The logistical issue with closing primary schools...

[Jourdain11]

Just want to say at the start that, in saying this, I do not in any way mean to undermine teachers' and school staffs' right to work in a safe environment. But there is a big logistical issue with the closure of primary schools, assuming that childcare arrangements would also be knocked out.

In the spring, a huge number of people were either wfh or furloughed. That is no longer the case to the same extent. Since the rules/guidance now is to "work from home unless you cannot do your job at home", there are many, many more people who are expected to go into work, at least on a part-time schedule.

Which creates a huge issue in terms of primary-aged children doing remote learning from home. Either you end up with a pretty large number of "key worker" or "unable to learn from home" children going into school (which creates issues for staff in terms of providing in-school staffing and online provision simultaneously, and also slightly defeats the point of the entire exercise); or you have thousands of parents having to resign their jobs, take unpaid leave, beg for time off or whatever (which is clearly very far from ideal). Or you end up with parents simply saying, "I pay taxes for my children to be educated in school and it is their right to receive this education" and sending them in anyway.

Seems the only way around this would be either to have a "short, sharp" shutdown with a (for example) 2-week timelimit, which might be more manageable for both parents and school staff. Or to stay open and increase hygiene measures in PSs, or at least strive to make them equal across all schools.

Thoughts?

@Waxonwaxoff0

Employers can't be flexible if you cannot physically do your job from home like mine.

Exactly this! And the flippant remark that you should automatically be furloughed is absurd! I dont know many employers that have "extra" staff just in case to cover multiple staff shortages that could make up the missing work load from those furloughed for childcare reasons . I worked for a nationwide company that had small branches up and down the country in my branch there was 6 of us all of which had primary age children, in that scenario we should all be eligible for furlough, but then who is running our department and servicing our customers? No one! The company loses money, the customers lose faith and go elsewhere, that branch gets closed completely and 6 of us are in the redundancy line. I doubt that's a unique scenario across the country. Its ok to say employers need to be flexible but at the same time employers need employees in work doing their jobs keeping the business going to ensure there's still a job to turn up too!

@Limemoon

Yes, there should be some employment protection law enforced if Covid school closures are forced down our throats.

You can have all the employment protection you like but if a business cant function with a proportion of its staff off due to childcare issues then that company will close. End of!

in my home country they have a 'law' in place that allows (orders) employers to be flexible regarding all things covid. If you can provide evidence that you are unable work due to covid, then they cannot fire you

No they can't fire you as such but they can close the business down (liquidation or administration) due to being unable to continue without the staff to run it and the end result is the same thing.
I speak from experience!

Is the UK Coronavirus Act available to the public? I’m assuming there would be some type of coverage for people who cannot receive furlough 🤷‍♀️ ?

Yes it's available to the public: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/contents/enacted

If you aren't eligible for furlough your options are relatively slim. (Plus even if you are technically eligible for furlough, you only get it if your employer agrees.) You can request flexible working to change your hours/days, or you can request unpaid leave, but your employer can refuse both of those and 'flexible working' only goes so far.

You do have the legal right to dependent's leave that covers things like childcare emergencies, which is usually unpaid and is meant to be short-term. I suppose you could make an argument that it should cover a few weeks in the current circumstances.

Asking employers to be flexible only really works if employers can offer that flexibility, and the flexibility is something that'll fit with what both they need and the employee needs. So if you usually work 3 hours a day 8.30-11.30am and want that to move to 8.30-11.30pm, and there's no particular thing you need to be working at any specific time for, then fine. But if you work 40 hours a week and need that pay, or if your employer is already teetering on the edge and can't lose your hours, you can't feasibly cram 40 hours of work into the time when your children are asleep.

Or if you work in an office and could technically WFH but your employer doesn't really fancy the idea, then it's totally reasonable to ask for WFH under a flexible working request; but if you work in a job where you need to be there in person, what can they do?

Exactly - it's really not so simple as saying "the employer has to be flexible, otherwise they're being mean". If lack of staff means the organisation is unable to function, the organisation may end up folding anyway in which case the end result is still - no job.

The unpaid leave or voluntary redundancy route is also not as easy as it might sound. Most employers would require you to work notice. Even if they cannot actually oblige you to, you would risk losing a good reference for future job applications. And most employees feel a moral obligation to work out some kind of handover anyway. When I was signed off because of leukaemia in March, I still did 2 weeks working from home and one day in the office, so that I could pass on my case load in something resembling a state of order. If you don't hate your job or employer, it's hard not to do this when you know that others would suffer.

Of course, it would be way easier to plan leave / flexible working requests if one knew what was happening, and if the closures were for a defined period

I am in complete agreement with the comments regarding the difficulties in employers to be flexible, however, these aren’t normal times and there should be no easy ‘get out of jail card’ for employers who decide to fire, replace, cut hours because of Covid.

If the schools close, parents get ill (my best friend and her husband had Covid right before Christmas and obviously no one could offer them any help. We were grateful their children are 13 and 10 and can mostly ‘take care’ of themselves. But they were off for over two weeks!) there needs to be support for employees. Especially as employers have accessed funds from the government during the pandemic (they might tell you they haven’t, but the have, trust me).

Maybe it’s because my home country has a very different attitude towards life and work balance that I’m dismayed that there is no safety net already in place for employees who fall ill or their children who fall ill (god forbid) - regardless of Covid.

