Re-opening schools and narrowing the disadvantage gap

[noblegiraffe]

I know I know I know it’s a thread about re-opening schools but THIS ONE IS A PROFESSIONAL DISCUSSION ABOUT PRACTICALITIES and it’s IN THE STAFFROOM.

The Children’s Commissioner has just released a report about how to go about re-opening schools with the aim of narrowing the disadvantage gap.

The suggestion is that when they reopen, they start with the most disadvantaged kids and the lessons are focused on catch-up tuition, not new content. So Monday the most disadvantaged 20% of Y7 come in, Tuesday the most disadvantaged 20% of Y8 come in etc. This will enable social distancing measures to be implemented.

Disadvantage isn’t just based around FSM, but around the kids most likely to fall behind in general. As it’s compulsory, it might get more of the vulnerable kids in who aren’t currently attending.

www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/cco-tackling-the-disadvantage-gap-during-the-covid-19-crisis.pdf

I thought it was an interesting suggestion, but I’m not sure how it would be received by the people who think that the point of reopening schools is so that they can work from home more effectively.

I just read the briefing . It stressed me out, tbh with its demands on schools

I get the concern about the most vulnerable children; we all do. But I have not seen any evidence anywhere that for most of the most vulnerable this low attendance isn't a pre existing issue.

The idea that the government thought 20% would attend is a red herring : that's because that's how many they wanted at work to keep the economy going, nothing to do with the kids. They are disappointed that so many people heeded the stay at home message.

Surely the figures are flawed anyway because the low figures attending include secondary age children who are more likely to be not sent in because of childcare not being a barrier , and includes year 11s who would more or less be wasting time attending school at the moment (or at least many of them)

Like pfrench I have no answers; but I am pretty sure this is not it.

Liked the block caps in the OP noble!

What about, after this, they start funding schools properly?

That way, we could re-open all the teacher-led intervention. Run true teacher led nurture groups in most schools. Increase the number of ELSAs. Buy in more time from EdPsych/ SALT/ OT/ Outreach to advise. Maybe we could even reduce class sizes.

I reckon then we could crack on with addressing inequalities by ourselves.

Ah, that lovely place called Utopia.

We might need different government as a first step and even then I am not convinced...

In France, the average class size in some areas at primary is 36 : it is a big headache for them in planned return to school.

But first, reefedsail, they'd need to take back control of schools. The last school I worked at, a year ago, had a new head who got rid of the teacher-led nurture, the ELSA and the Lego therapy etc. Give that school the money and they'd use it for something else. The head feels school is for teaching, not everything else.

There is an extent to which that is true, in a fully functional well funded system where outside agencies are easily sourced and readily available. It hasn't been like that for such a long time, though, of course and that's why everyone looks to schools to solve all life's ills and why there is such a panic from the likes of the Children's Commissioner about them being closed.

eldeeno Exactly what I was thinking as with every education thread on here, every parent/teacher is entitled to their own opinion, as it’s based on their own school and Lordy knows we’re all aware that schools are vastly different

It could be deemed discriminatory though by those not deemed worthy of attending. And sounds like educational apartheid. The stigma of attending could stay with these children.

Likewise the measure of vulnerable is subjective. On a technicality, my child remain entitled to fsm, yet is not educationally vulnerable and has obviously been accessing a good, High quality education at home (ex teacher). Although my child additional needs, there's no gap to close as actually is performing educationally at the higher end of the spectrum.

Whereas there will be those performing much lower, not be fsm or pp, have unsupportive families etc.

My worry would be the same as @eldeeno. Around 75% of the school population where I work are pupil premium children and would most likely constitute disadvantaged no matter what measure was used to define it. If it was defined as 20% most disadvantaged nationally, would we just have near enough the whole school in? If its 20% most disadvantaged of the school population, you'll end up with varying levels of disadvantage and some children in schools being much more advantaged than others. It would work if all schools overall have an equal level of disadvantage but naturally they don't.

If the 20% in are selected by any criteria, there will be incredible opposition. I’d prefer children to be in on a rolling basis - different year groups on different days. Though I’m already struggling to keep up with remote teaching as it is, I’m dreading the possibility of doing that at the same time as trying to teach all day in school too!

However, whatever way we do it, there needs to be an understanding that social distancing is impossible to properly achieve in schools. Keeping 2m away in a classroom is feasible if there are few enough kids in, but unless we keep them all sitting down throughout lunch / break they will find it impossible to keep away from each other. And, tbh, I’d be concerned about the long term damage to children if we frighten them in to compliance.

I am not sure what the definition of disadvantaged would be in this circumstance - but where i work, some of the disadvantaged children (PP i am thinking of here) having very loving and protective parents. They'd be upset that their children were exposed to risk earlier.

