How will schools be able to go back in September?

Alex86Eire

jrosen wrote: »

I think schools have to go back in September with a full schedule, allow the teachers to use PPE. Soap/hand sanitizer available all the time. Any school that requires an upgrade to bathrooms/sinks needs to happen before September. Close all communal areas. Classes basically stay in their home room all day. If any teacher is considered high risk they should be able to stay home with full pay, any other teacher who isn't comfortable can take unpaid leave. But the schools have to be supported in keeping sick staff/students home and if there is a case or a suspected case the school closes.

I agree fully with this but I can't see the government paying for this. Our student bathrooms are very poor.

...Ghost...

jrosen wrote: »

I think any employee who is fit and able to return to work but chooses not too should have to take unpaid leave, unpaid parental leave.
Its not about inconvenience. Its about children missing out on their education. Its about expecting parents who are working to somehow find the time in their already 8 hour day to follow a curriculum and teach their own kids. Its not sustainable long term nor is it realistic.

Then you have little regard to the health and safety of others. A fit and able person with a covid infection will spread it as easily as the next person.

Employers have a duty to ensure that their employees are safe and have as appropriate equipment and PPE to carry out their duties. They must provide a safe place of work. This falls under health and safety law and the employer is the entity responsible for this, but employees must co-operate with the safety measures.

I'm sure I don't have to argue that it is not safe for teachers to return to the classroom without proper PPE. I also don't think it is a good attitude to say that children won't die from the virus. They will spread it to vulnerable people who will die from the virus. It's more dangerous in a classroom of 30 kids for several hours per day than it is to be on a bus for a half hour....yet we are bringing in mandatory face masks and big fines for public transport from tomorrow.

amber2

morebabies wrote: »

On top of this lack of clarity, we got our bill for two secondary students annual bus tickets a few days ago, €650.

In normal times, we wouldn't query it, but now we're holding back because we know so little about how the next academic year is going to look. Obviously buses can't manage social distancing, and neither can bus companies offer twice as many buses and drivers with the same income for school transport. Obligatory masks on buses is all that can be done I suppose.

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/school-bus-refunds.html

Proportional Refund due For last academic years school transport fee. Also buses will have to be sanitised between runs as some cover secondary students as well as primary which will have a knock on effect on turn around times.

thomasdylan

...Ghost... wrote: »

Then you have little regard to the health and safety of others. A fit and able person with a covid infection will spread it as easily as the next person.

Employers have a duty to ensure that their employees are safe and have as appropriate equipment and PPE to carry out their duties. They must provide a safe place of work. This falls under health and safety law and the employer is the entity responsible for this, but employees must co-operate with the safety measures.

I'm sure I don't have to argue that it is not safe for teachers to return to the classroom without proper PPE. I also don't think it is a good attitude to say that children won't die from the virus. They will spread it to vulnerable people who will die from the virus. It's more dangerous in a classroom of 30 kids for several hours per day than it is to be on a bus for a half hour....yet we are bringing in mandatory face masks and big fines for public transport from tomorrow.

I'm not sure about the classroom being safer than a bus statement.
Bus drivers have had one of the highest rates of coronavirus mortality in the UK.

jrosen

...Ghost... wrote: »

Then you have little regard to the health and safety of others. A fit and able person with a covid infection will spread it as easily as the next person.

Employers have a duty to ensure that their employees are safe and have as appropriate equipment and PPE to carry out their duties. They must provide a safe place of work. This falls under health and safety law and the employer is the entity responsible for this, but employees must co-operate with the safety measures.

I'm sure I don't have to argue that it is not safe for teachers to return to the classroom without proper PPE. I also don't think it is a good attitude to say that children won't die from the virus. They will spread it to vulnerable people who will die from the virus. It's more dangerous in a classroom of 30 kids for several hours per day than it is to be on a bus for a half hour....yet we are bringing in mandatory face masks and big fines for public transport from tomorrow.

If a person is fit and able to return to work they should, if they dont feel comfortable then that is their decision but they should not be able to sit at home on full pay.
Employers have a duty of care to their staff, not to their staffs extended family.

Perhaps you missed my comment as I have already clearly stated PPE should be available along with hand washing facilities/sanitizer

iamwhoiam

My daughter heard some talk about no uniforms when kids return . It means they can wear clean clothes daily and wash the ones they wear that day . Seems like a good plan to me .

youandme13

FishOnABike wrote: »

I think the school based clusters in Israel¹ ² and Melbourne³ have pretty much blown out of the water any notion that children/schools don't really spread the virus.

