Government removes statement schools are not considered "high risk settings" in guidance.

[IloveJKRowling]

Reported in the TES

www.tes.com/news/Covid-dfe-cuts-schools-arent-high-risk-line-guidance

From the article:
"The government has removed a paragraph from its Covid guidance stating that schools are not considered "high risk settings".

The Department for Education (DfE) previously stated in its guidance for schools that Public Health England (PHE) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) advise that schools are not considered high risk work environments, and it is "therefore appropriate for teachers and other school staff to return to their workplace setting".

But following an update to the guidance today, this detail has vanished."

@Cookiecrisps yeah inspectors too scared to go into classrooms (tabloid take on it). Fine for all of us teachers though.. plebs, carry on working in unsafe conditions!

There sure is a lot of guff spouted on this thread about willingness to teach and risks of not being in school outweighing those of being in - all from the safety of a socially distanced job. I speak from the perspective of having gone from 15 years as a management consultant into teaching. I know which one is the more physically, emotionally and intellectually challenging in non-Covid times. And Covid has brought highly experienced, competent, confident teachers to the lowest point of their working lives.

The teaching unions have sought safe working conditions and been utterly trashed by a compliant goady press.

Not only are working conditions completely unsafe, the added pressures of implementing the basically pointless measures that schools have to take are adding to workload and putting a strain on mental health.

There is a report today of impressively low infection rates in schools in New York. They took time, worked with unions and have put in place a hybrid approach which means classrooms have no more than 12 students. All children are able to access in school teaching 2 or 3 days a week and online the rest.

Common sense, safer and would have been perfectly possible here had there been the political will to help pupils and teachers rather than make posturing promises built on lies.

The teaching unions have sought safe working conditions and been utterly trashed by a compliant goady press.

This. What drives me mad is the reason schools were shut so long is the same reason that policies vary wildly, the same reason that online learning is so inconsistent and the same reason that schools are starting to have to be closed now and the same reason the exams fucked up: the government doesn't want to engage with details, doesn't want to provide any extra money and keeps changing it's mind.

The practicalities of opening schools haven't changed but because thousands of schools are duplicating the same efforts it's taken 6 months to achieve what could have been done in two and schools with limited space or staff have no way to address these issues.

The unions wanted and still want schools open safely. In practice that probably means high schools can't teach all pupils full time, more staff being hired and some schools needing to use other space locally. It also means IR thermometers on the gates, no movement around school and masks when not in a classroom bubble.

If that had happened schools could have reopened much sooner and stayed open longer.

I posted this on another thread, but think it's important in terms of how risky the school environment is. If you scroll down there's a chart. UK Schools are in the red zone - i.e. indoor environment, long exposure, no masks, crowded.

www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3223

High risk. Everyone KNOWS it's high risk indoors, where crowded, for a long time, without masks. It's all of Fauci's main talking points of environments to avoid.

And yet - they're not even sending all kids home if they sit 2m away from a positive case - which is reckless abandonment of health and safety. That's basically asking for an outbreak.

2m is meaningless in an indoor, crowded, no mask, long exposure environment. EVERYONE knows this.

The rule of thumb has always been 2m is ok as long as it's only for 15 min or less. How long is the average lesson?

Only 307 healthy people under the age of 65 have died with COVID

And it seems 23 were teachers, so either your stats are wrong, or there's a hell of a lot more risk than they'll admit.

People with underlying conditions can be completely healthy and have a completely normal life expectancy. Underlying conditions include autism.

Excluding those deaths is pretty awful.

@partystress

All children are able to access in school teaching 2 or 3 days a week and online the rest.

All middle class children with laptops, internet and space to work are able to access online teaching you mean.

[quote Ecosse]@partystress

All children are able to access in school teaching 2 or 3 days a week and online the rest.

