I don't understand why blended learning/part time schooling would work

[Whatchasayin]

I thought the argument for not returning to school before the summer was that even with half the class in it was still impossible to social distance the DC and teachers. Our primary only managed 8 DC in a classroom in June. My DCs school has smaller rooms than that so could presumably fit less in. When my year 10 went in for a few days there were 6 in his group to ensure no close contact and they all had to sit on their own table in the hall at lunch. How do you envisage part time schooling being possible at all?

The point therefore becomes 'when is planned blended learning, however imperfect, better than the emerging status quo of unplanned, chaotic part time learning due to outbreaks of Covid?'

It is never preferable imo.

The Government considering reducing the isolation period from 14 to 7 days. That would reduce the unplanned missing of school by half!

Also very tough on a kid to have a parent very ill or dying ?

Yes, but that is so very unlikely to happen.

But yes, every decision means making some sacrifices. It depends what our priorities are.

If the government is considering reducing the isolation period to 7 days not due to science but due to non-compliance then this shouldn’t apply to school attendance where compliance can be enforced, particularly given the high risk of transmission in schools.

It is never preferable imo.

There are children who have been in school for 10 days or less this half term, due to repeated periods of isolation or closure, and others who have not been taught by a teacher qualified in the subject all half term Are you sure that planned blended learning - with groups of 15 as primary worked in the summer, so school attendance of 50% - would not have been preferable?

@TrustTheGeneGenie

I think very little of people with no respect for teachers

that's a funny thing to say to me considering i actually do have a lot of respect for teachers - hence why i am confused as to why you think your job can be done my someone unqualified.

The suggestion of community rooms was to those who were incapable of making their own childcare arrangements and a suggestion only. It's been suggested many times by those more qualified than you or I to think it could work

incapable? i think most of us are pretty capable, its the sheer lack of childcare providers thats the issue. You think we should set up a school, which isn't a school because we cant have teachers getting sick, but childminders are fair game.

I think very little of those who want to endanger the health of teachers and children. Most sane people feel the same way.

I dont think my child's health is endangered and i dont know anyone who does, tbh. I dont think teachers are at the sudden death kinda risk that you do either tbh.

if we do what you want to "keep you safe" right - you see half your class and then the other half. What about all the extra contacts they will all have from your brilliant childminder school idea? does that really make you feel more safe?

There is no point Trust.

This poster is just a goady fucker.

I would really, really like to know how many teachers and other school staff have had Covid this half term, and how many have been in hospital or ICU. Is the data out there anywhere?

There are children who have been in school for 10 days or less this half term, due to repeated periods of isolation or closure

Do you know how many pupils were in school for 10 or less days this past half term?

that's a funny thing to say to me considering i actually do have a lot of respect for teachers - hence why i am confused as to why you think your job can be done my someone unqualified.

It was for supervision, not teaching. Someone asked what would happen to kids not in schools whose parents could find childcare. That's what I suggested. Somewhere for those not in school to be supervised. I thought that was tacit, given the question I was answering.

You think we should set up a school, which isn't a school because we cant have teachers getting sick, but childminders are fair game.

No, as I've already said I think they should be at home. You seem to have set out to deliberately misinterpret what I say. Why would that be, I wonder.

if we do what you want to "keep you safe" right - you see half your class and then the other half. What about all the extra contacts they will all have from your brilliant childminder school idea? does that really make you feel more safe?

You really are very rude, aren't you. Why so snarky?

It won't be me. I'm retired and feeling very sorry for my former colleagues being treated with such contempt by some.

If community halls are used there will be social distancing, obviously, so less chance of infection being passed on.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that the data has been collected in that form. The Government is collecting 'numvber of children not at school due to Covid', but not 'time each student spends out of school', as far as i know.

A flippant answer would be 'more than there were in the summer term, when bubbles were smaller, and fewer than there will be in the next half term, as infections continue to rise exponentially'

@sonnenscheins

The point therefore becomes 'when is planned blended learning, however imperfect, better than the emerging status quo of unplanned, chaotic part time learning due to outbreaks of Covid?'

It is never preferable imo.

The Government considering reducing the isolation period from 14 to 7 days. That would reduce the unplanned missing of school by half!

No, it wouldn't. It would mean we had more students getting sick, and in the long run, more absences.

Some families at the school I work at have been very unlucky and had to isolate with their children 2-3 times this half term already - usually the less well off and larger families, as there are more members in their household who can fall sick or come into contact with someone else who gets covid than the average. Others have had no absences at all. We are in a tier 1 area. Families the school is more keen to have in as much as possible for various reasons (eg already poor attendance, difficulties at home) are more likely to not get tested when advised to due to symptoms, and just not send their children into school for 10-14 days, instead.

@cantkeepawayforever

I would really, really like to know how many teachers and other school staff have had Covid this half term, and how many have been in hospital or ICU. Is the data out there anywhere?

I would, too. But the cases by occupation data has not been released since April. Possibly Boris is keeping his powder dry for when /if he is reduced to backtracking on full time fully open school.