¹ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-battles-new-wave-coronavirus-infections-after-reopening-n1233139

"According to Gabi Barbash, a former director general of the Health Ministry and professor of epidemiology at the Weizmann Institute, the main trigger for the new wave lies in the government’s decision to open schools, event halls and pubs, with infections surging among young people”

² https://www.ijn.com/israel-thought-it-had-crushed-covid-19-now-lockdowns-reimposed/

" The virus quickly spread through the education system, with tens of thousands of students forced into quarantine and outbreaks in some high schools.”

³ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-09/al-taqwa-college-coronavirus-covid19-cluster-melbourne-truganina/12437584

Crossing our fingers and naïvely hoping schools can operate as if nothing has happened come the end of August / start of September is not going to cut it. Comprehensive preventative measures will need to be put in place including contingency plans to deal with suspected and/or confirmed cases within a school or within staff/student contacts.

And yet they just opened the creches without a second thought for the workers.. we're told we dont need ppe gear and yet we have afterschool children in our care now full time.

mcsean2163

youandme13 wrote: »

And yet they just opened the creches without a second thought for the workers.. we're told we dont need ppe gear and yet we have afterschool children in our care now full time.

Interesting link and note the following...


<I>Children in fifth grade and older will no longer be able to attend school or camp in person.</i>

Schools stayed open unlike Ireland.

r93kaey5p2izun

I see Israel now has three plans for September depending on how bad things are. All involve at least some online learning for older post primary students.

Australia now reporting student to student transmission among older teens, driving one of their big outbreaks too.

FishOnABike

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Interesting link and note the following...


<I>Children in fifth grade and older will no longer be able to attend school or camp in person.</i>

Schools stayed open unlike Ireland.

If you read the full article ¹ the schools had closed down, the spread occurred when they reopened

"Compounding matters, schools reopened rapidly — and, to some, chaotically — in May.

After starting with a handful of grades, the government reopened the entire system over the course of just a couple of weeks.

The virus quickly spread through the education system, with tens of thousands of students forced into quarantine and outbreaks in some high schools.”

¹ https://www.ijn.com/israel-thought-it-had-crushed-covid-19-now-lockdowns-reimposed/

...Ghost...

jrosen wrote: »

If a person is fit and able to return to work they should, if they dont feel comfortable then that is their decision but they should not be able to sit at home on full pay.
Employers have a duty of care to their staff, not to their staffs extended family.

Perhaps you missed my comment as I have already clearly stated PPE should be available along with hand washing facilities/sanitizer

If a person is fit and able to return to work AND the employers duty of care is properly adhered to, there is no problem. If all steps are taken to protect staff, then there is no need for "high risk" employees to stay at home with pay, is there?

My point was that a person should not be put in a position where they have an unnecessary risk of contracting a potentially fatal illness to themselves, or others outside their employment. If the employer can't provide a safe working environment, the employee should not be out of pocket, or health.

jrosen

...Ghost... wrote: »

If a person is fit and able to return to work AND the employers duty of care is properly adhered to, there is no problem. If all steps are taken to protect staff, then there is no need for "high risk" employees to stay at home with pay, is there?

My point was that a person should not be put in a position where they have an unnecessary risk of contracting a potentially fatal illness to themselves, or others outside their employment. If the employer can't provide a safe working environment, the employee should not be out of pocket, or health.

Of course there is. No environment is risk free so if a person has underlying health issues then the risk to them is far greater than the average person. IMO they should be able to stay off work on full pay.

I never mentioned unnecessary risk, in fact I clearly stated that staff should have PPE etc.

Sammy2012

I just dropped my kids off at summer camp. Hand sanitizer at the door and temp check also. Felt very safe. However the parent behind me refused the use of sanitizer and the temp check. This is what schools will be facing going forward.

iamwhoiam

Sammy2012 wrote: »

I just dropped my kids off at summer camp. Hand sanitizer at the door and temp check also. Felt very safe. However the parent behind me refused the use of sanitizer and the temp check. This is what schools will be facing going forward.

Then she should have been refused entry .

Sammy2012

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Then she should have been refused entry .

Can you legally refuse them though?

Lillyfae

Sammy2012 wrote: »

I just dropped my kids off at summer camp. Hand sanitizer at the door and temp check also. Felt very safe. However the parent behind me refused the use of sanitizer and the temp check. This is what schools will be facing going forward.

Why would anyone do this? Did they give any reason??

Sammy2012

Lillyfae wrote: »

Why would anyone do this? Did they give any reason??

Children were allergic to it apparently. Kids were around 9. My own 2 are 4 and 6. They were asked did they bring their own sanitizer and parent answered just soap and water.

iamwhoiam

Sammy2012 wrote: »

Can you legally refuse them though?

If its a private set up I would think so . My daughter signed a print out before her child was accepted for summer camp . She signed they could do temp checks and hand sanitizer as they see fit . Without the signature the child would not be accepted

iamwhoiam

Sammy2012 wrote: »

Children were allergic to it apparently. Kids were around 9. My own 2 are 4 and 6. They were asked did they bring their own sanitizer and parent answered just soap and water.

