• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

My opinion: children are safer if they are attending school

Status
Not open for further replies.

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
Nope. I’m simply telling you that the teaching unions have no power. They have done practically zero in the last 25 years to protect their members. Schools are not militant work places, contrary to what the press would have you believe.

The last dispute was in 2014, that was over some draconian changes to pensions and contracts. It ushered in the era of ‘performance related pay’ and ‘competency measures’. Sadly the dispute was poorly supported by teachers and soon fizzled out. A result of this has been a significant strengthening of the hand of unscrupulous school managements and academy chains. The idea that the teaching unions have any power is absurd, the government couldn’t care less what the unions say.

I make zero representation as to whether I consider the opening of schools to be ‘safe’ or not: I’m neither a doctor nor an epidemiologist, are you?

What I do know is that my school have told staff that they are contractually obliged to attend. I have a mortgage to pay, hence I will be attending.

It amuses me that people think teachers are militant. Nothing could be father from the truth. Even when a work to rule was in place from 2011 very few followed the advice and it meant that the profession was trounced upon resulting in the poor conditions we have today. Those who objected were bullied out of the profession.

I'm surprised that Year 10 are returning to your school on June 1st because Johnson has not actually given a date for that.

As a former NUT rep I can tell you that if you think your health and safety is at risk you CAN refuse to work under those conditions obviously giving reasons for your concerns. Your union should support you with these concerns.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,989
It amuses me that people think teachers are militant. Nothing could be father from the truth. Even when a work to rule was in place from 2011 very few followed the advice and it meant that the profession was trounced upon resulting in the poor conditions we have today. Those who objected were bullied out of the profession.

I'm surprised that Year 10 are returning to your school on June 1st because Johnson has not actually given a date for that.

As a former NUT rep I can tell you that if you think your health and safety is at risk you CAN refuse to work under those conditions obviously giving reasons for your concerns. Your union should support you with these concerns.
I completely agree with what you’ve put regarding the work to rule and the fact that teachers are not militant.

A genuine ‘thank you’ for the information about health and safety, I’ll certainly keep that in mind. My observation though of how things were before the lockdown would suggest there will be an awful lot of arm twisting going on: there’s always plenty of people looking for their next promotion ready to do the bidding of the management team.

Regarding 1st June for Year 10, that came as something of a surprise to me too and is certainly at odds with what Johnson has said. The devil though is in the detail (something he doesn’t do very well):


From the week commencing 1 June, we are asking:
  • secondary schools, sixth form, and further education colleges to begin some face to face support with year 10 and 12 pupils, although we do not expect these pupils to return on a full-time basis at this stage
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,835
Location
Yorkshire
I completely agree with what you’ve put regarding the work to rule and the fact that teachers are not militant.
'Militant' teachers are very rare in my experience.
Regarding 1st June for Year 10, that came as something of a surprise to me too and is certainly at odds with what Johnson has said. ..
Agreed, 8th June is the "earliest" I'm told and is what some schools are aiming at but is "not definite".
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,551
Location
UK
I am going to take issue with you re both the BMA and Teacher Unions.

The BMA are the professional doctors organisation...
And not a professional epidemiologists organisation.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,023
Location
Dumfries
Not directly related to schools, but I see Cambridge University has just confirmed they're moving online until 2021 and won't be returning to lectures on campus until academic year 2021/22, considering the minimal risk to most students and how far away September is, I'm quite surprised at this decision. I wonder if any schools are looking at following a similar course of action, I would hope not but, given how the vast majority of people seem to have over-estimated the risk of the virus to themselves, could it be possible that some schools with particularly large demand won't even re-open until 2021?


There will be no face-to-face lectures at the University of Cambridge over the course of the next academic year due to coronavirus, it has been announced.

However, lectures will be available to students online and "it may be possible to host smaller teaching groups in person" if they meet social distancing requirements, the university said.
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,767
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
Not directly related to schools, but I see Cambridge University has just confirmed they're moving online until 2021 and won't be returning to lectures on campus until academic year 2021/22, considering the minimal risk to most students and how far away September is, I'm quite surprised at this decision. I wonder if any schools are looking at following a similar course of action, I would hope not but, given how the vast majority of people seem to have over-estimated the risk of the virus to themselves, could it be possible that some schools with particularly large demand won't even re-open until 2021?