Year 7 being on their own five days a week is questionable tbh but that will be my son. I’ve no other choice bar lose my job.
I’m a primary teacher and 1/4 of our staff have had covid. We were ok until the last three weeks and then it was one after the next. No confirmed child cases but rife amongst staff. I do wish they would vaccinate vulnerable teaching staff but I don’t think they will.

Full lockdown to get rid of the virus, childcare is the responsibility of parents.

That's not very helpful TragedyHands. The whole system is set up with an expectation that both parents work from their youngest child being of school age.

I think we probably need to move away from the idea that only schools can provide childcare for the moment, and look at some sort of childcare hubs for working parents (inside or outside of the home) while shutting schools for a bit.

There will still be transmission routes but fewer than schools.

school isn't childcare

But what the fuck is the point of saying childcare is the responsibility of the parents if all possible childcare options have been removed?

And school IS childcare if you can’t work unless your kids are in school!

Well, it is for 39 weeks a year under ordinary circumstances.

Indeed, parents/carers are required to send their children to school or HE them.

There isn't an alternative childcare provision for school aged children during term times, so of course it's childcare.

@jillypill yawn. The jobcentre certainly think it is. What's the alternative then for people who don't have anyone to do childcare for them?

Sorting out childcare is of course the responsibility of parents or carers.

The actual provision of it 24/7 isn't.

you have thousands of parents having to resign their jobs, take unpaid leave, beg for time off or whatever
Some will be able to WFH. Some will manage to organise emergency childcare. Some will use holidays or take unpaid leave and be able to live on savings or borrow money to tide them over. Others will lose their jobs but there are thousands of people who are unemployed due to Covid so many of those jobs could be filled fairly quickly. The children of key workers would still be in school so society as a whole wouldn’t suffer.

I think we probably need to move away from the idea that only schools can provide childcare for the moment, and look at some sort of childcare hubs for working parents (inside or outside of the home) while shutting schools for a bit.

Why would childcare hubs pose less of an infection risk than schools? Surely that's the worst of all worlds, with children still spreading the virus but not being educated?

The holiday club that I send DS to in the school holidays wanted to open during the first school closure but were told they weren't allowed to. If alternative childcare provisions aren't allowed to operate then what are people supposed to do?

Some will be able to WFH

Anyone who thinks that WFH is a viable form of childcare for a young child either has never done it or doesn't actually work when they work from home.

Because not all children would need to access them, if parents were at home and able to provide childcare there.

Because they could be smaller with clearly defined 'bubbles'.

Because secondary school children could, on the whole, be able to be safely left at home thus reduce transmission that way.

Because if they were invested in, the hygiene measures could be much better than in schools eg more toilets facilities, running hot water.

Because no mask = no childcare (unless exempt) for 6 years old and above.

It's not ideal by any stretch of the imagination. But it's clearly very unsafe for schools to open as they were now, and working parents do need some form of childcare.

I don't know. Just a thought. It's grossly unfair on teaching staff for them to be exposed as they have been, yet parents need childcare. I wonder if there was a way of providing the latter differently, while teachers were still uploading lessons/setting and marking work in a safer working environment than they have been up to now.

@EttaG

you have thousands of parents having to resign their jobs, take unpaid leave, beg for time off or whatever Some will be able to WFH. Some will manage to organise emergency childcare. Some will use holidays or take unpaid leave and be able to live on savings or borrow money to tide them over. Others will lose their jobs but there are thousands of people who are unemployed due to Covid so many of those jobs could be filled fairly quickly. The children of key workers would still be in school so society as a whole wouldn’t suffer.

So the child of the parent who has to give their job up or take unpaid leave long term gets no education and potentially put on the poverty line thats a fucking fantastic plan 👏

@Waxonwaxoff0

Agree. I'm a non keyworker but I cannot work from home, I'm single as well. I cannot leave a 7 year old at home on his own while I go to work, and quitting work is out of the question as mine is the only income.

I could cope with just a couple of weeks of closure or blended learning as if DS were in school half the week I could at least work half the week. But a full closure for months like last time would push us into poverty and I would end up in debt if I can't pay my bills.

It's true that I could be furloughed but that wouldn't help the company I work for - I was furloughed the first time around but so were most of the other staff as business tanked. We are now very busy again at work so either my colleagues would have to do my job as well as their own which I'm sure they'd resent as it would mean them doing hours of overtime while I sit at home! Or they would have to get rid of me and hire someone who can actually go in and do the job.

I would prefer to see colleges going online and possibly blended learning/online for non exam years at secondary school. Also parents of primary age children who want to keep their children home for now (which I'm sure there are many!) to be supported in doing so and not fined. That would at least mean less pupils in school.

It's all very well saying "everyone needs an emergency childcare plan" but some people just don't have that. I have no one to help with childcare, my parents both work full time themselves.

The Govt would be paying your furlough so why couldnt your employer take someone else on as a temporary measure?

It wouldn't cost them anything extra and would employ someone on a temp basis that is currently out of work due to the pandemic.

If alternative childcare provisions aren't allowed to operate then what are people supposed to do?

Give up your job apparently

The Govt would be paying your furlough so why couldnt your employer take someone else on as a temporary measure?

Do you really think it's this simple?

Well if schools are closed parents will have to choose what to do.
When we lost income we cut back on everything and to begin with it was hard, but now we are breaking even, no luxuries but can't expect any when lost so much income.
It's the way it is when the world isn't operating normally. You can't expect others to care/ educate your kids during a pandemic. Great if they can but when they can't it has to fall to the parents, they are our responsibility not the states, unless of course they are in care.