Children returning to school

Lala

Lala

Well-known member
I get the real concern people have regarding the safety of their children, who wouldn’t.
But those claiming it a barrier to return to work didn’t seem to have been so vocal or offended about the children of key workers having to attend school regardless and throughout lockdown.
Was that because as long as they get to visit supermarkets, get their benefits paid, ride buses, have their rubbish collected and get treated in ICU these kids didn’t matter?
 
Lala said:
I get the real concern people have regarding the safety of their children, who wouldn’t.
But those claiming it a barrier to return to work didn’t seem to have been so vocal or offended about the children of key workers having to attend school regardless and throughout lockdown.
Was that because as long as they get to visit supermarkets, get their benefits paid, ride buses, have their rubbish collected and get treated in ICU these kids didn’t matter?
Click to expand...
The intention is to get straight back to work but there is no school until June and not all then. There's a mismatch between the two aspirations. You can't go to work and leave someone of primary age at home.
 
Wizaard said:
The intention is to get straight back to work but there is no school until June and not all then. There's a mismatch between the two aspirations. You can't go to work and leave someone of primary age at home.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not, and that was explained in the brief. It’s those complaining about it even when school provisions become available that I am questioning 🤔
 
It was never about the safety of the children the stats back that up but they would be big spreaders of the disease.
So the kids going to schools is in small numbers not the hundreds and that's what lockdown was for to get the R rate down and that wouldn't have happened if they had stayed fully open.
 
That's a massive issue

Many can't return to work until the schools open

If they remove furlough before they can these families are going to suffer as most employers can't carry the cost
 
poolseasider said:
It was never about the safety of the children the stats back that up but they would be big spreaders of the disease.
So the kids going to schools is in small numbers not the hundreds and that's what lockdown was for to get the R rate down and that wouldn't have happened if they had stayed fully open.
Click to expand...
Appreciated. But you can’t throw some kids to the wolves without voicing concern and compassion and then expect to be taken seriously when you express outrage when it’s your own kids.
Nobody told keyworkers to keep their kid’s at home in outrage because it either didn’t affect them, benefitted them not to, or they simply didn’t care or factor in the risks these kids were faced with.
120 kids of key workers in my granddaughters school,that’s a lot of kids, as much as some schools have in totality. No complaints or public outrage were noted.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
That's a massive issue

Many can't return to work until the schools open

If they remove furlough before they can these families are going to suffer as most employers can't carry the cost
Click to expand...
The brief is they return to work when schools open I think.
 
Lala said:
Appreciated. But you can’t throw some kids to the wolves without voicing concern and compassion and then expect to be taken seriously when you express outrage when it’s your own kids.
Nobody told keyworkers to keep their kid’s at home in outrage because it either didn’t affect them, benefitted them not to, or they simply didn’t care or factor in the risks these kids were faced with.
120 kids of key workers in my granddaughters school,that’s a lot of kids, as much as some schools have in totality. No complaints or public outrage were noted.
Click to expand...

That's loads! How strict were the school in vetting who was a key worker? My other half had problems with families pretending to be key workers just to get rid of their kids which is pretty dire tbh. What's the usual numbers in the school?
 
td53 said:
That's loads! How strict were the school in vetting who was a key worker? My other half had problems with families pretending to be key workers just to get rid of their kids which is pretty dire tbh. What's the usual numbers in the school?
Click to expand...
Norbreck. Usually 800 kid’s, a big school. Doesn’t change the principle though and they had to refuse some kids. My daughter, a key worker who has worked throughout the pandemic was initially refused and had to fully justify that place.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
But what if furlough finishes first ?
Click to expand...

It surely won't. Politically it would be a disaster for them. They've gone this far, it would be mentalism to not go further.

I'm no economist but I'd guess they're already committed to a shed load of debt that will define Boris' spending options for the rest of his time in office, whether that's 4 or 9 years.

What's he got to lose (personally) by extending support for an extra 3 weeks or a month or whatever it is?

He doesn't care less about what his successors inherit, be they red or blue or anything else. He just cares about winning next time and chucking people and businesses to the wolves at the end of all this will stick in people's memories.

He's many things is Boris, but he's astute politically.
 
Lala said:
Norbreck. Usually 800 kid’s, a big school. Doesn’t change the principle though and they had to refuse some kids. My daughter, a key worker who has worked throughout the pandemic was initially refused and had to fully justify that place.
Click to expand...