All middle class children with laptops, internet and space to work are able to access online teaching you mean.[/quote]
But, as is frequently pointed out here, the fact that some children can't access it isn't a reason to provide it to the majority, especially since the most vulnerable will likely be accommodated full time - as they were before - and the time in school will be used to avoid slipping back.
The unplanned, repeated closure hurts the vulnerable most. At least with blended learning they are monitored and physically in school regularly.

@Barbie222

Only something like 3% of the vulnerable DC eligible attended school during lockdown.

That’s before you even get to the DC who are not classed as vulnerable but who do not have the equipment, space or support required for home ‘learning’. Is it ok that their life expectancy is reduced due as it’s not caused by COVID?

Schools absolutely must stay open full time. It is right that the government is not even discussing this.

Only something like 3% of the vulnerable DC eligible attended school during lockdown.

Yes, when parents had the choice whether to send in or not, that's what happened, but that wasn't the fault of the schools: the guidance was clear on which pupils could attend full time and it's likely to be similar in the event of a move to part time learning.

@Ecosse

The issue work the unions is that if you give them an inch they’ll take a mile. They were obstructive in regards to online learning- remember their stance was that no live online lessons, marking or phone calls home should take place during lockdown.

They didn’t want schools to reopen at all. They have certainly shot themselves in the foot now and simply cannot be taken seriously by the government or parents.

Absolute nonsense. Their reasonable concerns have been shown to be well-founded, and let us hope the government now progresses to discuss with them how to move forward to a safer situation in schools.

@partystress an excellent post, thank you.

Ecosse I have nothing more to say to you. Your disregard for the lives of the children, their families, the school staff and their families is abhorrent.

Ecosse as a management consultant I would have thought you would be more interested in finding solutions than flagging up problems that every teacher knows only too well. It really is not diffcult to generate ideas for dealing with those disadvantages that would be far more effective than most of the things that the DfE is throwing money at.

Nobody wants disadvantaged children to fall further behind their peers, but all children who rely on state education will be failed if the proportion of teachers leaving the profession early rises even further. Already I fear we will see a massive exodus of headteachers this year because they are completely burned out by the weight of responsibility, the awful decisions they have had to make and the sheer volume of nonsensical, contradictory directives that are issued literally daily.

[quote Ecosse]@Barbie222

Only something like 3% of the vulnerable DC eligible attended school during lockdown.

That’s before you even get to the DC who are not classed as vulnerable but who do not have the equipment, space or support required for home ‘learning’. Is it ok that their life expectancy is reduced due as it’s not caused by COVID?

Schools absolutely must stay open full time. It is right that the government is not even discussing this.[/quote]
Why must schools absolutely stay open full time?

I mean, it would be great if they could, as a parent it's very nice to have them so gainfully occupied, it was at times very tiring doing homeschooling on top of everything else, they are in good schools which we chose very carefully and we have never ever taken them out of school for holidays etc as we prioritise education.

On the other hand, for many subjects we can do just as good a job at home, and, you know, there is this pandemic going on, in which generally speaking, gatherings of many people in a small space is a bad idea.

So why are you repeating this "must stay open full time" thing like a magic mantra, and why actually should this not be discussed?

I think the whole basis of school return needs to be thought through again and the first priority needs to be safety as otherwise, they will not stay open, can you understand that?

I love it when people say, 'schools must stay open.' Like it is some magical mantra, not only is it hilarious, it really shows up the lack of knowledge, when discussing the situation.

It is usually trotted out alongside some, caring about vulnerable children line. Newsflash: This Tory Government voted to stop free school meals over half term and Christmas, when the pupil premium is facing unprecedented registration due to struggling families. This government do not care about vulnerable children.

If this government cared about vulnerable children, any children in fact, the 8% of working families who need schools for childcare, parents and teachers. They would not be screwing everything up in such a spectacular fashion, after being warned.

If you want to help vulnerable children, lobby your government about all the children who will now go hungry. Find out why they are hell bent on marching straight into a disaster, where schools are closed, cases and deaths are out of control and our economy is destroyed.

