Reopening Of Schools

What level of restrictions should we have in schools?

  • No restrictions - back to normal

    Votes: 59 64.1%
  • Distancing in secondary schools only

    Votes: 15 16.3%
  • Distancing in all schools

    Votes: 5 5.4%
  • Masks and distancing in all schools

    Votes: 7 7.6%
  • Schools shouldn’t be opening yet

    Votes: 6 6.5%

  • Total voters
    92
Status
Not open for further replies.

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
50,475
Location
Yorkshire
Even then, I can't see how it would work. I was in the same class for all my subjects, but most of my friends had a mixture - some might be top set for maths but only third/fourth set for English, or vice versa. Unless you got rid of sets altogether and went for mixed-ability (which really isn't a good idea imo).
They must be mixing ability; it could be based on some sort of 'compromise' but it won't be good for students.

I'm aware of schools that do mixed ability for many subjects in KS3, but never for Maths, English or Science.

I've even known Computing and Sports to be lumped together (and yes that does mean all boy or all girl groups in Computing lessons)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
874
Location
Scotland
My school changed to mixed ability for Maths and English in S1/2 (year 7/8) 2 years ago, but then get split into sets in S3 (year 9).

Everything else is, and always has been, mixed ability.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,746
Location
Coach J Seat 39
Assuming "practical" lessons are still on the agenda.
Not doing so would require a complete overhaul of the syllabus, exam requirements, curriculum etc...

We can’t be taking many more of these silly measures to keep schools “safe”, we MUST get our children back to normal (completely normal, unrestricted) schooling as a matter of urgency.
 
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
874
Location
Scotland
Right on cue, the Dundee Evening Telegraph is reporting that "home schooling could return": https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/...rning-as-he-warns-home-schooling-could-return

Speaking before the lockdown in Aberdeen prompted by an outbreak of Covid-19, Mr Swinney warned that such local restrictions could see pupils return to learning at home.

This could be under the blended learning models prepared by schools and local authorities when a part-time return was planned.

Mr Swinney said: “The blended learning propositions are very valuable because what they enable us to do is restore face-to-face learning where face-to-face learning didn’t exist between March and June.

“Blended learning is a step of progress compared to where we were in the immediate lockdown period where had no face-to-face learning.

“I can’t in all honesty predict what the course of coronavirus is going to be over the period ahead and there may be circumstances where we have to undertake some local arrangements.

“In that circumstance having access to a blended learning approach will be of real advantage because it will allow us to have less interruption to learning than was the case since the lockdown in March.”
(you may need to go into a private/incognito tab in your browser to read the article)

IMO schools should be the last resort with regards to local lockdowns.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
1,366
It's the "could" word again.

The education secretary could also strip naked and run down the Royal Mile but is highly unlikely to do so.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
9,769
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Right on cue, the Dundee Evening Telegraph is reporting that "home schooling could return": https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/...rning-as-he-warns-home-schooling-could-return


(you may need to go into a private/incognito tab in your browser to read the article)

IMO schools should be the last resort with regards to local lockdowns.
Simple answer - no, no and a thousand times no.

If we do not return society to a level of normality structure soon then we are going to see serious mental health issues across the population.
 
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
874
Location
Scotland
It's the "could" word again.

The education secretary could also strip naked and run down the Royal Mile but is highly unlikely to do so.
:lol:

It's also worth noting that the Evening Telegraph is published by the same company who made the Beano and the Dandy, so make of that what you will.
Simple answer - no, no and a thousand times no.

If we do not return society to a level of normality structure soon then we are going to see serious mental health issues across the population.
Wholeheartedly agree.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,746
Location
Coach J Seat 39
The education secretary could also strip naked and run down the Royal Mile but is highly unlikely to do so.
Perhaps this will be how they enforce a local lockdown in the Edinburgh area if it comes to that :lol:

We cannot go on any longer with this utter nonsense. In my opinion, nothing short of a full return to completely normal schooling in the new term is acceptable whatsoever.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
5,973
I was being (unsuccessfully) a little sarcastic, in that Yr 6 pupils have been back since half term and have not caused a massive Covid spike, so they must be special :)
Inside the schools, they would have more room than normal and more teachers/pupil I presume, meaning the pupils could sit further away from their teacher than under normal circumstances. So less chance of the virus goinf from pupil > teacher.

I wonder when a pupil hands in work for appraisal, it will have to be left unattended for 48 hours in case the virus is hanging around on the pages?
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
1,366
I wonder when a pupil hands in work for appraisal, it will have to be left unattended for 48 hours in case the virus is hanging around on the pages?
I doubt it. A teacher should be washing their hands after handling the work anyway, Covid or not. Who wants to be touching a schoolkid's nose products before dinner.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
2,251
Back to school. Masks optional (and not advised), don't bother too much with distancing if it would impact learning, where possible avoid mixing year groups. Certainly don't attempt to ditch ability sets or GCSE options.

