School re-opening under threat - thread 2

[DomDoesWotHeWants]

First thread here -

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/3981349-School-re-opening-under-threat?msgid=98768334

It seems to me that Johnson is creeping towards masks in schools come September, given that he's extended the paces they have to be worn.

Do teachers think that's enough?

@VashtaNerada my secondary school with ‘bubbles’ of over 240 and large ‘children’ packed into overcrowded classrooms that aren’t ventilated and where they change groups six times a day is not what I currently consider a ‘place of safety’.

I’m not going to contradict what primary colleagues tell me as I don’t work in primary and realise I don’t understand it in the same way. However I can tell you now from a secondary perspective it is very different.

How anyone can possibly say a large secondary is ‘safe’ beggars belief.

I agree @MrsHerculePoirot the kids are in different option groups so it isn’t even like they can stay in one classroom with their tutor group when some will be going off to geography while some do french.

Some families and teens will be breaking the lockdown rules and then they will spread covid throughout the relevant year group and to teachers

barbie interesting about the small group benefit, students would then learn more without having to be in school as much.

Fair enough @MrsHerculePoirot - can’t imagine the nightmare of sorting it out at secondary! I really hope we’re able to get all children in for some time somehow though. DD was in a secondary keyworker group and it did wonders for her mental health. Hoping other children get those benefits too somehow.

@VashtaNerada that is what I think those of us in secondary are suggesting - some kind of part time, but well organised blended learning. So for example students would be in one week on and one week off or 2/3 days per week but you know in advance when those days are. That way we could have less students in classrooms and really plan for that style of teaching. We’re definitely not saying no-one back, no learning, no students in school (not saying you said that btw!!).

I think if I knew students (Secondary) would be in approx 50% of the time, when that was and the choice was that consistently for a year rather than the Covid hokey-cokey with last minute, unplanned for closures left right and centre that would be better. I could really think about what and how I taught those in and what and how I set/support those when at home.

Of course provision for more vulnerable students in our school could be increased - but for the majority I think it could work.

Of course if by some miracle it all disappears, reduces to really low community transmission etc we could scale up who and how many in school. I think it would benefit secondary students and their parents to know in advance when they might be in school or what it might look like when they aren’t. They would all get the benefits of being in school and some socialising/teaching etc... but safely and with very clear expectations for the times they are not in school.

I think starting part time with a blended approach would be sensible up until Christmas. Most of the children won't have been to school for six weeks, so an easy start would make a lot more sense. Especially with all the coughs and colds that will be around. I know it would be a bugger for teachers- however if it could be two days in for each set of children and schools closed one day for cleaning/ planning it possibly could work.

It would be hard to work around and look for childcare etc though.

@quiteathome

It would be hard to work around and look for childcare etc though.

Secondary should be OK for the most part.

Agree primary would be harder with childcare but if, as part of the bigger picture, employers are able to be supportive with wfh etc and people know in advance it is possibly doable. If there were families where it really isn’t due to jobs then perhaps those students can be in school - in a sort of childcare scenario eg doing the work set the same as others.

Or this is where joined up thinking could help. Are there providers that can support with outdoor childcare provision Eg extra PE type things? I realise it would have taken a lot of thought but surely would have been possible with time to have planned!

It would be hard to work around and look for childcare etc though
Someone said on another thread that only about 8% of workers have primary school kids who couldn’t look after themselves while parents worked. If (for example) half of them manage to find alternative childcare or wfh then that’s only 4% who will struggle if kids can’t go to school. So a much smaller impact on the economy compared to closing the hospitality industry. And I think in the end it will come down to minimising economic impact. I greatly doubt they will close pubs in order to open schools.

@LegoMaus

It would be hard to work around and look for childcare etc though Someone said on another thread that only about 8% of workers have primary school kids who couldn’t look after themselves while parents worked. If (for example) half of them manage to find alternative childcare or wfh then that’s only 4% who will struggle if kids can’t go to school. So a much smaller impact on the economy compared to closing the hospitality industry. And I think in the end it will come down to minimising economic impact. I greatly doubt they will close pubs in order to open schools.

Schools could definitely work to support that 4% too if that was what it took for it all to work.

I think we need guidance that distinguishes between primary and secondary. They are very different educationally, as primary is much more in fixed classes, and also in terms of childcare. The vast majority of secondary students don't need childcare, but it is also true that not all primary parents rely on school for childcare - there may be a SAHP, older retired relative living in the family home, those who work shifts, those whose flexible work means they could fit it in whilst the children are at part-time school and supplement with evenings (or with older primary could let then entertain themselves if they wfh knowing the children were getting their education met at part-time school).

