Those lovely people at the Daily Mail (Daily Heil) certainly think that we should:
There are one or two problems with this newspaper story. Well, there are dozens but I have to summarise to make this post readable. Let's start with the Mail's lying. The vast majority of teachers are against opening the schools at this time. Nobody thinks its a good idea. Everybody thinks its a terrible idea. The unions are doing merely what you would expect in trying to protect their members. The newspapers here heavily support our Conservative government and have seen their physical sales and advertising revenues collapse during the pandemic, so they are pro easing the lockdown.
As I've said many times, easing the lockdown before you have proper test-trace-isolate procedures puts you at risk of losing control of the virus. France has fewer cases than us and better (well... less inadequate) testing procedures and even they are having problems trying to open up.
Schools are a particular issue too. Even the limited re-opening which the government are bringing in will create massive virus spreading centres. The lower end of Primary school is due to be one of the first back. Yes, these young kids are very low risk in terms of dying but they are very high risk in terms of spreading the disease. I work as a primary school teacher myself and let me tell you that the zero chance of getting children between four and six years of age to social distance effectively. Anyone with any experience of a primary setting thinks that this is nuts, which it is.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@Lacemaker Well, I probably should have said that I have always been in favour of parents having the choice not send their children back if they are really not comfortable. What my hope is though (and it's probably not a realistic one with such short time) is parents will be persuaded over the holidays that it is safe enough to do so. I also don't think it has to be all or nothing. There would certainly concede that there may be very good reasons for some children not attending. They could live with people in vulnerable groups, or be in a vulnerable group themselves.
I am not sure how effective the teaching will be, but I am sure it would be better than none. I think initially they would be quite unsettled. We would have to ease them in gently. After a day or so though, I we you could achieve some learning. You can get quite a bit of teaching in. We are talking half a term. Some of the children will really benefit because not all schools have been good at sending home work or setting up remote learning. Some of the disadvantaged children have had very little learning time at all. Even if what we can achieve is only limited, it will be better than nothing. Just Reception and Year 1 kids doing some phonics, which they may not have done for months, will be of benefit. Of course, this will only be of benefit to the year groups attending, but I don't think should refuse to teach some just because we can't teach everyone.
Year 6 can be prepared for secondary school, and also have the opportunity to say goodbye to their primary school properly. I think that's probably the most important benefit for them. I worked in a primary school last Year on a temporary contract for a year, and the Year 6s saying goodbye, putting on their production and getting their shirts signed were all bitter-sweet acts performed in that final half term. It would be a great shame if the present Year 6s don't have the opportunity to do any of that.
Giving parents their well deserved break and getting the economy back on track are not benefits to be sniffed at. I do have to question Mr Burnley when he says nobody is confident that it's safe enough to return to work. I know a lot of people are, but surely it's not just naughty people like Peter Hitchens, Brendan O'Neil and James Delingpole who would go back to work and go to the pub if allowed to?
I really am not blind to the concerns of teachers and parents who are worried about their children going back. I do suspect that some of the motivation by the unions is dislike of the Tories, but I know there is also legitimate concern. But I think with some care, having a phased return with some special measures (hopefully not too many), it could be safe.
@MrSimons Agree with a lot of this. I am in favour of having sixes and fives back to get them ready for high school and next years sats respectively. Social distancing is impossible with the little ones.
As for unions motivated by hating the Tories, whilst true, its not a good reason and their position would be the same if a Lab govt tried to do it.
As you say, a big factor is parental confidence and that is not there. I worry that without proper testing proceedures there will be a second wave of the virus and undermine confidence further.
@Burnley123 Oh right. It seems we don't feel that differently after all. I could live with the year groups that go back first being different to what has been decided. What you say about sending the Year 5s back first makes sense.
Have you been in school throughout the lockdown working with the children of key workers and vulnerable children? Or have you been providing remote learning? Or perhaps both? I would be interested know how you have been handling things like social distancing, so I know what I might expect if I am fortunate enough to get some supply teaching in June.
@MrSimons I have and im on rota for next week. There is a bit of teaching but its not ideal. Mostpy its just games and childcare. Social distancing is difficult with older primary children but impossible for younger ones.
I would let 5s and 6s in for the last two weeks, to say goodbye and to transition.