Schools MUST stay open, means sweet FA when the hospitals are at capacity, there are no staff to teach, the virus is running rife though schools. They will not stay open. No teacher wants that, which is why they try and echo the reality, again and again.

It is very Boris like to hide behind, lies, lies and statistics without understanding the situation and working to risk manage it. It is also undermines and point people try and make,

"I would be more than happy to teach in a school".

I love teaching. I love being in school with the children.
I looked forward to returning in September.
I didn't want to be home behind a computer all hours, teaching via a pre-recorded screen.

But I also knew that it came with a risk.
I'm clinically vulnerable - not extremely so, not shielded level.
My role means I teach across the whole school - nearly 300 children a week.
I teach in infants so there's no SDing at all.

I took all the precautions I could. I constantly cleaned and anti-bac'd my room. I constantly washed my hands and used anti-bac. I opened the small windows as much as I could and kept doors,opened.
I tried to keep my distance if I possibly could.
I SDed from all staff. I ate lunch alone in my room every day away from the other adults.
I minimised my contacts outside of work.

I still got COVID. I've been in bed ill with it for over a week now. I was admitted into hospital due to dangerously high blood pressure levels, which was caused by COVID. A fortnight later and I think I've turned a corner - my cough is a bit less I think, my chest feels a bit less tight. Medication means my bp isn't at dangerous levels any more, My breathing's still laboured and I'm still shattered.

I was happy to be back in school but let's not pretend that schools are COVID secure or safe.

Why must schools absolutely stay open full time? I mean, it would be great if they could, as a parent it's very nice to have them so gainfully occupied, it was at times very tiring doing homeschooling on top of everything else, they are in good schools which we chose very carefully and we have never ever taken them out of school for holidays etc as we prioritise education.

I see a lot of posts like this and I feel at core people are questioning the value of a publicly funded full time education system. I don't understand why we have forgotten the massive difference full time school makes to women's lives, to children's lives and to the success of the economy. How did this happen?

@Itisasecret

Hospitals were nowhere near overwhelmed in March and April and there is no evidence they will be this time.

The second wave will be longer and flatter than the first one.

Hospitals were nowhere near overwhelmed in March and April and there is no evidence they will be this time.

This is factually wrong I believe. First, almost all non-covid patients were refused treatment after the lockdown. Still to this day large parts of the NHS are effectively closed because the waiting times are so long due to covid.

Second, as far as I remember, if we had had one more week of growth of hospitalisations when we were at the peak the nightangle hospitals would all have been filled up.

The second wave will be longer and flatter than the first one.

It is true that hospitalisations are doubling roughly every 11 days instead of 3-4 so the route to an unmanageable peak is slower. But we will still hit it in November if the current measures don't work.

@notevenat20 because we are in a worldwide pandemic of a novel coronavirus whose long term effects are not properly understood. These are not normal times.

[quote Ecosse]@Itisasecret

Hospitals were nowhere near overwhelmed in March and April and there is no evidence they will be this time.

The second wave will be longer and flatter than the first one.[/quote]
It may be longer and flatter but the same number of people will die, just over a longer time period. People who would not have died had we had regular circuit breakers, a decent track and trace and much safer schools. Having this would have saved our economy too.

@Worriedmum999 absolutely

If we really want schools to stay open, why don't we - install screens around teachers' desks, like every shop/business I have been in has; make everyone wear masks unless eating/drinking, like every shop/business I have been in does. Restrict numbers, again like every shop or business I have been in does. The first two could be achieved without changing the numbers of children in schools at all. Why aren't they? I really don't understand the lack of mitigations.

@Worriedmum999

And hundreds of thousands of people will die from other conditions that we so nothing at all to prevent. We do not aim for zero deaths with any other condition and we certainly do not shut down life and the economy.

The ‘circuit breakers’ you refer to would cause huge numbers of business closures, job losses and therefore poverty. Poverty causes health conditions and deaths. Why are those less important than COVID deaths?

The only metric we should be looking at is NHS capacity.