What happens if parents refuse to get their DC tested? I had to help my sister hold down her DD to do the test, it was awful and I can't see my sister doing it everytime she gets a temperature (which is fairly often) instead my DS said she will just isolate for 10 days each time but this will have a knock-on effect in schools as if they were positive it wouldn't trigger closure as no one would know.

that's a good question @Regulus

@Regulus

What happens if parents refuse to get their DC tested? I had to help my sister hold down her DD to do the test, it was awful and I can't see my sister doing it everytime she gets a temperature (which is fairly often) instead my DS said she will just isolate for 10 days each time but this will have a knock-on effect in schools as if they were positive it wouldn't trigger closure as no one would know.

Yes, it's 10 days off.

If it's just 1 or 2 pupils who go for the isolation, then no impact on schools (not enough to burst the bubble). But if several are off with symptomatic isolation, then local public heath officials will be called in and will,advise if bubble should close.

Parents don't have to disclose test results, but the assumption is that parents want their DC in school and so will voluntarily disclose a negative result in order to allow their DC to return. Staff will tend assume those who don't return in a day or two, have got it

@duffeldaisy

As a parent, I'd be far happier if it was possible for 1/5 of the school to go in one day a week and have that time to SD socialise, do PE, a few lessons, and come home with homework to do for next week's day.

I appreciate that's just not possible for parents who aren't working from home, or whose kids are younger and so can't work independently at home. But perhaps there could be some kind of compromise, so that schools are not just packed with full classes of 30 just like normal, as that's likely to end up in classes and years shutting down all the time, people getting ill, and threats to health.
I'd rather have a guaranteed day a week of education and socialising that's safe than risk unknown illness/lockdowns happening at any point.

I agree with much of this,I'm not sure about only one day but I would much prefer less time in school with proper social distancing.

@Regulus

barbie interesting about the small group benefit, students would then learn more without having to be in school as much.

I think one reason the government don't want small groups is parents will see how much difference it makes. It consistently comes out top thing for improving standards, and UK classes sizes are very large compared with Europe.

The government do NOT want anyone getting ideas of things that could become permanent improvements!

That, labyrinth is depressingly true.

@MrsHerculePoirot, I'm not sure that "8% of working population have primary aged kids" translates into "only 8% of primary kids need to be cared for in school."

Read this today and felt rather , I've said on lots of threads I'm concerned about returning in September and I'm not feeling any more optimistic as time progresses. I was hoping things would improve over summer but I don't feel they are.

Meanwhile, Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia, said it had become clear that there is a link between closing schools and controlling the spread of the virus. “The evidence is clear that schools are important in the spread of Covid-19,” he said. “Our studies show that, across Europe, closing schools was the single factor most strongly associated with drops in infection rates.”

Hunter added that while individual risks to children and teachers were probably low, school transmission was likely to push up general infection rates, so the disease would rise exponentially again. “Would re-opening schools increase the spread of Covid-19 in the population? Yes. I think it would very probably do that.”

There's more after about the counter argument and then just some government stuff about cleaning more.

That is a depressing read. I think the govt are scared, from the info coming out if the North West is that the major reason for increased infection is not opening pubs etc but an increase in people meeting up indoors. Now most of these indoor meetings would not have 240 people mixing for six hours five days a week.

[quote CallmeAngelina]**@MrsHerculePoirot, I'm not sure that "8% of working population have primary aged kids" translates into "only 8% of primary kids need to be cared for in school."[/quote]
No I know sorry - but assumed we all agreed vulnerable/students that need it can also be as before (and if planned for would be more in that were needed/wanted) It’s more those shouting about childcare/working being such an issue and I was just saying if those numbers are that small and all the above planned for it would have maybe been possible to organise properly in advance.

Some people say we just have to get on with life, that previous generations just accepted risk and lived their lives.

We have to go back quite a long time to find a disease that was as lethal and easily transmitted and left a trial of chronically ill people in its wake. Maybe the so-called sweating sickness of the 15th century, which might have been a hantavirus.

Think about what life was like when they ‘just got on with it’. There were no indoor mass public gatherings, beyond perhaps a couple of hundred people. Schools were limited in number and usually very small. Most children worked. There were no large scale factories. People were constantly worried about disease, towns and villages were quarantined at the first sign of sickness. Households had to self isolate for 40 days if anyone became ill.

