Schools Reopening?

[ClimbDad]

A major, peer reviewed study into transmission in South Korea has established that tweens and teenagers spread the SARSCOV2 virus more than any other age group.

The study involved more than 65,000 people and used South Korea’s exceptionally effective contact tracing system to look at who brought the virus into households. Tweens and teenagers were the highest index case age group. Younger children transmitted at the same rate as 20-somethings.

This is a large scale, rigorous piece of research that proves children are effective at transmitting the virus. It was conducted in a country that implements strict social distancing and mask wearing among children. The authors say the rate of transmission would have been higher if children weren’t subjected to those measures.

Plans to reopen schools more or less as normal in September will place many lives at risk, and increase the likelihood schools will have to close again. The government needs to acknowledge schools will be highly efficient vectors of viral transmission and change its reopening plans.

Published Paper:
wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

Article on the paper:

www.bloombergquint.com/business/covid-19-spread-fastest-by-teens-and-tweens-korea-study-finds

(Oh, and better funding for social services and early help for vulnerable children so that schools being part time doesn't mean that children are unsafe - one of the scandals that has been made more visible by lockdown is how vital schools are in 'filling the gap' for vulnerable children, which many outside the world of education would believe is social services' job)

@cantkeepawayforever

Openplan - the guidance could be useful, relevant and actually seek to control virus transmission between pupils and to staff, perhaps?

Money could be provided to schools to implement measures that control virus transmission e.g. money for cleaning and cleaners; sanitiser and soap; outside sinks; hire of additional toilet blocks.

A properly planned and implemented nationwide structure for part time home learning, including provision of equipment; universal access to decent internet; national plans and videoed lessons for every level (and every exam board) to be a backstop for schools to them build on.

Planned variation to next year's exam cycle to ensure next year's Y11 and Y13 aren't disadvantaged.

That's just off the top of my head?

Whilst I would always support a huge increase in funding for schools to include more toilet, hand washing facilities (which are disgraceful even in a covid free world). I would never support part time/blended learning as it's not providing equal opportunity to all kids

Apparently I'm a conspiracy theorist

Saying the government have used “scare tactics” in a pandemic is pretty much the definition of being a conspiracy theorist. ESP this government who have acted too late and too weakly at every single stage.

Herc, last time I looked, Oak didn't have full A-level teaching for every board's specification - has that been rectified?

I would never support part time/blended learning as it's not providing equal opportunity to all kids

OK, so fund the doubling of school premises and doubling of teacher numbers that would be needed to deliver in-school education more safely, AND provide remote learning for all those who are isolating, whose teacher is isolating or whose school is closed by infection. That's the other alternative but it is a little less feasible by September....

@SmileEachDay

Look it up. It was a specific aim. It was decided we couldn't d trusted to lockdown and behave so needed to be scared into doing it. I'm not saying this was right or wrong. I'm not denying we're in the middle of a pandemic.

My point was that the campaign worked too well and now a lot of people remain overly anxious

openplankitchen has implied on another thread that they are some sort of health care worker.
I'm assuming they haven't worked directly with Covid patients as the 3 healthcare workers I know and chat to who have (one OOHs Dr, one HCA for Covid wards, and one nurse who was seconded to the palliative care Covid ward) - they are all still visibly distressed and impacted by their experiences.
And are being suitably careful with their children.

@cantkeepawayforever

I would never support part time/blended learning as it's not providing equal opportunity to all kids

OK, so fund the doubling of school premises and doubling of teacher numbers that would be needed to deliver in-school education more safely, AND provide remote learning for all those who are isolating, whose teacher is isolating or whose school is closed by infection. That's the other alternative but it is a little less feasible by September....

Exactly!!!

Hopefully we can all agree this is the ideal. And all agree it can't happen especially by September. We just disagree on what the compromises should be

@cantkeepawayforever Not 100% sure on Oak. I know they have added some extra stuff. I know it's not perfect and won't cover all bases but it's pretty decent as a start. Crap if you teach something not on there though!

People will need to leave their jobs if schools do not open full time in September.

Elderly relatives will be called in for childcare if schools do not open full time in September and you can take a guess on what the outcome will be.

More and more children will be forced into poverty if schools do not open full time in September.

Teachers may catch Covid if schools do go back full time. (And yes i do think some of you on Mumsnet want schools to remain shut even if you do not directly say that)

Children may take virus home to vulnerable relatives.

Its a shit situation and no winners.

And no i would never send a symptomatic child to school.

I don’t have a link for this yet - but in London hospitals, it has been found that children are low risk and not the little incubators we thought they might be. They are no longer being asked to isolate pre admission.

[quote openplankitchen]@SmileEachDay

Look it up. It was a specific aim. It was decided we couldn't d trusted to lockdown and behave so needed to be scared into doing it. I'm not saying this was right or wrong. I'm not denying we're in the middle of a pandemic.

My point was that the campaign worked too well and now a lot of people remain overly anxious [/quote]
You've misunderstood.
What happened was that they didn't want panic, and the impact that can have on the economy, so they massively played it down. (Just a flu, shaking hand with everyone, just wash your hands).
When they realised what a monumental mistake they had made they reverses ferret and told it more how it was. But people still clung to the "mild flu for most" narrative - much like you are still doing - and so they had to campaign to get people to realise the consequences to obey and accept the restrictions. There was a campaign yes, but it was by releasing the actual facts, not playing nanny state anymore.
Wake up.

