Conflicting evidence on impact of school closures

[UP13]

I think the reason schools will be one of t he first things to resume (as well as being one of the reasons why it was the last) is because it'll be very difficult to get the economy going if people are stuck at home babysitting their own children.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the reason schools will be one of t he first things to resume (as well as being one of the reasons why it was the last) is because it'll be very difficult to get the economy going if people are stuck at home babysitting their own children.

I agree, for exactly that reason.

 

[Bayum]

I’ve not read through every single post, but as most of you know, I’m in education as a teacher. My LEA hasn’t been impacted too badly by the pandemic, though we had three students and their families self isolating in the fortnight leading to the school closure.

I don’t know, even in primary, how exams would have taken place. Children have had nearly six weeks out of curriculum, which for many would have been a huge time in finishing off modules and getting revision plans ready for the May/June season. We don’t know what the endpoint is for the virus, and we don’t know what the impact has been for either the children, the economy or anything, bar a few studies. We could still be in a period of lockdown when the exam period would have begun, and cancelling exams too close to the start of the exam season would cause problems for students who have been revising, getting hold of papers from schools and destroying them amongst a variety of other things.
Teachers and students won’t benefit from this particularly. A lot of students in my school were upset that they weren’t having their SATS. A lot of them recognised the extra work they themselves had put in and were looking forward to showing off their mettle and what they had achieved.
In larger schools near me, we’ve had anything up to 7/8 of the current staff off sick. The vast majority of covid cases within children are asymptomatic. Excellent for them. But that doesn’t help the potential of transmission to any number of adults within the school. Other children could be symptomatic, and we know from data around the child that though fatality rates due to covid-19 are lower in children, it isn’t an absolute impossibility. The manpower needed to keep schools going is huge. One way or another, we’d have had to look at closing schools here and there at some point anyway.

 

[UP13]

I don't where you teach but near me I think we were literally only a few days away from a real crisis. It'd have been impossible to stay open.

 

[Bayum]

As far as returning, I’m thinking schools might be reopened towards the end of the first summer half term, maybe ready for the second half term. I don’t see anyway around the situation with an exit plan beyond herd immunity at this point. Too late. I think we are in for a potential set of mini lockdowns. Get children and business going and people mixing and spreading germs together, then when cases begin to rise again, look at closing businesses around the start of the summer holidays, ready for a seven week lockdown.

 

[Bayum]

I don't where you teach but near me I think we were literally only a few days away from a real crisis. It'd have been impossible to stay open.

I’m in the south of North Yorkshire. Touch wood, we’ve been left relatively unscathed.

 

[The Ham]

The parent has to collect twice, then. And drop one off as they pick up etc.

It's an imperfect situation and whatever is done no solution can be perfect, nor should time be wasted looking for perfect solutions.

The suggestion was that pick up/drop off in the middle of the day was to be separated by lunch so as to limit parental interaction and play time for the children in the middle of the day.

 

[sjpowermac]

I think the reason schools will be one of t he first things to resume (as well as being one of the reasons why it was the last) is because it'll be very difficult to get the economy going if people are stuck at home babysitting their own children.

Is the correct answer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The suggestion was that pick up/drop off in the middle of the day was to be separated by lunch so as to limit parental interaction and play time for the children in the middle of the day.

It was, though parents may then have to make two trips, it's hardly the end of the world if so. Or maybe schools could provide suitably separated indoor waiting provision for that much smaller number of children.

 

[sjpowermac]

WHO, Welsh FM and Mayor of London all saying no easing in on the horizon this morning.

The estimate of earliest peak has also been pushed back later by a week this morning.

The exit time from ICU is typically a 5 week lag from catching but there is a 3 week review cycle

I suspect schools will be one of the earlier areas to go back but they will look at the whole impact of schools reopen not just the narrow "in classroom" school definition bit.

Progress on testing is painfully slow.

‘Horizon’ is suitably vague. I’m not saying that I think it’s right or wrong that we ease the lockdown by the end of the month but I do think it is inevitable. It seems that many businesses wouldn’t survive a lockdown until June and in order to get businesses going you need schools open first.

 

[Bayum]

As I said, the reality is that the schools were on the edge of a major major staffing crisis.

You can stagger closing times but parents of multiple children would just hang out waiting for their next kid. I'm also talking from the perspective of a primary teacher.



Cross school moderation is definitely something that happens at primary level but the problem is it would now involve physically going into work to find work and physically send it to other teachers. When we were told we were closing it was already a massive rush to grab what we could to take home.