That's about the same percentage as my other half's school but they've only 200 on roll.

I'm not arguing against anything! I'm fed up with arguing. The world seemed to wake up in a bad mood this morning.
 
The furlough scheme continues until June, when schools reopen. That covers the employer dilemma.
 
td53 said:
That's about the same percentage as my other half's school but they've only 200 on roll.

I'm not arguing against anything! I'm fed up with arguing. The world seemed to wake up in a bad mood this morning.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing either, it’s semantics and equality I’m debating really 👍
And the the point that my granddaughters welfare was equally at risk but nobody shouted about that. * fiercely defensive about my kids worth *
 
Our gov't comes across as massively inept led by Boris who thinks banging a desk whilst spreading confusion is a good idea

Our employees need certainty not confusion - many were wondering why we weren't bringing them back today when the reality is nothing has changed
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
No it doesn't as not all age groups will return
I understand it will only be reception ( not sure why ) year one and year six
Click to expand...
Its infant and primary.!The older are deemed not to require childcare unless vulnerable. That’s how the system works.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Our gov't comes across as massively inept led by Boris who thinks banging a desk whilst spreading confusion is a good idea

Our employees need certainty not confusion - many were wondering why we weren't bringing them back today when the reality is nothing has changed
Click to expand...
I thought you wanted the economy up and running? Were you happy that children of key workers always attended school, my initial point?
Or are you more concerned now about the cost to you as an employer this move towards protecting the economy may have?
Conflicting concerns from you TAM.
 
Lala said:
I’m not arguing either, it’s semantics and equality I’m debating really 👍
And the the point that my granddaughters welfare was equally at risk but nobody shouted about that. * fiercely defensive about my kids worth *
Click to expand...

My lad had to go to school for a bit, till I got told I could work at home after all. I didn't like it but there we go. What could I do? I completely get your concern and sense of injustice

Sorry, I'm just a bit world weary today. It feels like we've been through the wringer and now what comes next is a lot of arguing and stuff.

I dunno, just reckon a bit of reflection is in order and a bit of thinking needed from everyone (not directed at your post at all, just contextualising my above comments) cos this isn't going away and the 'trying to make it normal' bit is probably much harder that the 'hiding away as much as possible' bit.
 
td53 said:
My lad had to go to school for a bit, till I got told I could work at home after all. I didn't like it but there we go. What could I do? I completely get your concern and sense of injustice

Sorry, I'm just a bit world weary today. It feels like we've been through the wringer and now what comes next is a lot of arguing and stuff.

I dunno, just reckon a bit of reflection is in order and a bit of thinking needed from everyone (not directed at your post at all, just contextualising my above comments) cos this isn't going away and the 'trying to make it normal' bit is probably much harder that the 'hiding away as much as possible' bit.
Click to expand...
No apology required. It’s nice that you accept the validity of my point and it isn’t easy to balance,
I just hate the hypocrisy of some.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
No it doesn't as not all age groups will return
I understand it will only be reception ( not sure why ) year one and year six
Click to expand...

I assume as reception are the class where the loss of learning has the most knock on effects (and least able to learn independently and year 6 as they want them to return to school to prepare at least a little bit for transition to high school which would be incredibly hard if they didn't get to say goodbye to friends or have any preparation.

I'm literally just guessing.
 
Lala said:
I thought you wanted the economy up and running? Were you happy that children of key workers always attended school, my initial point?
Or are you more concerned now about the cost to you as an employer this move towards protecting the economy may have?
Conflicting concerns from you TAM.
Click to expand...
I'd have them all back Lala
I'd lock down the those vulnerable rather than everyone
I'd have also closed airports
What do I know though
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
I'd have them all back Lala
I'd lock down the those vulnerable rather than everyone
I'd have also closed airports
What do I know though
Click to expand...
I accept the that 👍
It’s the inequality of expectation regarding our children on moral grounds that I am annoyed about.
 
Hear that

There aint a right answer

And for the record I am not too concerned about my business ( well I am but not like others ) We will get through this

My greater concern is for the socio-economic impact of all these fcuk ups They will be with us for generations and I just get the impression our govt are ' winging it ' based on opinion polls
 
td53 said:
I assume as reception are the class where the loss of learning has the most knock on effects (and least able to learn independently and year 6 as they want them to return to school to prepare at least a little bit for transition to high school which would be incredibly hard if they didn't get to say goodbye to friends or have any preparation.