@Hercwasonaroll

Honey I still can't see where anyone has advocated sending a symptomatic child in? Posts like that where you over exaggerate don't help.

Teachers are being thrown under the bus big time. I am one and agree the government measures aren't good enough. However I can't see many viable alternatives. Masks mean I wouldn't be able to teach (hearing impairment). Part time school isn't great for anyone. More handwashing and more funding would make people feel happier.

As a parent how just an idea but how about the Government allows some flexibility?

Those who are able and want to home school do, at least temporarily. School could perhaps provide basic supportive information or class work could be put on line (surely going forward as tech advances this will become the norm anyway). There are enough on line resources which are free such as Teachit nowadays so those willing and able to do so can.

Just one suggestion but cracking the whip saying all must go back isn't the way forward, particularly when it goes against all other guidance.

In March a friends school almost had to shut due to staff absence and inadequate ratios. This will happen frequently in the winter. The disruption ahead for education is huge. We need more flexible and forward thinking approached to education to solve this. Reverting to the old way just isn't sustainable in this climate in the UK.

openplan, so you have decided to compromise on virus transmission - you are happy for teachers, students, and the vulnerable in the school's community (e.g. grandparents or vulnerable parents or those who work with vulnerable people) to suffer the consequences of all pupils being in school unsafely. You have also decided to compromise on education, because you would prefer schools to shut down chaotically in response to infection.

I would prefer everyone to have a consistent level of mixed face to face and remote education, that was fully pre-planned and resourced, and keep infection levels as low as possible.

Sorry just to add - we’ve been screening everyone - parents included. The data is from this screening.

I would then gradually increase the amount of face to face teaching, with extremely careful monitoring and data collection throughout.

@Oaktree55 The problem is providing even basic online resources, links, feedback all takes time. Teachers in school cannot provide this on top of teaching.

By making attendance non compulsory you will end up with students who don't attend and do nothing. Ime of lockdown this will waver from 25-50% depending on the year group. What do you do about the parents who aren't helping their children learn?

Schools have to plan for learning and blended approaches in anticipation of a lockdown. That is very clear in the guidance. They should also provide education for pupils needing tk isolate. Oak academy is designed for this.

@Oaktree55

It's a great idea in theory. And would work well for a lot of kids.

Trouble is the most vulnerable kids (and not just the ones who are officially recognised) will lose out. Their parents won't bother forcing them to go to school every day. When they're at home they don't be learning. They will fall even further behind without the usual safeguards.

@Pomegranatepompom

I don’t have a link for this yet - but in London hospitals, it has been found that children are low risk and not the little incubators we thought they might be. They are no longer being asked to isolate pre admission.

That's very encouraging. Up until what age?

[quote Hercwasonaroll]@Oaktree55 The problem is providing even basic online resources, links, feedback all takes time. Teachers in school cannot provide this on top of teaching.

By making attendance non compulsory you will end up with students who don't attend and do nothing. Ime of lockdown this will waver from 25-50% depending on the year group. What do you do about the parents who aren't helping their children learn?

Schools have to plan for learning and blended approaches in anticipation of a lockdown. That is very clear in the guidance. They should also provide education for pupils needing tk isolate. Oak academy is designed for this.[/quote]
The Government don't have a hope in hell of enforcing fines though. Soon a parent will test it in the Courts, the law is based on reasonableness and it would not be unreasonable to keep your child off school (which goes against all other social distancing guidance and the long term effects of Covid are unknown as yet).

So the compulsory attendance threat will melt away pretty fast and those vulnerable kids won't attend anyway. If you look at the wording used re fines it's very woolly as the Government know it's unenforceable.

I’ll check - 18 normally but there were some adult admissions to paediatric areas because of bed capacity.

@Oaktree55 I agree with every post you have made on this thread. Those who can home ed should so so thus lowering the numbers in school. Without having the threat of a fine etc.

This type of flexibility alone will reduce cases.

openplankitchen

We just disagree on what the compromises should be

The "compromise" that you want is for teachers to just suck it up and have no extra safety measures at all.

So its not really a compromise is it?

There's a difference to unenforceable fines but stating attendance is compulsory, and saying attendance isn't compulsory. The party line has to be that children are required to be in school. Most parents will then send them in. If parents hear "optional" then suddenly they stop. We had 65%ish attendance from y10 and it wasn't the students we needed to see. The ones who had done nothing during lockdown, didn't come in because it was seen as optional.

First time poster here, long time lurker and so pleased to read a thread with people who actually understand how big this problem is rather than advocating a wholesale chuck 'em back in approach.

Secondary schools definitely need different rules to primary, as the guidance is completely unworkable. I'd advocate part time school for secondary, at least for the first half term to check whether the rate of infections rises. At the very least, I'd want face masks worn by secondary school students.

My DD's school headteacher who has a very " can do" attitude has effectively said, well we will do our best but because our school shares transport with two other schools, we will basically be in a bubble of 4k!!! I don't understand why people aren't kicking up a fuss about the fact that their children and teachers are being asked to put themselves at risk in conditions that no one else is, particularly with the evidence coming out that the virus spreads most easily indoors in cramped conditions.

My father is also terminally ill, so that leaves us with some difficult decisions to make come September. Does anyone know if there is a counter group to the awful Us for Them or a petition? I've only seen one about not opening until a vaccine but I feel that's going a little too far!