Whether kids are a source of infection or not the schools would have to have closed anyway because of financial reasons (paying for supplies) and safety (not enough adults to supervise that number of pupils). As it was, a significant number of pupils were at home in isolation anyway so it probably made more sense just to remote teach the lot as it was quite a bit of work to simultaneously teach both groups at once.



I agree.

it’s stressful enough having a writing moderation meeting, let alone anything else!

the problem with moderation is it is only as good as the context behind it. Coursework in secondary is great. It gives a solid example of where the child is at with a single project. The problem is that teacher assessment is rarely made on a single piece of work. You need to look at their input in lessons, their work in lessons, how they have done in mock exams, there’s a whole triangulation of things to put in the mix. By moderating in secondary, and even primary in this way is very difficult. When I’ve had moderation meetings on the reading and comprehension of my children, I’ve been asked for evidence from each of the three terms to show progress, I’ve been asked for individual guided reading sessions to show progression and challenge to evidence the progression I say the child has made. It’s too mammoth a task.

 

[The Ham]

I agree, for exactly that reason.

Likewise I agree that schools are likely to be back fairly early on, however I still don't think that schools are likely to be back before September. Not least due the fact that the peak is likely to be several weeks away and even then it's going another few weeks before there's enough of a drop to consider allowing some more spread to happen. Then there's a chance that you'd wish to still be fairly limited in why you can go out.

Maybe the reopening of takeaways and building sites would likely be an early step. Then as time moves forward consider other activities which can be restarted at fairly low risk.

Schools would be a problem if you had to close then again after reopening because cases had gone up too much.

There's areas where there's been up to 50 for every 100,000 people. They're going to need to see a lot more cases, or the whole country see nearly no new cases, before we can consider anything like reopening schools.

 

[hwl]

‘Horizon’ is suitably vague. I’m not saying that I think it’s right or wrong that we ease the lockdown by the end of the month but I do think it is inevitable. It seems that many businesses wouldn’t survive a lockdown until June and in order to get businesses going you need schools open first.

Agreed that schools are going to need to be open to enable a full reopen and that many business won't survive till June (based on survey pre-government support) - but quite a number of businesses could partially reopen even without schools reopening. School are going to be short staffed (as will pretty much everywhere) for quite a while.

Fauci in the US has just suggested Autumn for school reopening, which is more pessimistic than anything here.

 

[hwl]

Likewise I agree that schools are likely to be back fairly early on, however I still don't think that schools are likely to be back before September. Not least due the fact that the peak is likely to be several weeks away and even then it's going another few weeks before there's enough of a drop to consider allowing some more spread to happen. Then there's a chance that you'd wish to still be fairly limited in why you can go out.

Maybe the reopening of takeaways and building sites would likely be an early step. Then as time moves forward consider other activities which can be restarted at fairly low risk.

Schools would be a problem if you had to close then again after reopening because cases had gone up too much.

There's areas where there's been up to 50 for every 100,000 people. They're going to need to see a lot more cases, or the whole country see nearly no new cases, before we can consider anything like reopening schools.

It very much looks like everything has been pushed to further into the future time wise.

 

[Harvey B]

Be surprised if the Children go back before September.
Not sure how the classes will look with social distancing or indeed interaction with friends in the school/play grounds.
Add in the teachers who are off and May would seem a big ask particularly as many people won't want to risk sending the child to s school in case they get or bring home the virus.

I agree, I'd be very surprised schools reopen before. Im doing a college project which in lvolves doing filming after easter and the deadline was in may so I don't see myself returning before september and as I said, I'd be surprised if we do return before then

 

[Harvey B]

As far as returning, I’m thinking schools might be reopened towards the end of the first summer half term, maybe ready for the second half term.

I doubt that they will be back before september and I'd be surprised and I don't think there's much point in reopening schools after May half term since its so close to the end of the school year

 

[Busaholic]

One of my fears is that, if taken too far (which I hope doesn't happen) the end result of measures that are too extreme may have a disproportionately negative effect on young people. We have a situation where there are some young people who desperately want to go to school, and sufficient staff who would be able to provide that supervision, but we are unable to do so. Maybe that is the right decision right now but it can't remain so for too long.

When decisions are made, it must not be with complete disregard for the needs of young people.

That has already been ruled out.

