I feel I have no choice but send DS back, he is in his final year. If he wasn't I would keep him home. We have home educated in the past for primary.
I don't believe it will be safe.
I'm a bit puzzled by your plan though. Will the school not require you have your child tested? because if a child tests positive then this means the children and adults they have been in contact with should self isolate. If you refuse to test this makes you look extremely socially irresponsible. Not the point you are trying to make is it?
Whilst I agree that no child should be made to be derigester in these circumstances, and loose their school place, I don't see how adding to the workload and anxiety of others can be tolerated.
The government should really be giving parents three options. Full time, supported home schooling with appropriate resources or derigester.
The government have not acted ethically. They have failed in their duty to ensure children receive an education. The reason though they can not be legally challenged is because the education act makes clear that parents are responsible for ensuring their children recieve an education. Please see section 7.
But as far as I am aware (not having read all and every amendment to it) it doesn't state
1)where this education should take place (this I do know)
2) that if that education is not in school the child must be derigestered. (???? although the act states the parent does not have a legal duty to inform anyone or request a child to be derigestered)
3) that a school place can not be part time if a child is also educated elsewhere (this I do know)
4) that a parent can not legally co-opt the services of education professionals, or schools to provide a child's education in part (this I do know)
In view of the fact that you are not legally required to derigester in order to keep your child off school, and that the government withdrew its education provision without requiring parents to wholly provide an education, I think any action such as fines is reckless on their part.
My logic is as follows. Parent has legal duty under section 7, parent contracts with statutory provision to provide education, this contract is discretionary and entered into by choice. (this fact is wilfully obscured to parents) the parent gives up the responsibility of providing the full time efficient......education to the state. The state in its dishonesty implies to all that the state has the legal duty to have to provide education. If something is "implied" and wilfully it continues to be implied so that certain facts are obscured to one side then we have all kinds of interesting questions!!!
But you will get visits and letters, you will be wasting a lot of time. But even that is ridiculous.....no one sent SS round during lockdown to every child not in school, no one gave a fig then about those children's welfare. So you know it's about state control not welfare or education.