Here are some important caveats:
Lectures will continue to be made available online and it may be possible to host smaller teaching groups in person, as long as this conforms to social distancing requirements.
Having gone to a number of very large undergrad lectures, this makes perfect sense. 300 people in a small space is a great way to spread coronavirus, or any other disease. I'm sure other uni students will be aware of the 'fresher's flu'.

This decision has been taken now to facilitate planning, but as ever, will be reviewed should there be changes to official advice on coronavirus.
So, if there are big changes, they'll reverse the decision.

September, from a uni planning perspective, is not that far away. All unis will be trying to work out what they do for the next academic year now because it is going to be a massive logistical challenge if it turns out that a big chunk of students (international, for example) cannot come to the uni.

A university is not the same as a school.

Being careful is a good idea, especially when there is a lack of evidence.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,835
Location
Yorkshire
Young people are at far bigger risks from other factors, such as the obesity crisis, yet I do not see as much hysteria on any other issue.

How long would the Doctor's Union want us to wait for? Yes the exact risks may not be fully known, but what about other risks children are exposed to, which will only increase the longer they are off school?

I'd like to have an argument with a representative of the Doctor's Union and test their knowledge of what really goes on in schools and how vulnerable some students are to factors that are going to be worsened the longer they're off. And it would be the full argument, not the 5 minute argument <D
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
906
As others have said the BMA are the doctors union. Their comments should be viewed in this context.

Their stance has softened today it seems.


“Balancing health risks with the educational needs and wellbeing of children during a global pandemic is not an easy or simple feat. The sole focus of the BMA in this regard is the protection of children, their families, school staff and the population at large during what is the greatest public health threat in a generation.

The decision about when schools should be allowed to reopen is an extremely difficult one. We know that the longer children are kept away from the classroom, the greater the harm to their education, to their life opportunities and indeed their mental, physical and social wellbeing. For disadvantaged children, this harm is sadly even greater.

A focus on arbitrary dates for schools to reopen fully is polarising. The BMA wants schools to reopen as soon as it is safe to do so and the evidence allows – this could be before June 1st or after. A zero-risk approach is not possible. This is about ‘safe’ being an acceptable level of risk.

Parents up and down the UK are asking the same question: is it safe? The simple answer is, we do not yet know. Our neighbours in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have adopted a more cautious approach, not yet opening schools until more evidence is available.

There is growing evidence that the risk to individual children from Covid-19 is extremely small. However, there is no united view yet from the scientific community on how likely it is that children can spread this deadly virus to others, including vulnerable adults. In April, a study by University College London (UCL), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Cambridge University and Sydney University using data from previous flu outbreaks, suggested that school closures “could have relatively small effects on a virus with COVID-19’s high transmissibility and apparent low clinical effect on school children”.

When exploring how infected children can transmit the infection, investigators at the Institute of Virology at the Charité Hospital in Berlin concluded “Based on the absence of any statistical evidence for a different viral load profile in children found in the present study, we have to caution against an unlimited re-opening of schools and kindergartens in the present situation, with a widely susceptible population and the necessity to keep transmission rates low via non-pharmaceutical interventions. Children may be as infectious as adults.”

Equally one of the first reports on the epidemiology of the virus to come out of China suggested that children were just as likely to be infected as adults. This was at the time the R0 value in the region had been reduced to 0.4 by social distancing and contact tracing and is therefore similar to the current situation in London.

Further, a recent survey from scientists in Wuhan, published in the journal Science, concluded that although school closures were not enough on their own to stop virus transmission, they lowered the ‘R’ number, or reproduction number by about 0.3, and this could contribute to preventing an exponential rise.

The Committee I lead, the Public Health Medicine Committee, is clear that the available evidence is conflicting, and we need to know more on the infectivity of children.

This is changing daily. In the coming weeks we will have much more data, as many other countries who are ahead of the UK in the course of this pandemic are now beginning to reopen their schools. This data could be vital to the decision-making process. The early signs from 22 European nations who announced yesterday appears, on the face of it, promising. And yet we have seen that in just a week after one-third of French schoolchildren went back to school in an easing of the coronavirus lockdown, there was a flurry of about 70 Covid-19 cases linked to schools

The Government’s decision on whether to reopen schools is a finely balanced and unenviable one. Our passion and the focus of my committee is the eradication of health inequality. As the ONS has found, this virus disproportionately affects those from the most deprived background as well as some BAME communities. We must safeguard against any measures that risks exacerbating those inequalities. A second peak would impact the disadvantaged the most and could lead to schools being closed for a far longer period.