As an oldie, just want to say how much I'm in agreement with you. My neighbours have their children, a first year university student and a secondary school student who was due to sit GCSEs this summer now ensconced with them, and they've been pretty good at following the legislation thus far, but it's going to be a long,long spring and summer, especially if the weather is good, and I live in a seaside holiday area. I think there will have to be changes unless the situation declines dramatically.

 

[JohnB57]

I think there will have to be changes unless the situation declines dramatically.

It's certainly not going to improve dramatically any time soon.

Given that any relaxation of the rules carries enhanced risk of the virus spreading and all of the resultant implications, what level of additional risk would be acceptable to you?

 

[ChrisC]

There are "intermediate" ways they could go back which could deal with these. For example, if half the children went back in the morning only and half in the afternoon only, you don't need to have those breaks where they mingle at all (as lunch would be at home) and you can have them sitting in every other seat with half the regular number in each classroom, and with no need for an assembly/lunch hall that larger space could also be used for spaced-out desks for a full class of 30ish.

Social distancing, with children at spaced-out desks may work with older children, but it would be an absolute nightmare and almost unworkable for teachers of younger primary aged children. Older children would have some understanding of why this is necessary, but children aged only 4 or 5 would have little or no understanding of why they can’t be near to or play with their friends. I’m not sure how many of the Year 2 children that I taught before recently retiring would have been able to understand this even at the age of 6 or 7. So much of the curriculum, especially in the early years, is based upon children playing and working close together.

If schools don’t go back until September children will have missed almost half of a school year. I think teachers of younger children are going to have a very difficult task when they do return, as missing half a school year at that stage will be very significant. In the long term they will catch up, and I don’t believe in 10 years time these children will be at any disadvantage, but in the short term it will be very difficult. Children in the first few years of primary school especially, will have a lot of catching up to do before the usual curriculum skills can be taught. Although large areas of knowledge may have been missed with older aged children, I think the problem of catching up on missed basic skills becomes less as the children get older.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't get hung up on 4-5 year olds missing a couple of terms. It used to be the case in the 80s that you didn't start until the term after you turned 5 (I'm young for my year so I would have had 2 fewer terms than some) and it doesn't seem to have caused major issues for me or others in that position.

 

[Busaholic]

It's certainly not going to improve dramatically any time soon.

Given that any relaxation of the rules carries enhanced risk of the virus spreading and all of the resultant implications, what level of additional risk would be acceptable to you?

I've a feeling that we're nowhere near the peak, even the first one, and our unpreparedness for it is being exacerbated by the failure to achieve even a basic level of testing to establish who has the virus and the lack of the vital protective equipment for NHS staff and care workers. The extra deaths that will happen to seriously ill people who haven't been able to get the medical attention, or even testing, necessary may not be quantifiable but it will be considerable and cause a lot of misery both to the victims and their loved ones. I do feel that we'll have to take some more risks in order that the country doesn't experience abject economic misery for maybe decades ahead, but I agree that it would take a brave politician to voice this let alone enact it. There is some expert epidemiological opinion though that might be on the side of taking a few more risks, with the proviso that if they didn't work out previous restrictions might return: the message too would be 'don't abuse these relaxations or we shall retract them and maybe make them more rigid than before.'

 

[yorkie]

Can we try to avoid heading off topic as there are plenty of other threads to discuss issues such as how close we are to the peak (and if any topic isn't covered by an existing thread, please do create one)

It's certainly not going to improve dramatically any time soon.

Given that any relaxation of the rules carries enhanced risk of the virus spreading and all of the resultant implications, what level of additional risk would be acceptable to you?

The real 'risk' is that we could overwhelm the NHS; the level of 'acceptable risk' is to implement measures that don't cause the NHS to be overwhelmed.

We need to get more students back in school as soon as it is practicable to do so while not overwhelming the NHS.

...The manpower needed to keep schools going is huge. ...

I won't deny this but the school I was in today have about 10 times as many volunteers to provide manpower as they have students on a typical day, so there is plenty of capacity in some schools.

 

[Bayum]

I wouldn't get hung up on 4-5 year olds missing a couple of terms. It used to be the case in the 80s that you didn't start until the term after you turned 5 (I'm young for my year so I would have had 2 fewer terms than some) and it doesn't seem to have caused major issues for me or others in that position.

I’m glad your job doesn’t depend on it then! We won’t have any exams this year, but for next year and the year after when we are still being forced to put Y2 and Y6 children through their SATS... Then there’s performance management of teachers in the meantime where progress against ARE is nearly always a target - miss that and lose the next pay scale!