I'm literally just guessing.
Click to expand...
I think I’m less naive for once! The government know full well schools provide a childcare option for those of primary and infant age. That helps the economy as parents of all ages will have no excuse now to work, I predicted this outcome myself.
What I do object to is the objections of some parents now who made no sound when key workers kids were sacrificed.
Double standards.
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Hear that

There aint a right answer

And for the record I am not too concerned about my business ( well I am but not like others ) We will get through this

My greater concern is for the socio-economic impact of all these fcuk ups They will be with us for generations and I just get the impression our govt are ' winging it ' based on opinion polls
Click to expand...
Always get a reasoned response from you, even when our opinions may differ. Every credit 👍
 
One thing I have seen no mention of is temp testing We've been doing that twice a day for those in work for the last 7-8 weeks
We have a register and everyone in work has to do it or they are suspended and sent home
Not hard and temp increase is the first symptom
 
Lala said:
I heard Boris say that tonight, but thought last night it said reception to year 6.
Either way my op stands.
Click to expand...
Problem you will have is if you cant send your kids to school, or grand parents for example, and your employer isnt playing ball, what do you do? I get the feeling that Boris hasn't exactly consulted with employers over this.
 
GJJW said:
Problem you will have is if you cant send your kids to school, or grand parents for example, and your employer isnt playing ball, what do you do? I get the feeling that Boris hasn't exactly consulted with employers over this.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with that GJ, absolutely . I just object with the moral hoo ha about protecting your kids now that wasn’t vocalised for those kids of key workers.
The financial implications and availability of care I totally agree is a separate issue and needs addressing.
 
Lala said:
Totally agree with that GJ, absolutely . I just object with the moral hoo ha about protecting your kids now that wasn’t vocalised for those kids of key workers.
The financial implications and availability of care I totally agree is a separate issue and needs addressing.
Click to expand...
Well, personally, working from home and trying to home school isnt working for us, or our daughter. As the risk is minimal to children I feel that my 7 year old would be much better off there, if social distancing etc, can be achieved.
 
Lala said:
Totally agree with that GJ, absolutely . I just object with the moral hoo ha about protecting your kids now that wasn’t vocalised for those kids of key workers.
The financial implications and availability of care I totally agree is a separate issue and needs addressing.
Click to expand...
Yes but my ' Jimmy ' is precious and I am nit going to expose him to ANY risk
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
One thing I have seen no mention of is temp testing We've been doing that twice a day for those in work for the last 7-8 weeks
We have a register and everyone in work has to do it or they are suspended and sent home
Not hard and temp increase is the first symptom
Click to expand...
That’s exceptionally good duty of care as an employer and responsible. It doesn’t seem to exist elsewhere, in the main 🤔
 
Lala said:
I think I’m less naive for once! The government know full well schools provide a childcare option for those of primary and infant age. That helps the economy as parents of all ages will have no excuse now to work, I predicted this outcome myself.
What I do object to is the objections of some parents now who made no sound when key workers kids were sacrificed.
Double standards.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't follow. I was explaining the possible logic of why yr1 as opposed to say, yr 3 and yr 6 as opposed to yr5.

I'm not naive as to the intent to get schools back ASAP. That aside, why start with those particular classes? Presumably because lost learning has most impact in early years and because evidence suggests the youngest kids are the least vulnerable.

As for year 6 - I can only guess it's to do with high school transition.

I'm also not sure what else I can say other than I get what you feel, but it's a raw time for a lot of people and at least when there was only key workers kids, they could be divided into smaller groups, eat lunch separately and such. I think a lot of anxiety comes from the fact that schools, when full, are crowded and busy spaces. They're literally managed in such away that they function 'at or near capacity'

As I said, my other half works at a school and they've done their best to keep the kids apart, using different rooms, having rotas for lunch and keeping on top of them washing stuff and she has no idea (no one in education does) how they'll do that with 5 or 6 times more kids.

I don't think its *just* double standards at work (though I fully accept some people don't give a toss, unless it's them or their offspring), there are more issues managing more kids and no guidance at all as to how to do it.

Bloody covid. I used to come on here to argue about Spearing being a bit defensive for my liking....
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
Yes but my ' Jimmy ' is precious and I am nit going to expose him to ANY risk
Click to expand...
Well my granddaughter means the world to me and my daughter, but we are the Calvary apparently , saving the nation! So get on with it! As we have done.😔
 
Last edited:
TwelveAngryMen said:
They are going to have to extend furlough
That said the cost is bonkers
Click to expand...

