effort reducing avoidable covid transmission in schools then yes, the argument 'you can't eradicate all risk' would be more persuasive. But they've spent bugger all - no increased budget for schools and test and trace not working.

Instead, they're pretty much saying 'the benefits of going to school outweigh the risks' while removing all road markings and telling all 18 year old boys who have a lust for racing there is no speed limit during the school run and they won't be penalised for drunk driving.

@SirSamuelVimesBlackboardMonito

I would guess showing them the infection rates would be a good start. And the stats that show their child is more likely to die from the journey to school than being at school.

Utter nonsense though.

For a start off some children or families will be more vulnerable than others. Secondly, the risk of being injured on the way to school is still there but then this is additional risk. Thirdly, what data will you be showing? We don't have data for schools at full occupancy do we?

It is about whether it's avoidable risk or not.

There are so many relatively easy things they can do to reduce risk that they're not doing.

Heads may be happy to fine for holidays but not many want to fine worried families.

Why do posters till believe that heads fine parents.

Heads have never fined parents.

LEAs fine parents.

FFS

Fripp the headteacher makes the decision to refer the case to the LA to fine.

SirSamuelVimesBlackboardMonito

Heads have been told by the LEA to not authorise absences.

So the buck still stops with the LEA.

The government has ratified this by making attendance in September compulsory.

So nothing to do with the heads and everything to do with the LEA and the government.

So 1m plus is mandatory but not in schools

PPE is essential for workers where social distance can’t be maintained but not in schools

Children do need an education but not at the expense of their educators

@SirSamuelVimesBlackboardMonito

But a parent who keeps their child out of school due to the parent's anxiety, as opposed to, for eg. due to shielding as per gov guidance, is denying their child an education. It can't be condoned. The school would be wise to work with the parent to overcome that anxiety but ultimately if the parent refuses to send their children to school that is illegal and they must be fined. A parent pre Covid with mental health issues wasn't allowed to keep their child off school to appease their own anxiety. This must be the case now, because otherwise the children will suffer in order to appease the adult. That is completely unethical and against all safeguarding principles.

"it can't be condoned" - other popular titles include 'something must be done' and 'we have to take a stand'.

A minority of parents will be unkeen to send their children back, for reasons such as:
Child has health condition
Child feels anxious
Family member has health condition/in high risk group
Parent disagrees with guidance/school arrangements
Family is aware of elevated cases in the area

None of these have anything to do with a parent's mental health. They are all understandable concerns at this time.

Even children who have been advised to shield themselves will be expected back in school or will be fined/ need to be withdrawn from school.

Would you personally feel happy recommending a fine for a family where the child has a known immune condition or similar? Or where a relative had died of covid and the family were concerned? It's a batshit and counter-productive approach.

No of course not chancechancechance but then I am not a head teacher being told to fine anyone who doesn't attend school. It is totally crazy and if there are families out there who are willing to have their dc home for another few months then there will be fewer dc in school and so easier to socially distance. But the government don't have a good track record on sane and sensible decisions.

Sorry if I jumped down your throat.

There is a total deliberate refusal on the part of the govt to accept the complexities of this covid situation, it is really getting to me!

No worries, I personally think that at least until Christmas and maybe longer depending on what happens it should be possible to be dual registered for Oak Academy and a mainstream school with a agreement that for 2021 results from a child who has not been in school from March to Dec 2020 can be disregarded from school statistics. It give parents the choice without losing a space, it gives school the opt out that they don't have to catch the child up for SATs/GCSE/A levels, classes will be slightly smaller and it means that the government is making learning available to all with parents having the agency to make decisions. Those decisions might be different depending on the age of the child so for a 5yr old the balance might fall in favour of staying at home but for a 15yr old in favour of going to school.

Where there is a debate about what is best for the child either from a school perspective (if they feel a child is vulnerable) or from two divorced parents for example, a panel of maybe retired teachers, doctors and social workers (to save clogging up courts) can make judgements based on the evidence available. Making a child go to school who is immune compromised is just crazy.

Unfortunately the presenteeism of recent years is once again reasserting control over the schools.

I also think that teachers who have been shielding should be given the option of working at home for Oak Academy, teaching the children who are also at home with schools subsidised to employ long term supply teachers. This though is probably going too far for MN! I don't work in schools by the way, my employer has said wfh no f2f for work until at least Jan 2021. My dc will be back in school for my their sanity but then they have no known health conditions and if someone would only lock away the chocolate neither would I!

I think also there is a bond of trust between govt and citizen - we have to trust that the govt is doing its best and is normally competent.

A very large number of people do not believe that, and for very good reasons, when it comes to CV.

We need to be able to pull together to get everything going forwards. Starting a devisive fight with worried families is not the right approach as a country.

I wish our government wanted to govern, instead of just starting culture wars all the time.

I don’t think anyone is trusting the government. They lie, omit, discard independent science for their own made up shite.

TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince

The problem is that people fall for it every-time.

I agree chance, the gov have created this mess with their uselessness.
If we looked like germany with their deaths. Their organisation. Their allowing masks. Sharp actions for lockdowns.
No we have a PM who caught it!
Thousands dead.
An nhs who said to keep away (die at home).
And get back to school oh whilst we have to juat shut these other schools who were spreading it.
And we wont close the bubbles till 2 cases?

It is not health anxiety.

Anyway worst case scenario is lot of people home schooling. As that will result in worse outcomes for the kids as the parents feel forced imto it rather than choosing it.

People saying the risk of catching it is low clearly didnt follow how quickly it spread in march. We should have locked down 2w after half term (according to the scientists, but waited another 2. So 4w of normal school caused 40k deaths. (And obviously the workers commuting). And that only started with peoppe returning from skiing. Not where we are with already much higher levels of infection.

I also think, that if they open the schools in this way, there will be so many cases within schools, that they will have to close them by 1/2 term