 

[Bayum]

Can we try to avoid heading off topic as there are plenty of other threads to discuss issues such as how close we are to the peak (and if any topic isn't covered by an existing thread, please do create one)

The real 'risk' is that we could overwhelm the NHS; the level of 'acceptable risk' is to implement measures that don't cause the NHS to be overwhelmed.

We need to get more students back in school as soon as it is practicable to do so while not overwhelming the NHS.

I won't deny this but the school I was in today have about 10 times as many volunteers to provide manpower as they have students on a typical day, so there is plenty of capacity in some schools.

‘Some’ schools. With all due respect, what is the make up of schools in your area? Bar two, I think most of the ones around me are less than 1 form entry. Half the children, half the teachers. We’ve got 9 members of teaching staff. Including the headteacher and TAs

 

[JohnB57]

Can we try to avoid heading off topic as there are plenty of other threads to discuss issues such as how close we are to the peak (and if any topic isn't covered by an existing thread, please do create one)

The real 'risk' is that we could overwhelm the NHS; the level of 'acceptable risk' is to implement measures that don't cause the NHS to be overwhelmed.

We need to get more students back in school as soon as it is practicable to do so while not overwhelming the NHS.

I won't deny this but the school I was in today have about 10 times as many volunteers to provide manpower as they have students on a typical day, so there is plenty of capacity in some schools.

I understand the risk to the NHS. I'm actually one of the "most vulnerable" due to chronic leukaemia and am therefore on complete isolation, so my concern about the NHS not being available to me if and when I need it is existential. My question, summarised, was: what amount of relaxation of rules is acceptable, especially given the additional risk to people who are susceptible? You didn't address that, you just restated the situation.

So, what's your recommendation?

 

[ChrisC]

I’m glad your job doesn’t depend on it then! We won’t have any exams this year, but for next year and the year after when we are still being forced to put Y2 and Y6 children through their SATS... Then there’s performance management of teachers in the meantime where progress against ARE is nearly always a target - miss that and lose the next pay scale!

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. For most children missing half a year at school at the ages of 4 or 5 will in the long term not make any significant difference. It is the teachers who will have the difficult job when they do return and the missed skills have to be addressed. What is taught in each year group these days is so rigidly prescribed by the government through the National Curriculum and so tied up with Year 2 and Year 6 SATs. Allowances for this missed time will have to be made. I wouldn’t like to be in the position of having to teach a Year 1 class in September when the children have missed half of their Foundation Year.

 

[yorkie]

....My question, summarised, was: what amount of relaxation of rules is acceptable..

Whatever relaxations can be done without overwhelming the NHS is the simple answer. The detailed answer won't really be known at this moment in time but I am sure people are trying to work out what exactly those measures may be. Once we're at peak, my current understanding is that the aim is likely to be to get close to, but just under an R value of 1 but it's not really on topic for this thread and is in discussion in other threads; see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...istics-of-healthy-people.203162/#post-4524037 for example.

 

[JohnB57]

Whatever relaxations can be done without overwhelming the NHS is the simple answer. The detailed answer won't really be known at this moment in time but I am sure people are trying to work out what exactly those measures may be. Once we're at peak, my current understanding is that the aim is likely to be to get close to, but just under an R value of 1 but it's not really on topic for this thread and is in discussion in other threads; see https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...istics-of-healthy-people.203162/#post-4524037 for example.

So you don't have any recommendations, just restatements and opinions.

This matters to millions of us. Referring genuine debate and conversation to other threads is a fob off and isn't really good enough.

Sorry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you don't have any recommendations, just restatements and opinions.

This matters to millions of us. Referring genuine debate and conversation to other threads is a fob off and isn't really good enough.

Sorry.

He's not an epidemiologist, so he can't really give you absolutes. But the general take is and long has been that we will need to reopen things because of other adverse impacts but minimising the hit on the NHS.

 

[JonathanP]

So you don't have any recommendations, just restatements and opinions.

This matters to millions of us. Referring genuine debate and conversation to other threads is a fob off and isn't really good enough.

Sorry.

For an antidote to non-specifics, and your own ultra-pessismism, we could for instance look at the concrete measures already being taken in Austria to relax the lockdown that has been in place for the last 3 weeks. They are not re-opening schools, but they are allowing non-essential shops to re-open.

The discussion in Germany is that that there will also be relaxations soon, and ideally they would involve schools, but that mass school re-openings would be too risky considering how long it takes to see the results, so it might involve allowing only 1 year group per school back