My thinking with blended learning is that if we ensure kids are close to 2m away from each other and wearing masks, we say they don't have to go off if a kid 2m away gets sick. We've done it for teachers. That way, instead of cutting a 2m circle out of every class they are in for each of their options, we would limit isolation to 2 or 3 close friends.

I think I am in quite a lucky position of being in a school with decent sized classrooms, though. I don't know how well other schools can space out their kids.

@LastGoldenDaysOfSummer yes bubbles are bursting(not my kids yet) but if isolation reduces then even if it happens once a month which is extreme I don't think it's as bad as home learning etc.. At least the kids know they will be back with their mates after a few days, mentally that's got to be better.

Our students have 8 or 9 options, and you are knocking out 4 -10 students per class per positive (if they are unfortunately sat in the middle of the room, a lot of kids can fall within that 2m).

1 confirmed positive can take out up to 50 kids.

If we switched to blended learning, and we could say zero kids are within the 2m in a classroom. This would massively limit the amount who have to isolate.

@LastGoldenDaysOfSummer

that's a funny thing to say to me considering i actually do have a lot of respect for teachers - hence why i am confused as to why you think your job can be done my someone unqualified.

It was for supervision, not teaching. Someone asked what would happen to kids not in schools whose parents could find childcare. That's what I suggested. Somewhere for those not in school to be supervised. I thought that was tacit, given the question I was answering.

You think we should set up a school, which isn't a school because we cant have teachers getting sick, but childminders are fair game.

No, as I've already said I think they should be at home. You seem to have set out to deliberately misinterpret what I say. Why would that be, I wonder.

if we do what you want to "keep you safe" right - you see half your class and then the other half. What about all the extra contacts they will all have from your brilliant childminder school idea? does that really make you feel more safe?

You really are very rude, aren't you. Why so snarky?

It won't be me. I'm retired and feeling very sorry for my former colleagues being treated with such contempt by some.

If community halls are used there will be social distancing, obviously, so less chance of infection being passed on.

Me rude? Mm.

I think your point is that you want teachers to be safe, don't care about education or the effect on children, don't care about the safety of whoever does the childcare instead. Just don't want germy kids near teachers. Got it.

@Nellodee

Our students have 8 or 9 options, and you are knocking out 4 -10 students per class per positive (if they are unfortunately sat in the middle of the room, a lot of kids can fall within that 2m).

1 confirmed positive can take out up to 50 kids.

If we switched to blended learning, and we could say zero kids are within the 2m in a classroom. This would massively limit the amount who have to isolate.

That's only going to work with older kids though surely? Or should reception be social distancing etc?

[quote Remmy123]@LastGoldenDaysOfSummer yes bubbles are bursting(not my kids yet) but if isolation reduces then even if it happens once a month which is extreme I don't think it's as bad as home learning etc.. At least the kids know they will be back with their mates after a few days, mentally that's got to be better.[/quote]
But what about the risk of infection? You haven't addressed that at all. The priority should be to keep the infection risk as low as possible.

The current system doesn't do that.

I don't really know what should happen with younger children. They can't socially distance. Although the children seem to be less likely to get infected, sadly, when they are, they seem to be more likely to pass it on to the staff. I'll leave that discussion to the primary school teachers as it's quite a different situation.

@Nellodee

I don't really know what should happen with younger children. They can't socially distance. Although the children seem to be less likely to get infected, sadly, when they are, they seem to be more likely to pass it on to the staff. I'll leave that discussion to the primary school teachers as it's quite a different situation.

More likely based on what? I ask because my son is self isolating at the moment because one of his teachers tested positive.

If children are asymptomatic, as many seem to be asserting, it is quite likely that it is a child who passed it on, as any adult would be more likely to have suffered symptoms and know about it.
But honestly? Who knows? That's the issue - they're not testing children, routinely or otherwise, so no one has a fucking clue exactly how rife it is in classrooms.
That's what I think should be the key game-changer in keeping schools open: weekly testing for all pupils and staff and daily temperature checks.

Just don't want germy kids near teachers.

There’s a certain type of poster who uses this particular phrasing and it isn’t teachers.

@Nellodee

I don't really know what should happen with younger children. They can't socially distance. Although the children seem to be less likely to get infected, sadly, when they are, they seem to be more likely to pass it on to the staff. I'll leave that discussion to the primary school teachers as it's quite a different situation.

The smaller the bubble the better here. We can't socially distance with young children. You have to look at it as a small "family", like the household is the smallest unit of containment in society. The protective factor is the small number in each bubble. Not going to help you personally if it gets in to the bubble you're teaching, but better for society as a whole as a smaller "unit" needs to isolate each time. Of course low community incidence helps too.

@noblegiraffe

Just don't want germy kids near teachers.

There’s a certain type of poster who uses this particular phrasing and it isn’t teachers.

Go on a certain type of poster?? Want to explain?

It was quite obviously ironic.

@Barbie222 that makes sense. Community levels are everything for primary then, I suppose.