Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

[rudebhoy]

The safe assumption is that kids will be just as infectious as adults. The impact may differ with age but IMO the transmission propensity ain't going to be significantly different.

Your assumption in the first sentence is correct. The ONS confirmed it last week based on a large test sample.

 

[SocketRocket]

So let's write off all the rest of his union because you don't like him?

That's an odd remark. Where did I write off the rest of his Union. I was just unimpressed with him.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Can I just say at a chair of governors at a primary there has been some good points made about schools reopening, plus the occasional bit of the usual uninformed rubbish.

Truth be told there is no simple answer. Each school is risk assessing whether they should open or not. Then each parent will risk assess if they will send their children in. There are very strong arguments in both sides, for every child that is getting a good education at home and would not be impacted that much of they did not go in till September, there will be a child who is being mostly neglected and falling further and further behind.

I agree that this subject does get very emotional for parents and staff. Also society as a whole could do with a better understanding of risk with regards to probability, impact and the difference between risk mitigation and elimination.

It is essentially a heads decision after they have consulted with all the stakeholders (staff, parents, governors) and I'd say just about every head is under a tremendous amount of stress, which we all need to remember.

 

[patricks148]

So let's write off all the rest of his union because you don't like him?

Breaking news.... "right wing Tory boy, unimpressed with Union leader"

 

[rudebhoy]

Can I just say at a chair of governors at a primary there has been some good points made about schools reopening, plus the occasional bit of the usual uninformed rubbish.

Truth be told there is no simple answer. Each school is risk assessing whether they should open or not. Then each parent will risk assess if they will send their children in. There are very strong arguments in both sides, for every child that is getting a good education at home and would not be impacted that much of they did not go in till September, there will be a child who is being mostly neglected and falling further and further behind.

My son's girlfriend is a science teacher at a local high school. She is setting lots of work for them online but is massively frustrated as not many of them are doing the work they are being set. I'd say there is more chance of primary pupils being well schooled at home than there is for high school students. Parents have more control over young kids, and also understand the subjects better. Teenagers hide away from their parents who don't see and probably wouldn't understand the work they are supposed to be doing.

 

[Hacker Khan]

My son's girlfriend is a science teacher at a local high school. She is setting lots of work for them online but is massively frustrated as not many of them are doing the work they are being set. I'd say there is more chance of primary pupils being well schooled at home than there is for high school students. Parents have more control over young kids, and also understand the subjects better. Teenagers hide away from their parents who don't see and probably wouldn't understand the work they are supposed to be doing.

Yes that may well be true. But also the attitude of parents which is a major factor in kids attainment will have an impact. So there are many primary school kids who have had an unfair start in life already as their parents do not engage with their education who are falling further and further behind. Schools will have to do a hell of a lot of catching up for some pupils when they eventually get back if we are not going to have an even larger generation of educationally lost kids. And if they do not get the building blocks right at the start of primary then there is a big chance it will screw them up for the rest of their education and they will underachieve.

 

[rudebhoy]

Yes that may well be true. But also the attitude of parents which is a major factor in kids attainment will have an impact. So there are many primary school kids who have had an unfair start in life already as their parents do not engage with their education who are falling further and further behind. Schools will have to do a hell of a lot of catching up for some pupils when they eventually get back if we are not going to have an even larger generation of educationally lost kids. And if they do not get the building blocks right at the start of primary then there is a big chance it will screw them up for the rest of their education and they will underachieve.

Totally agree, parents are every bit as important as teachers in their child's education. Too many of them don't understand that or care about it. My wife works with 4 year olds who are not properly toilet-trained because the parents can't be bothered to teach them.

 

[SocketRocket]

Breaking news.... "right wing Tory boy, unimpressed with Union leader"

He came over as not being very bright, blinkered in his views and certainly had problems articulating himself.

 

[Reemul]

Yes that may well be true. But also the attitude of parents which is a major factor in kids attainment will have an impact. So there are many primary school kids who have had an unfair start in life already as their parents do not engage with their education who are falling further and further behind. Schools will have to do a hell of a lot of catching up for some pupils when they eventually get back if we are not going to have an even larger generation of educationally lost kids. And if they do not get the building blocks right at the start of primary then there is a big chance it will screw them up for the rest of their education and they will underachieve.

Yep but sending them back for 6 weeks will not address this. The focus is on childcare for the 6 weeks not education. Phonics will be the focus at my wife's school, no shared resouces and minimal contact means the lessons are simple and basic.

Add to this as my wife will be teaching 15 year 1 kids she will not have time to set her year 2 classes the same amount and level of work as she is in year one so all pupils working form home are getting less teaching and simpler work too. So they are now going to suffer more.

The reality is there are not enough resources to split the school in two and set the correct work regardless of how you portray it.

 

[clubchamp98]

Is there any scientific rationale behind the decision to send 4 and 5 year olds back to school long before sending teenagers back?

Or is a purely political decision based on it being an expedient way of providing free day care for younger kids so their parents can go back to work, while teenagers can fend for themselves?