In Germany, they're starting with the year groups that have important exams, plus the last year of Pr6.

I read that about a couple of countries. Doesn't get round class size issues. Having read something somewhere this morning the issue is none of the bigwigs agree with each other about who to prioritise or how.

Educationally it would be Y6, 10 and 12 as they need stuff they can’t catch up on next year.

Economically it would be primary and Y7.

I doubt that attendance will be compulsory during this period so anyone who's protective (are those who are not protective, not loving??) would be fine not sending their child.
But we already have differentiated work - I already have IEP meetings for my DD - I already have parents snidely asking what book band she's on and boasting about their DC being on Turquoise or whatever in Reception - if you don't want anyone to know your child needs a boost, you don't have to send them. You can boast that your child doesn't need booster sessions, even if they do.
I don't see how this is any more discriminatory than differentiating work/providing extra TA time for my DD, who is taken out for extra phonics with a small group? Or than people knowing my DS has a 1:1?

Economically it would be primary and Y7.

And for health reasons - the rate of symptoms in the under-14s is minuscule.

Teacher Tapp pointed out the problem that lots of secondary teachers have primary aged kids so if they’re in for Y10 and 12 but primary aren’t back then that’s an issue.

I agree that dividing up by group is stigmatising for children- my bottom sets are very aware of being bottom set, and it is damaging for their esteem. Equally, they wouldn't like being forced into school when no-one else is. This would all impact the amount of productive learning being done.

I wonder if the answer is to have Y10 and 12 go back in secondary, and the youngest children go back in primary? With older primary school children, it's at least a bit easier to work at home, and secondary children are less likely to need childcare, and Y10/12 will have the least time to catch up.

A lot of Y12 classes are small enough to socially distance at least, and Y10 could be split up between more teachers- maybe half the time with a subject specialist and half the time with someone else? You could redo the timetable, to minimise who was in on each day, maybe?

In primary again, classes could split between more teachers and rotate.

Rotating who is in each day doesn't really help people get back to work, and in secondary I think you'd end up with each year group missing out on some subjects. One day a week might help primary students educationally, though. One week on and one week off might work better for secondary.

I agree with whoever said that you will still get issues with schools not being able to open at all at times if e.g. a cough goes round the staff. Unless they decide that we're not to self isolate- which puts people at risk.

I think however it is done, it will make some people really unhappy.

I almost think it would be better to put everyone back in for a few weeks- catch up what we can educationally, and then accept we will need to have a second lockdown quite quickly.

All the suggestions about opening schools over the summer etc. assume we won't need a second lockdown once schools reopen- but we definitely will, it's just a question of timing!

Whatever happens, it's going to be difficult to manage. Even if they said all primary are going back, it almost certainly won't be compulsory because you'll get a large number of parents wanting to keep their children at home. So my question would be what expectations would their be for learning in the classroom and sending work home? It's not feasible to be teaching "as normal" all day for a half or two thirds of your class, but still be sending the work plus appropriate explanations of the teaching home, remotely marking work as well as making books. School staff are going to be busier than usual anyway just dealing with keeping a level of cleanliness about the place.
So unless they open up schools completely as normal, there are always going to be pupils who are disadvantaged in some way.
The whole thing makes my head (and heart) hurt.

*there not their!

Exactly, Sansa, everyone back in names the most sense in my head in terms of schooling. Nightmare if the government wasn't to continue any semblance of lockdown or social distancing, though.

*want not wasn't!

Gah, sorry. So tired today, my typing has gone to pot.

*makes not names!

I give up.

The younger the child, the harder it is for them to 'socially distance' themselves, no matter how many times you remind them. At least that's what I'm seeing every day that I'm in school... they just can't stay away from each other. Even the Year 4s and 5s can't seem to manage it, and there are only a handful of them in. Madness to think we can re open primaries safely in the near future with more than 8 in a room ... it really is that hard to keep them apart. And grossly unfair to staff to keep exposing them to all the children, especially on a rotating basis, where viral load will come into play.

Another random idea...

Primary - what about kids in one day a week? With 4 follow up activities to do at home (using videos and resources provided by teacher)? Can have 8 kids in a day in each classroom + teacher and support staff.

Just teach English, maths and one other subject for that week.

That sorts out some elements of social distancing. But doesn't help adults get back to work properly. And would rely on all pupils having a decent set up of technology at home.

Maybe we just need to accept that there are going to be a lot of rota things going on in all industries for the next year or so, try like hell to socially distance, and accept we're all going to get it eventually?

I just can't get my head around how any permutation of staggered cohorts could work and I teach in one of the smallest state secondaries in the country! Whatever happens, there will still be some parents who will keep their children at home so we will be teaching in classes and setting remote learning at the same time.

Someone on another thread pointed out that they work in the three-tier system, so that's another issue to add into the mix.