They did not carry on as normal, as we would understand it. They certainly did not have schools of 1,000+ pupils, offices and factories of thousands of people, football stadia, theatres for hundreds etc. All of these environments amplify transmission risk many fold.

According to the Zoe app, there are somewhere between 200 (1 in 5,000) and 2000 (1 in 500) cases per million depending on which part of the country you’re in. This feels about right because another approximation can be done on a national level. ONS says approximately 5,000 people are becoming infected per day. With 5.5 median incubation and 11.5 median clearance, one can estimate there are currently 85,000 infected people in UK or roughly 1 in every 780 people. So the Zoe data seems about right.

Using the Zoe data, one can calculate one’s odds of catching the virus in one’s local area. Where I live there are just over 300 cases per million, roughly 1 in 3,000. If a family of four are exposed to 1,000 people per day through work and 2 different schools, the raw odds of catching the virus is a third, ignoring any mitigation measure and more refined calculations. Those are not good odds for a risk taken on a daily basis. And as the virus spreads, the likelihood of catching it only increases.

With more and more evidence about the role children play in transmission, reopening schools with normal class sizes and without masks means parents, teachers and staff will have to accept there is a reasonably high chance they will catch the virus this winter.

www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/07/31/new-evidence-suggests-young-children-spread-covid-19-more-efficiently-than-adults/

8% of workers have primary school kids who couldn’t look after themselves while parents worked. If (for example) half of them manage to find alternative childcare or wfh then that’s only 4% who will struggle if kids can’t go to school

Schools could definitely work to support that 4% too if that was what it took for it all to work

What about the difference between education and childcare? My primary child could quite easily stay at home as I wfh. He can’t be educated by me though, I can’t do two jobs at once. Tried over the last 14 weeks, it ends up with everyone in tears, me working til 1am to make up my hours. And I’m not the only one. Can you educate the 8% / 4% with zero parental input?

@VashtaNerada

Because it’s a place of safety and stability *@MrsHerculePoirot* Children need routine and familiarity to promote good mental health. That doesn’t mean putting them at risk and of course we’ll need to make adjustments, but the more normality we can give them, the better. The bubbles worked really well last term and I think that’s partly because I tried my best to keep routines and lesson content as ‘normal’ as possible. Really hope we’re in a position to continue that approach in September.

Our bubbles were brilliant in June/July. I had a class of 15 with a TA and only one year group and KW children in. Lots of time outside and lots of hand washing. It worked amazingly. I don’t see that the situation in September can resemble this in any way.

In September, the bubbles will be 90-the whole year group. I will be teaching a class of 32 with no TA. The whole school will be back so using the playground will be extremely difficult. The windows only open a fraction so keeping the rooms ventilated will be difficult. All children will be in rows to avoid them breathing on each other, though they will all now be breathing towards me! If a teacher or a member of their household gets symptoms, finding a supply to teach their class will be difficult so the class will be closed.

Volunteers, visitors, PE coaches, PPA staff etc etc are all allowed in school to work across groups.

This is so different from the safety of June and July’s consistent bubbles, that I am concerned.

Adding to this, no additional funding for cleaning or soap, not being allowed to wear masks plus all of the previously shielded staff members and children being added to the mix-it’s the perfect storm.

There was a fraction of children back at school in June/July and there were still more outbreaks in schools than in care homes. I don’t think schools will stay open for long.

It’s a shame because everyone agrees that schools need to be open, yet the government don’t think it’s important enough to spend a penny on.

@Lemons1571

8% of workers have primary school kids who couldn’t look after themselves while parents worked. If (for example) half of them manage to find alternative childcare or wfh then that’s only 4% who will struggle if kids can’t go to school

Schools could definitely work to support that 4% too if that was what it took for it all to work

What about the difference between education and childcare? My primary child could quite easily stay at home as I wfh. He can’t be educated by me though, I can’t do two jobs at once. Tried over the last 14 weeks, it ends up with everyone in tears, me working til 1am to make up my hours. And I’m not the only one. Can you educate the 8% / 4% with zero parental input?

Not necessarily in the same way as if in school full time but no-one is suggesting children don’t go back to school at all?

Would it be preferable to know your child will be in school 50% of the time (for example) for the year or in full time with last minute school closures on a regular basis with little planning for those closures? To be fair the suggestion was really being mooted for secondary where most students can work by themselves for short, organised periods of time unsupervised rather than primary I think!