However, suspend fines for parents who don't feel it's safe. It is ludicrous to charge people for well-meaning attempts to protect their children, and will allow families with more money available to effectively buy their kids out of school.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
9,769
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Back to school. Masks optional (and not advised), don't bother too much with distancing if it would impact learning, where possible avoid mixing year groups. Certainly don't attempt to ditch ability sets or GCSE options.

However, suspend fines for parents who don't feel it's safe. It is ludicrous to charge people for well-meaning attempts to protect their children, and will allow families with more money available to effectively buy their kids out of school.
I’d withdraw any furlough payment for a start, that would concentrate at least some minds.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
24,955
Location
Yorks
They must be mixing ability; it could be based on some sort of 'compromise' but it won't be good for students.

I'm aware of schools that do mixed ability for many subjects in KS3, but never for Maths, English or Science.

I've even known Computing and Sports to be lumped together (and yes that does mean all boy or all girl groups in Computing lessons)
Even in my day, sets for maths, English and science were the same. Interesting for me, being generally good at English, decent at science and hopeless at maths.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,560
However, suspend fines for parents who don't feel it's safe. It is ludicrous to charge people for well-meaning attempts to protect their children, and will allow families with more money available to effectively buy their kids out of school.
No, definitely not - it shouldn't be made acceptable for any of the Facebook Furloughs to disrupt their children's education any further and this would be giving the message that it's OK to do so. Only exceptions should be if the child has a medical condition with puts them at high risk.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
2,251
If the parents aren't at home on furlough pay, it's going to be a lot harder to keep their kids off school on many cases.
OK, but what's the alternative? Are we assuming that employers will suddenly take them back on?

No, definitely not - it shouldn't be made acceptable for any of the Facebook Furloughs to disrupt their children's education any further and this would be giving the message that it's OK to do so. Only exceptions should be if the child has a medical condition with puts them at high risk.
What about the enormous inequality this creates?

For lower income families, they are forced to send their children into school.
For higher income families, it's pretty much optional.
Can you see the problem?
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
4,278
Location
Nottingham
As far as I'm aware there has been no recorded case of a pupil passing it on to a teacher. We have just got to get on with it.
But the precautionary principle means we must assume that any teacher exposed to a child with Covid will immediately explode.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,746
Location
Coach J Seat 39
For lower income families, they are forced to send their children into school.
For higher income families, it's pretty much optional.
Can you see the problem?
There is no problem, this is the same as it always is. Families should be penalised for not sending their kids back, it's vital they are able to catch up on the education they have missed, both from the perspective of their development and future and their mental wellbeing.
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
9,769
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
OK, but what's the alternative? Are we assuming that employers will suddenly take them back on?


What about the enormous inequality this creates?

For lower income families, they are forced to send their children into school.
For higher income families, it's pretty much optional.
Can you see the problem?
I’m not sure there’s a problem. You’d have to be on a pretty high income to want to sacrifice income just to keep children off school in order to want more time at home yourself. I certainly know my place has people who claimed childcare right through April, May and July.
 

Ken H

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
2,318
Location
N Yorks
I've not been following the schools issue, doesn't apply to me other than I prefer my holidays and trips when the kids are back.

But with this pandemic and the risk of unsymptomatic pupils passing covid on to teachers and ancillary staff who get ill (or worse, infect their elderly relatives) I'm not sure how you can protect the adults from the children; do the pupils wear masks all day save for eating?
Kids and teachers are hardly at risk. So catching COVID is hardly a problem, is it? Most children and working age adults are asymptomatic or only get slightly ill.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
2,251
There is no problem, this is the same as it always is. Families should be penalised for not sending their kids back, it's vital they are able to catch up on the education they have missed, both from the perspective of their development and future and their mental wellbeing.
I believe there are a few types of people who will not be sending their children back to school.

Firstly, the "sovereign-citizen" facebook brigade, who claim a right to do anything they like and argue along the lines of "I'm not doing what the government tells me" regardless of the impact on their children.

Secondly, those who just don't care, and aren't going to make an effort to get their kids back in if they aren't forced to.

Thirdly, a less vocal group: parents who genuinely want the best for their children and care for them, but are concerned about the impact of them mixing with hundreds of others in the midst of a global pandemic.

The first and second should be penalised, but penalising the third group is nothing more than a figurative "slap in the face" to parents who have spent months trying to get their kids at least some benefit from the limited home-schooling resources available to them.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,560
I believe there are a few types of people who will not be sending their children back to school.