But they weren’t allergic to the thermometer I presume

Lillyfae

Sammy2012 wrote: »

Children were allergic to it apparently. Kids were around 9. My own 2 are 4 and 6. They were asked did they bring their own sanitizer and parent answered just soap and water.

There would have to be a waiver in place then. The parents are obliged to inform in case of allergies. I call a bluff, they should have been refused.

Sammy2012

iamwhoiam wrote: »

But they weren’t allergic to the thermometer I presume

I presume not. Thermometer was one of those gun type ones so not near the child.

Sammy2012

Lillyfae wrote: »

There would have to be a waiver in place then. The parents are obliged to inform in case of allergies. I call a bluff, they should have been refused.

I'm not sure to be honest. The girls were a bit taken aback. I'm going to enquire more about it when I go to pick them up.

FishOnABike

Sammy2012 wrote: »

I just dropped my kids off at summer camp. Hand sanitizer at the door and temp check also. Felt very safe. However the parent behind me refused the use of sanitizer and the temp check. This is what schools will be facing going forward.

Idiot. Simply make it a requirement for participation. If a person doesn't want to follow the health and safety measures implemented by an organisation then they don't have (and shouldn't expect to feel entitled) to take part.

Schools send pupils home for not wearing the proper uniform, public health measures are more important than uniforms. If someone refuses to follow school directions it should be treated as a disciplinary issue and dealt with accordingly.

jrosen

Where temp checks part of the T&C? If they were then the facility were silly for allowing her kids take part.

If they were not she has the right to refuse. As there is no government legislation around this (that I am aware) temp checks are not mandatory. Some businesses are using them but many more are not. The feeling being that once the facility or business takes temps they are the ones saying yes this person has no temp and is ok to come in. No temp does not mean that person is not sick or have covid. Where as with health declaration forms the onus is on the customer to be honest.

My dentist and my kids dentists are not taking temps for this reason, my hair dresser said the same and my doctors office is not taking temps either although Im not sure why. My kids have been back to camp for 2 weeks and no temp checks either.

timmy_mallet

Lillyfae wrote: »

Why would anyone do this? Did they give any reason??

Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with my kids using a santiser provided by someone else, would you?

I will be providing them with their own.

And if there are mandatory hand sanitising stations in schools from September, I'd argue they are a greater risk to safety than if they didn't exist. Each child in the school touching something with their hands on arrival is absurd.

Sammy2012

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with my kids using a santiser provided by someone else, would you?

I will be providing them with their own.

And if there are mandatory hand sanitising stations in schools from September, I'd argue they are a greater risk to safety than if they didn't exist. Each child in the school touching something with their hands on arrival is absurd.

Alot of sanitizer are now automatic. You place your hand under them. No touching at all.

timmy_mallet

Sammy2012 wrote: »

Children were allergic to it apparently. Kids were around 9. My own 2 are 4 and 6. They were asked did they bring their own sanitizer and parent answered just soap and water.

Which, as we all know, is the public health advice.

timmy_mallet

Sammy2012 wrote: »

Alot of sanitizer are now automatic. You place your hand under them. No touching at all.

And alot are not.

Also, I wouldn't blindly allow a business or school or whatever to squirt a substance on my hands. Nor should anyone else. Wash your own hands. Use your own sanitiser (if you even need it, washing should be enough)

murphyebass

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with my kids using a santiser provided by someone else, would you?

I will be providing them with their own.

And if there are mandatory hand sanitising stations in schools from September, I'd argue they are a greater risk to safety than if they didn't exist. Each child in the school touching something with their hands on arrival is absurd.

Even if it is a trigger they touch to get the sanitizer out..... they then sanatIze their hands so what’s the problem.

It’s like the automatic soap dispenser for the home that were launched a year or two ago. No need to touch a trigger. Yay, oh wait I’m getting soap out to WASH MY HANDS!

Lillyfae

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't be comfortable with my kids using a santiser provided by someone else, would you?

I will be providing them with their own.

And if there are mandatory hand sanitising stations in schools from September, I'd argue they are a greater risk to safety than if they didn't exist. Each child in the school touching something with their hands on arrival is absurd.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree, but that's not what happened. The parent refused, saying the kids were allergic, but provided no evidence/ nothing in writing to the camp to this effect. Also wouldn't allow temp to be taken and didn't demonstrate handwashing either. So ya, I just think contrarian who tested the camp organizers adherence to regulation and highlighted a fairly massive hole in ability or willingness to challenge a chancer.

To Sammy2012, I would urge you to speak to someone regarding this when you're picking up the kids.