Hit the nail on the head there imo.
Hands up how many of us would fancy being in a room with 10/15 strangers on 1st June.
That’s what they are asking teachers to do.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

My wife is year 2 teacher, her teachers feel year's key stage 2 pupils would have a far better understanding of SD than KS1 and year's 5 and 6 should be going back not reception and year 1. I cannot talk for any other teachers anywhere else.

I still have a massive dislike for anyone that seems to say because someone I know thinks this so it must be true or representative of others.

Which was exactly my original point when I questioned the claim that teachers were scared stiff, the implication being all teachers.

All teachers will surely have their own opinion on this as on other issues.

My concern is that they still require objective evidence to assist them in reaching their decision.

 

[Hobbit]

My wife is year 2 teacher, her teachers feel year's key stage 2 pupils would have a far better understanding of SD than KS1 and year's 5 and 6 should be going back not reception and year 1. I cannot talk for any other teachers anywhere else.

I still have a massive dislike for anyone that seems to say because someone I know thinks this so it must be true or representative of others.

The above with brass knobs on.

#3 daughter teaches in a Primary, and #2 daughter is admin in a Secondary. There seem to be a number of variations of themes. As idealistic as it might seem, if one teacher, member of staff or pupil dies because of going back early for the sake of a few weeks worth of disjointed education from, potentially, the wrong teachers... no, its just plain wrong.

A simple question to each of you to ask individually of yourself. Would you sacrifice one child for the economy?

 

[Fade and Die]

The Unions have every right to stop their members going to work if they think their members are at risk.
The HSE has made exposure to Coronavirus in the workplace RIDDOR reportable.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/riddor-reporting-coronavirus.htm

 

[Old Skier]

Do we trust the science or do our own thing. Oh hang on there is a large minority of the country doing their own thing because their own things is what they want to do. In the end the difficult decision must be made and we will have to trust those who's responsibilities it is to make those decisions. It will mean overcoming fear and in some cases the prejudices that some will have against those giving the decisions.

 

[Hobbit]

The Unions have every right to stop their members going to work if they think their members are at risk.
The HSE has made exposure to Coronavirus in the workplace RIDDOR reportable.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/news/riddor-reporting-coronavirus.htm

They do not have the right to stop them going to work. The only person that has that right is employer and the individual worker, and as the HSE can take both the employer and the employee to court, it puts the employee in a difficult position. The Union can recommend it, but that's all.

 

[pendodave]

A simple question to each of you to ask individually of yourself. Would you sacrifice one child for the economy?

Okay, I'll bite. As a member of a society in which children have died (been killed) as part of a functioning economy (road traffic accident as an example) I believe that we have all effectively sacrificed lives for the greater good.
I don't believe that this is a helpful or meaningful path to go down.
And, less we forget, they are more likely to be killed on the way to school than by the virus on the currently available stats.

 

[Hobbit]

Okay, I'll bite. As a member of a society in which children have died (been killed) as part of a functioning economy (road traffic accident as an example) I believe that we have all effectively sacrificed lives for the greater good.
I don't believe that this is a helpful or meaningful path to go down.
And, less we forget, they are more likely to be killed on the way to school than by the virus on the currently available stats.

That's disappointing. We don't sacrifice for the greater good, they're a consequence of the society we've created. Sacrifice is a conscious act.

If asked would you put up one of your children for death first? You're willing to sacrifice someone else's, how about one of yours first?

 

[pendodave]

Okay, I'll bite. As a member of a society in which children have died (been killed) as part of a functioning economy (road traffic accident as an example) I believe that we have all effectively sacrificed lives for the greater good.
I don't believe that this is a helpful or meaningful path to go down.
And, less we forget, they are more likely to be killed on the way to school than by the virus on the currently available stats.

The odd thing about my wanton callousness is that I am a died in the wool lefty-ish anti-corporatist (maybe they're the worst sort for this sort of thing). But from this viewpoint I see every day of our current strategy disadvantaging thousands of the most disadvantaged Kids, and likely throwing millions of the youngest and lowest paid into long term unemployment and penury(sp).
This makes me very unhappy.

 

[pendodave]

That's disappointing. We don't sacrifice for the greater good, they're a consequence of the society we've created. Sacrifice is a conscious act.

If asked would you put up one of your children for death first? You're willing to sacrifice someone else's, how about one of yours first?

Well, I actually put my own life at risk every day. Does that help? I travel by public transport, I work in an environment where I am using equipment used by many other people. I take the view that my risk of unpleasantness is not that high, and that I will probably live to see another day.
As for my own kids, I genuinely believe them to be perfectly safe and that the near certainty of one of them losing their job will have an exponentially more negative effect on her life chances and health than contracting the virus.
Seems reasonable to me, I understand others feel differently, I have no problem with that.

 

[Old Skier]

Indeed. But that will also require an effort from those making the decisions to earn back the trust of those who, rightly or wrongly, have lost it.

But that is an impossible ask because, as you can read on here, those giving the advice, scientific or otherwise are seen as the mouthpiece of a political party forgetting that the scientists giving the advice have an arm full of qualifications behind them. Whether we like it or not, we have to trust or lock ourselves away.