DFE have updated 'Critical workers' section to clarify that parents and carers who are critical workers should keep their children at home if they can.

[diddydave]

www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-maintaining-educational-provision

That's common sense.
But "if they can" is very subjective and cannot really be proven, so it is not going to make a difference
I personally, cannot keep my DD at home and work, but then she is 3.5yo, I may feel different if she was older.

@piscis

That's common sense. But "if they can" is very subjective and cannot really be proven, so it is not going to make a difference I personally, cannot keep my DD at home and work, but then she is 3.5yo, I may feel different if she was older.

It may make a difference to those who are wavering, and hopefully if enough do follow this guidance the schools will become safer places where less transmission takes place and therefore will protect the families of those workers who HAVE to use the place.

I'm with @piscis on this one. I dont think it will make any difference. I also in a similar position in that while I wfh on some days my 1 yo will still be going to nursery ( under key worker provisions if required) as I cannot do the face to face components of my job with a baby there.
However often the goverment do these sneaky changes in the run up to stricter measures and given sages recent advice it might be there gearing up to change the guidelines on key worker childrens places.

@Aimee1987

I'm with *@piscis* on this one. I dont think it will make any difference. I also in a similar position in that while I wfh on some days my 1 yo will still be going to nursery ( under key worker provisions if required) as I cannot do the face to face components of my job with a baby there. However often the goverment do these sneaky changes in the run up to stricter measures and given sages recent advice it might be there gearing up to change the guidelines on key worker childrens places.

Yes, I think it's more of a 'message' than anything that will have a substantial effect. Unless they add in 'real' support such as giving a legal right to someone to claim furlough so they could take on the child-minding responsibilities of the key-worker it's not going to work - and even that suggestion is of no use to single parent workers or those where both are key-workers...though I suppose they could work in a rotation week on/week off kind of thing.

What interests me is that it would appear to be a tacit agreement with those who were pushing that schools were unsafe and further acknowledging that their actions thus far have done little to make them any safer.

Exactly, we cannot be fourloughed and we cannot work with at 3.5 yo at home.
The suggestion one week on/off in our case is just not possible. We both have way more work than before Covid, my DH is supposed to work 35 hours a week and he is working around 45 because there is not enough people on his team now and otherwise the work (very urgent sometimes) wouldn't be done, so no chance he can have a week off every other week, that would cause problems in his department in a London council. Therefore we use the keyworker space for our daughter.

I agree with a pp that non-key-workers need the legal right to furlough for childcare.

Many many properly essential key-workers like nurses are the lower earners of a couple, their non-key worker partner needs their wage to keep a roof over their heads, so the kids have to go to school.

@piscis

Exactly, we cannot be fourloughed and we cannot work with at 3.5 yo at home. The suggestion one week on/off in our case is just not possible. We both have way more work than before Covid, my DH is supposed to work 35 hours a week and he is working around 45 because there is not enough people on his team now and otherwise the work (very urgent sometimes) wouldn't be done, so no chance he can have a week off every other week, that would cause problems in his department in a London council. Therefore we use the keyworker space for our daughter.

Yes, yours is the situation that is the reason that schools never actually shut, this time or last - there is a need for keyworkers children to be looked after so key working parents can work. The difference this time appears to be that schools are not as safe with this new variant being more transmissible, more easily carried by children and with more children than before being sent in to take up their entitlement. The government appear to have realised, somewhat late in the day, that the widening of the Key worker/vulnerable list is likely to prolong the lockdown hence the change in guidance.

The wording is too vague as usual but hopefully the fact that an update was needed will make at least some of those who could manage their DC at home think twice. Most people seem unaware that the guidance has changed. I've been told at least three times in another thread that their hasn't been any updated guidance. It needs somebody from the government to say something in a speech to make any difference.

I agree with a pp that non-key-workers need the legal right to furlough for childcare.

Yes, this would make a big difference.

@lavenderlou

The wording is too vague as usual but hopefully the fact that an update was needed will make at least some of those who could manage their DC at home think twice. Most people seem unaware that the guidance has changed. I've been told at least three times in another thread that their hasn't been any updated guidance. It needs somebody from the government to say something in a speech to make any difference.

Just point them at the link I gave at the start...there is a list on the page that details WHEN each update was made, along with a quick summary of what the change was...in this case:

"8 January 2021
Updated 'Critical workers' section to clarify that parents and carers who are critical workers should keep their children at home if they can."

Why is everyone going nuts over this? The Guardian have written an article saying that the government is saying that if you are working from home, you mustn't send your kids in. That's not what the guidance says.

'If they can' is completely subjective. This has been done deliberately. If the government meant 'a parent working from home' that's what they would have said.

'Keep your children at home if you can' was also the message in March. This is not a 'U-Turn' - not with that wording.