Firstly, the "sovereign-citizen" facebook brigade, who claim a right to do anything they like and argue along the lines of "I'm not doing what the government tells me" regardless of the impact on their children.

Secondly, those who just don't care, and aren't going to make an effort to get their kids back in if they aren't forced to.

Thirdly, a less vocal group: parents who genuinely want the best for their children and care for them, but are concerned about the impact of them mixing with hundreds of others in the midst of a global pandemic.

The first and second should be penalised, but penalising the third group is nothing more than a figurative "slap in the face" to parents who have spent months trying to get their kids at least some benefit from the limited home-schooling resources available to them.
The motivations of the parents aren't really relevant - the kids need to be back at school, it's as simple as that.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
1,746
Location
Coach J Seat 39
I believe there are a few types of people who will not be sending their children back to school.

Firstly, the "sovereign-citizen" facebook brigade, who claim a right to do anything they like and argue along the lines of "I'm not doing what the government tells me" regardless of the impact on their children.

Secondly, those who just don't care, and aren't going to make an effort to get their kids back in if they aren't forced to.
These groups should be penalised to the full extent of the law, as they are depriving their children of a fundamental right.

Thirdly, a less vocal group: parents who genuinely want the best for their children and care for them, but are concerned about the impact of them mixing with hundreds of others in the midst of a global pandemic.
I understand their concerns, but their children are at practically no risk of dying from this virus. Would these parents keep their children at home 'for the best' to stop them dying from flu/getting run over? We need all children back in school ASAP.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
1,349
Inside the schools, they would have more room than normal and more teachers/pupil I presume, meaning the pupils could sit further away from their teacher than under normal circumstances. So less chance of the virus goinf from pupil > teacher.

I wonder when a pupil hands in work for appraisal, it will have to be left unattended for 48 hours in case the virus is hanging around on the pages?
Work not transferred between pupil and teacher unless electronic at the moment so written work won't be marked. However they can scan it and email so not saying they won't get work marked.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,560
Because the kids need an education! I'm not generally in favour of fining people, but if this is the only way to get them to send their kids to school then so be it - the kids' right to an education is more important than what the parents think.

And if they genuinely think that it poses a severe risk to the kids, an education campaign is needed now to show that this is not the case!
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
9,769
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
These groups should be penalised to the full extent of the law, as they are depriving their children of a fundamental right.



I understand their concerns, but their children are at practically no risk of dying from this virus. Would these parents keep their children at home 'for the best' to stop them dying from flu/getting run over? We need all children back in school ASAP.
The government should be focussing on emphasising to parents just now important education and schooling is, and that keeping children at home has negative consequences too, which almost certainly outweigh any risk from them being there. It would of course help if people trusted Johnson and co, which now I’m not sure anyone does.

Ultimately however if that group *still* wish to keep their children off then it’s up to them, however it is absolutely not the the taxpayer to then be making financial provisions to enable this.

Whether I’d go as far as issuing fines I’m not sure. If parents want to make proper home-schooling arrangements then that’s their choice (though again there may still be social development issues arising from that). However staying at home and visiting the beach every day subsidised by furlough payments definitely should not be a viable option for anyone, surely no one thinks it should be?!
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
1,349
Ultimately however if that group *still* wish to keep their children off then it’s up to them, however it is absolutely not the the taxpayer to then be making financial provisions to enable this.

Whether I’d go as far as issuing fines I’m not sure. If parents want to make proper home-schooling arrangements then that’s their choice.
If people want to keep their child at home then they shouldn't expect the school to send work or make provision. They should show they are being home tutored and make provision accordingly.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
2,251
Because the kids need an education! I'm not generally in favour of fining people, but if this is the only way to get them to send their kids to school then so be it - the kids' right to an education is more important than what the parents think.
I agree... but where is this idea coming from that fining innocent people is the only way of getting kids into school?
A small minority of the population who have, rightly or wrongly, been completely shielding, are never going to be convinced. But providing some evidence of proper social distancing measures, and giving the kids and parents an element of choice in school (a couple of schools where I live have caused some frustration locally by saying that they will entiirely ban face coverings, which can't be increasing confidence at all) is probably enough to get the majority of people in the third group I mentioned in.

As for the first two groups I mentioned - the "sovereign citizen" and the negligent - they should probably not be considered fit to raise a child.

And if they genuinely think that it poses a severe risk to the kids, an education campaign is needed now to show that this is not the case!
I understand their concerns, but their children are at practically no risk of dying from this virus. Would these parents keep their children at home 'for the best' to stop them dying from flu/getting run over? We need all children back in school ASAP.
It may not pose a severe risk to the kids, but what about their parents or grandparents, who may live with them or who they may see regularly? They might be at increased risk and not feel confident with their child going to school, or even in the case of primary schools not feel safe dropping them off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top