We will continue to review the data and offer our full-hearted, academic support to families, school staff and the government as they work together to allow schools to reopen safely. This is a common endeavour.”
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,835
Location
Yorkshire
I note the comment:
. The sole focus of the BMA in this regard is the protection of children, their families, school staff and the population at large during what is the greatest public health threat in a generation.
So, to be clear their SOLE focus is to protect against Covid19.

They are NOT considering other threats to young people; the threats to young people in areas such as obesity, mental health, and much more are, overall, greater than the threat to young people posed by Covid19.

Therefore I take it as an admission that the Doctors Union are NOT even trying to look at the bigger picture regarding what is in the overall interests of young people, nor are they pretending to.

I rest my case!
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
Now Covid cases are increasing in French schools and they are being cloaed I doubt very much 1st June will see many English schools opening.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
906
Now Covid cases are increasing in French schools and they are being cloaed I doubt very much 1st June will see many English schools opening.

The French education minister has said that “almost all” of the reported 70 infections had happened at home rather than in schools. As most infections happen in the home, and kids aren’t home alone, it could be said that being at home is the most dangerous place to be. You can’t remove all risk.


In an interview with RTL radio, Blanquer revealed that 70 cases of Covid-19 had been diagnosed since 40,000 primary and nursery schools reopened last week.
“It’s inevitable this sort of thing will happen, but it’s a minority,” he said. “In almost all the cases, this happened outside of the school.”
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
When the schools were closed there were no cases, now there are infected people in schools. Ergo cases in French schools have increased.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,835
Location
Yorkshire
When the schools were closed there were no cases, now there are infected people in schools. Ergo cases in French schools have increased.
So you don't have a source? When did the schools open and when were the cases detected?
 

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,713
On Look North tonight, the headline story was "All five councils in West Yorkshire have rejected the government's plan to get primary children back to school by June 1st". I note that all five councils are Labour controlled ones, as are Bury and Liverpool, both mentioned earlier in the week. Have any Conservative-led councils expressed concern the plans? If not, is it that only one side is taking health & safety/duty of care seriously, or is there some form of 'political scoring' going on?
 

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,767
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
I do not think this is true. Do you have a source for this?
Just a week after one-third of French schoolchildren went back to school in an easing of the coronavirus lockdown, there has been a flurry of about 70 Covid-19 cases linked to schools.

Some schools were opened last week and a further 150,000 secondary school students went back to the classroom on Monday as further restrictions were loosened by the government. The move initially spelled relief: the end of homeschooling for many hundreds of thousands of exhausted French parents, many of whom were also working from home.

But French education minister Jean-Michel Blanquer sounded the alarm on Monday, telling French radio RTL that the return has put some children in new danger of contamination. He said the affected schools are being closed immediately. French media reported that seven schools in northern France were closed.


Some French schools opened on the 11th of May. By then, the number of dead was 26,643. It had risen by ~2,000 since the start of May. The percentage increase in deaths day-on-day was between 0.3% and 1.3%.

By comparison, the UK had 32,692 dead. The rise from the start of May was ~4,500. The percentage increase varied from 0.8% to 2.4%.

If, by the 1st of June, there has been confirmation of the suspicions outlined in the article @Mogster posted, and that the rate of infection and daily increase in deaths and infections is down to the French levels, then we can think about re-opening. It might happen. It also might not. Remember, we lifted some restrictions at the same time as France, despite having more deaths, infections, and R-rate. Thus, we may have muffed it up.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,905
Location
Leeds
Young people are at far bigger risks from other factors, such as the obesity crisis, yet I do not see as much hysteria on any other issue.
Have you seen the work that parents and teachers have campaigned for in reducing childhood obesity? The thousands schools get extra in sports premium, running ‘daily miles’, free school meals for KS1, after school sports sessions, active learning in classrooms etc? There was considerable consternation regarding childhood obesity and lots of manpower and money has gone into efforts in schools to reduce it.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,835
Location
Yorkshire
The article states:
...Given that the incubation period for the virus is several days, people are “likely” to have been infected before the reopening of the schools, he said....
Have you seen the work that parents and teachers have campaigned for in reducing childhood obesity? The thousands schools get extra in sports premium, running ‘daily miles’, free school meals for KS1, after school sports sessions, active learning in classrooms etc? There was considerable consternation regarding childhood obesity and lots of manpower and money has gone into efforts in schools to reduce it.
I'm not saying that a lot hasn't been done in that respect, but more the general public, and parents, and other commentators don't have a sense of proportion.
...or is there some form of 'political scoring' going on?
It's the latter. And if Labour think this is making people like me more likely to vote for them, they're deluded. Quite the opposite in fact.