What I don't understand is that at my DD's school they have put together both nursery and Reception kids in the same class, with a total of 15.
If the goal is to have as less kids as possible together to minimise risk of transmission, why do they mix two different groups? If they were each in the classroom they used to be, there would be two groups with only 7 or 8 in each, better than a group of 15. Defies the purpose

What it has done for me is make me feel even worse and even more guilty about sending DC to school. I keep thinking, maybe I could. But I look objectively at it: DH, also a key worker, is working out of the house 6am-4:30pm. My work is time-sensitive and I am a key worker and also supporting key workers who absolutely need my support and have vulnerable people depending on them, and they are not necessarily free to be supported when I need them to be. I'm honestly not sure how else I would do it

I think some of the people might also be teachers who were able to have their kids at home last time, when they were just setting and marking work online, and could work with that around their kids. But now that they are expected to do live lessons and 'real time' schooling, they aren't able to manage that. I know a few teachers in this position who have sent their kids in this time who didn't last time.

It becomes a bit circular really!

But they won’t as its just a guide line Free childcare will win over social responsibility

I’m technically a keyworker with a dh working outside of the home but have kept my dc home as they’re old enough for me to be able to do some semblance of both. If they were toddlers I would be insane by now.

@piscis

What I don't understand is that at my DD's school they have put together both nursery and Reception kids in the same class, with a total of 15. If the goal is to have as less kids as possible together to minimise risk of transmission, why do they mix two different groups? If they were each in the classroom they used to be, there would be two groups with only 7 or 8 in each, better than a group of 15. Defies the purpose

Probably a staffing solution - don’t forget they probably have some shielding staff who aren’t coming in, and still need staff to provide/respond to remote learning for the kids at home.

Our primary school is doing the same.

It's not enough but at least heads might be able to apply some challenge to piss takers.

If one parent is SAHP or furloughed or unemployed and the other a KW but they send their children then they should be ashamed. No exceptions.

If they take advantage of 'no laptop or quiet space' but could easily buy one or clear a space they should be ashamed.

Wfh jobs it's more debateable but still many people especially with older kids could and should step up and work around this even if it's less than ideal. DH is homeschooling our 9yr old and working from home running his business whilst I am in the hospital. My Dsis and BIL are taking shifts with their 2. One starting work early and one finishing late so they can supervise a bit of home school.
Not everyone can do this I appreciate but people should be trying and employers need to be supportive.

Yes, but nobody can, apparently.

@piscis

What I don't understand is that at my DD's school they have put together both nursery and Reception kids in the same class, with a total of 15. If the goal is to have as less kids as possible together to minimise risk of transmission, why do they mix two different groups? If they were each in the classroom they used to be, there would be two groups with only 7 or 8 in each, better than a group of 15. Defies the purpose

Staffing - if you have the children in two groups you'd need two adults in each. In one group you can just have two adults total.

@piscis

What I don't understand is that at my DD's school they have put together both nursery and Reception kids in the same class, with a total of 15. If the goal is to have as less kids as possible together to minimise risk of transmission, why do they mix two different groups? If they were each in the classroom they used to be, there would be two groups with only 7 or 8 in each, better than a group of 15. Defies the purpose

It's because schools are under a legal obligation to provide both in-person and remote education - with no extra money.

Half the reception class and half the year 1 class are in.

Two teachers; one takes the children that are in, the other takes the children that are learning remotely.

The purpose is childcare to allow key workers to work, it isn't about keeping the children or their parents any safer.

@lavenderlou

I agree with a pp that non-key-workers need the legal right to furlough for childcare.

Yes, this would make a big difference.

But this wouldn’t help non-keyworker public sector staff, not an insignificant number, who can’t be furloughed. So they would also need to expand furlough to public-funded bodies as well as private.

The purpose is childcare to allow key workers to work, it isn't about keeping the children or their parents any safer

Yes, but the safer it is, the better, because parents can keep working. If the bubble burst, that will have an impact on most of the parents, who will need to isolate. So having too many kids in one class is risky and ultimately will lead to keyworkers not being able to work at some point.

I am not saying there is an easy solution and I understand staffing issues but putting kids in bigger groups is really not ideal.

what would you do if you were us?

We have 3 small children - reception, y3 and y4 - so 5,7,8. We are both key workers, working at home on covid related activity in senior jobs - not NHS but other (different public sectors). we are in meetings almost all day both of us. we have kept our after school arrangements for pick up as we cannot guarantee to be free.

I feel that we are not true keyworkers as we are not out on shift
If we had them at home they would fight all day and get thier own lunch. but technically they could do that.
I dont think we could engage in online schooling for one let alone all 3 on different devices and requiring support.

hit me with it?

@diddydave
I just threw out the idea of making furlough a legal right, I don't think there is any real chance of it becoming policy, however unless more is done to stop schools continuing to spread this virus - that is to cut down the number of children in those schools (which I presume is the purpose of the change in guidance that key workers - and hence everyone - should keep children at home if they can) then more people are going to die.

There is no, as far as I am aware, an ideal solution.

People working from home cannot be as efficient if they have children under foot but that is the best the Government has come up with.