It'll win him the next election. He can stand there and say 'the left says we don't care, but we spent the most money ever ever ever' and what can the left do about it?

Nowt.
 
td53 said:
I'm sorry, I don't follow. I was explaining the possible logic of why yr1 as opposed to say, yr 3 and yr 6 as opposed to yr5.

I'm not naive as to the intent to get schools back ASAP. That aside, why start with those particular classes? Presumably because lost learning has most impact in early years and because evidence suggests the youngest kids are the least vulnerable.

As for year 6 - I can only guess it's to do with high school transition.

I'm also not sure what else I can say other than I get what you feel, but it's a raw time for a lot of people and at least when there was only key workers kids, they could be divided into smaller groups, eat lunch separately and such. I think a lot of anxiety comes from the fact that schools, when full, are crowded and busy spaces. They're literally managed in such away that they function 'at or near capacity'

As I said, my other half works at a school and they've done their best to keep the kids apart, using different rooms, having rotas for lunch and keeping on top of them washing stuff and she has no idea (no one in education does) how they'll do that with 5 or 6 times more kids.

I don't think its *just* double standards at work (though I fully accept some people don't give a toss, unless it's them or their offspring), there are more issues managing more kids and no guidance at all as to how to do it.

Bloody covid. I used to come on here to argue about Spearing being a bit defensive for my liking....
Click to expand...
Not your double standards 👍Too tired to explain again but we aren’t worlds apart in our thinking 👍
I have a week off next week, I’ll make more sense then 🤣
 
Lala said:
Not your double standards 👍Too tired to explain again but we aren’t worlds apart in our thinking 👍
Click to expand...

Aye. A good kip in order for me too :) dunno what's going on today. Didn't even have much enthusiasm for the forest game. Think I need a long walk whilst wild swimming and playing golf but not in Scotland or whatever the done thing is these days!
 
td53 said:
Aye. A good kip in order for me too :) dunno what's going on today. Didn't even have much enthusiasm for the forest game. Think I need a long walk whilst wild swimming and playing golf but not in Scotland or whatever the done thing is these days!
Click to expand...
🤣🤣 get some rest as I will, but not before I’ve pissed someone else off probably 🤔 as with TAM you’re a very fair, transparent and rational debater and that’s very appreciated, we can all learn from each other when tolerant 👍
 
Okay...
Facts for consideration...
1. In England, apparently, 2 children under 12 have died of covid-19 out of roughly 9 million. There is virtually no risk to the children themselves but there is (a quantifiably unknown) risk of children spreading the disease... I think statistically, children are more likely to die from a bee sting - and certainly from crossing a road - but I appreciate that parents will have a natural concern sending their child back in these times.
2. Picture the scene... Boris and his cronies discussing which Year Groups to send back first...
"I know... the 4 to 6 Year olds (because they really are the best equipped to understand the importance and seriousness of social distancing aren't they?!!! And they will never forget...for roughly 7 hours a day, 5 days a week. And also we'll just conveniently forget that at that age the usual learning styles involve more direct interaction/"playing" with each other than any age older). Bonkers. Have any of these people ever actually met a 5 year old child?.
Year 6... it's to help them with the transition to High School, basically. I don't think many educationalists have a problem with that. As far as Year Groups go, it's probably a good choice.
3. So why send YR and Y1 back then? Ah, it's so their parents can go back to work... Never mind the teachers and teaching assistants etc...or the fact that these 5 year olds will inevitably mix with each other to some extent even if there's only 6 in each classroom - think toilet breaks and playtimes, never mind within the classrooms. And then possibly take covid-19 home with them to their families.
Watching and listening to Boris last night I saw a man who appeared to be unable to make rational, well thought out decisions and it's rather worrying.
 
td53 said:
I assume as reception are the class where the loss of learning has the most knock on effects (and least able to learn independently and year 6 as they want them to return to school to prepare at least a little bit for transition to high school which would be incredibly hard if they didn't get to say goodbye to friends or have any preparation.

I'm literally just guessing.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's all fair enough and perfectly reasonable... but I thought the idea was to limit the spread of this disease - and YR and Y1 is the worst choice for that (unless it is scientifically proven that children under 7 can't be carriers 🙂) .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top