I don't want to get political on here, but this really shouldn't be about politics. It should be about everyone looking at the overall interests of children. I think some people have no idea about what goes on in schools or how much some young people need to be in school; in some cases their only role models are in school and there are some kids who only want to be in school (and stay as long as they possibly can after school attending clubs).

There should be no political scoring going on at all.
 
Last edited:

Esker-pades

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2015
Messages
3,767
Location
Beds, Bucks, or somewhere else
The article states:
...Given that the incubation period for the virus is several days, people are “likely” to have been infected before the reopening of the schools, he said....
Yes, and that was what Mogster said in their comment, something which I made reference to. You'll see I already responded to that saying:
"If...there has been confirmation of the suspicions, and that the rate of infection and daily increase in deaths and infections is down to the French levels, then we can think about re-opening. It might happen. It also might not. Remember, we lifted some restrictions at the same time as France, despite having more deaths, infections, and R-rate. Thus, we may have muffed it up."
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,148
Have you seen the work that parents and teachers have campaigned for in reducing childhood obesity? The thousands schools get extra in sports premium, running ‘daily miles’, free school meals for KS1, after school sports sessions, active learning in classrooms etc? There was considerable consternation regarding childhood obesity and lots of manpower and money has gone into efforts in schools to reduce it.
Has it been successful?
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
3,023
Location
Dumfries
Sturgeon just confirmed that in Scotland it’s going to be a return to part time learning, with some time spent socially distanced in school and some time spent learning online at home. I personally think we should just get children back but that’s the approach taken in Scotland, and that will, perhaps, be taken by the rest of the UK?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,888
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Sturgeon just confirmed that in Scotland it’s going to be a return to part time learning, with some time spent socially distanced in school and some time spent learning online at home. I personally think we should just get children back but that’s the approach taken in Scotland, and that will, perhaps, be taken by the rest of the UK?

I certainly think part-time is one way to do it - set project work for the remaining time. Then learning is at least more controlled again. The trouble with the impromptu home schooling we've had (apart from it stopping parents from being able to work) is that some kids are getting it really good and some are getting neglected, depending on parental capability.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I certainly think part-time is one way to do it - set project work for the remaining time. Then learning is at least more controlled again. The trouble with the impromptu home schooling we've had (apart from it stopping parents from being able to work) is that some kids are getting it really good and some are getting neglected, depending on parental capability.

To be fair, parents got suddenly pushed into the position of acting as trained educators when they are nothing of the sort. As much as I try to spend time to engage my son with a range of activities, it simply isn't my skillset or training.

That, combined with him being completely outside what he seen as his normal learning environment.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,888
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
To be fair, parents got suddenly pushed into the position of acting as trained educators when they are nothing of the sort. As much as I try to spend time to engage my son with a range of activities, it simply isn't my skillset or training.

That, combined with him being completely outside what he seen as his normal learning environment.

Yes, I wasn't making any criticism there, I was just pointing out that there are strong reasons why parent-led home-schooling is not a long-term solution.
 

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,852
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
Yes, I wasn't making any criticism there, I was just pointing out that there are strong reasons why parent-led home-schooling is not a long-term solution.
That has set me thinking... I can't recall anyone (either on here or elsewhere) making any suggestion of increasing the number of children who are home-schooled?

Probably due to it being a full-time job and most parents utilise the time when their children are at school to earn a living (or sleep in the case of night shift workers) to support said children.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,888
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
That has set me thinking... I can't recall anyone (either on here or elsewhere) making any suggestion of increasing the number of children who are home-schooled?

I would be in favour of looking into how we make the economic and benefit system changes so it returns to being the norm that only one full time job is necessary per household up to school age (possibly even up to an age where being a "latchkey kid" is workable, i.e. up to year 7), meaning they can benefit from being brought up in their early years by their actual parent, but it is not an easy thing to fix.

That's not quite the same thing as home-schooling, but it would mean nursery schooling would be of much lower importance.

(Note: not necessarily the woman - it could be the man, or the other woman/man if a gay/lesbian household, or both parents could work part-time, and it would have to include accepting that we would have to pay liveable benefits to single parents until their children were of school age).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top