rob316 wrote: » They had some smug **** from a teachers union on primetime there last week, I wanted to smack him through the TV. He says our members work environment should be "covid safe". Its an essential service, why do you deserve to be covid safe when nurses are working in a dangerous environment, retail workers, emergency services etc etc.
timmy_mallet wrote: » A question here... If the DoE's guidance was, we want all children in school, we cannot maintain social distancing inside the classroom... Would the unions and their teachers accept this?
wirelessdude01 wrote: » Then they'll have to come up with a plan. Can't just dump everyone back in a 'normal' way. I've said this before but I highly doubt that the department.will put anything meaningful down on paper as that would then require them to provis additional funding.
jrosen wrote: » What does covid safe mean? Its easy to say it but what does covid safe actually entail? If its PPE then thats easily resolved, if its hand washing/hand sanitizing availability then its also easily resolved. When phrases like this are used no one really knows where they stand. What if the dept say no social distancing but will give PPE, will the teachers/unions agree or not. We could well get to the end of july, have proposals and guidance issued and then the teachers unions say no and we are all back to square one again. We have masks and hand sanitizer in work plus access to soap and water. We have the option of a visor over a mask or to wear both.
khalessi wrote: » Teachers have been crying out about infrastructure for years, there are marches on the Dail. Indeed my own school marched due to the fact we had over 50% prefabs, but that is not what the media report and anyhow not what you want to hear since you only have one agenda, going by this and your previous posts.
jrosen wrote: » Why would PPE not be funded? Haven't the state funded PPE for other public offices and locations? Why would providing PPE for teachers be any different? Our secondary school is already looking for money for September and its gone up by 20euro.
wirelessdude01 wrote: » As I already said numerous times, if there is a corner to be cut, the dept of education will go at it with a chainsaw. Providing PPE will cost them too much. As an aside, if they don't provide PPE then they need to provide clarity on whether PPE is allowed to be worn by staff. I now know of 4 schools where staff have already been told by management that PPE will not be allowed. If they have a medical need the staff have been told to go out on sick leave.
markodaly wrote: » Is this the Board of Management dictating this to teachers?
wirelessdude01 wrote: » BoM/Principal.
BonsaiKitten wrote: » The Dept have already said that they don't envisage they will advise PPE haven't they? Something about it was in the draft guidelines. I can see a scenario where we reopen for a while and then have to close like Israel etc, though I hope it doesn't happen. I'm concerned that the Dept are sticking their heads in the sand re: that possibility. At the very least they should be drafting a backup online learning curriculum/ reducing our very overloaded curriculum for next year. If they put a bit of time into something like the English Oak Academy it could be really useful.
markodaly wrote: » And whose 'guidance' are they working from? Are they just making it up on the go? Its a genuine question.
wirelessdude01 wrote: » This is their interpretation of the stuff that has already been announced. Horrible attitude. Wouldn't like to be a member of staff in any of those schools.
rob316 wrote: » They had some smug **** from a teachers union on primetime there last week, I wanted to smack him through the TV.
rob316 wrote: » He says our members work environment should be "covid safe". Its an essential service, why do you deserve to be covid safe when nurses are working in a dangerous environment, retail workers, emergency services etc etc.
rob316 wrote: » The power we give to these unions is ridiculous.
rob316 wrote: » Can we expect extra school days next year for our kids they have lost? Can we ****, it'll be pay increases this lot will be looking for its members.
markodaly wrote: » So, they are making it up on the go... As I said before, this pandemic has laid bare the fact that there are no or little capable leadership in our education system.
Drumpot wrote: » https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/school-openings-across-globe-suggest-ways-keep-coronavirus-bay-despite-outbreaks I think the bottom line is that we just don’t know but it’s really concerning that there is no obvious efforts being made to find out the risks in schools: The experiment will continue. Yet scientists lament that as before, it may not generate the details they crave about infection patterns and paths of transmission. “There just isn’t really a culture of research” in schools, Edwards says. Gathering data from schoolchildren comes with layers of complexity beyond those of traditional pediatric research. In addition to seeking consent from parents and children, it often requires buy-in from teachers and school administrators who are already overwhelmed by their new reality. Integrating research—the only sure way to gauge the success of their varied strategies—may be too much to ask. If there was political will to actually find out if schools are ok it would of been done by now by somebody. Again, feels like they are taking “if we don’t know for sure, we can’t say for certain that schools are risky” kind of approach. I would rather there be transparency and honesty around these things for children, parents and teachers. It’s immoral to allow such ambiguous based information “schools grand cause children don’t really spread” to continue. The message should be “we actually aren’t sure”, because that’s the unfiltered truth. I can’t imagine another 12 months of no schools. Unless there’s a radical solution , I can’t see how schools Won’t Open in some form. But I’d rather be told the truth. Children are far less likely to get a bad dose. Children will benefit educational and emotionally more by being in school. This may be the best, most honest message our government can give and it might have to be good enough. I just hope they don’t lie to peddle a “schools are fine” narrative that will probably blow up in their faces and destroy their credibility and do savage damage to public’s trust in authorities.
khalessi wrote: » The leadership is supposed to come from the Dept of Educaiton so in that respect you are correct. This leaves BOM to come up with guidelines and all that has to be done is to point out legal right to safe working environment and they will cave. We have been told we can wear PPE if we choose.
markodaly wrote: » This is a non sequitur. Putting money into cycle lanes in of itself has nothing to do with funding for schools. But I do find this a tad ironic though. When is the last time teacher unions put funding for infrastructure ahead of their own pay claims? This is a genuine question. The teachers never went on strike for the lack of funding into schools. Its a bit rich to be crying about it now.
the corpo wrote: » I imagine the Departments proposal will be to obfuscate the evidence and push for the full reopening, and social distancing will be advised in a best case scenario. Where it can't, the edict will still be to open, the evidence isn't clear, need the kids back etc. For me, the evidence points towards it not being safe to put children back into an environment where social distancing can't be facilitated, and I won't want to send my kids back if it can't be. Do we think we'll see a scenario like the UK is proposing, where it will be illegal not to send your children back? I'm very uncomfortable that parents could be punished for wanting to follow the public health advice.
