timmy_mallet wrote: » If even. Meanwhile the majority of the rest of Europe has managed to be back at school 2 months already.
Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: » Meanwhile summer camps are running and sports are back so it's some consolation for the kids.
s1ippy wrote: » Wearing masks is being made mandatory in retail environments, now surely DoE will have no choice but to provide PPE and insist it is worn by school staff and students.
jrosen wrote: » The uniform thing is silly I think. Kids could come in wearing the same non uniform clothes anyway. I would imagine it would make more sense to stop all crested items, which tend to be more expensive anyway and just go for generic ones. Yes travel will be refunded. Refunds for end of last school term are being current rolled out.
iamwhoiam wrote: » I don’t think the uniform thing is silly at all . No one has enough uniforms to change and wash every day . Most kids would be happy to change clothes I imagine . Parents of younger kids could dress them in clean clothes every day but they could not put them in clean uniform every day My granddaughter wears a tracksuit which is heavy and impossible to get dry overnight or even in a few days
jrosen wrote: » If the point of it is to ensure fresh clothes every day it is. Kids will wear the same coat, the same shoes, the same hats and gloves come winter. I would have thought it defeats the same purpose. But non uniform is just another pressure to put on parents and kids.
GazzaL wrote: » If a child wears the same jumper to school two days in a row, who'll stop them first, the COVID police or the fashion police?
wirelessdude01 wrote: » Where did the no uniform thing come from? Seen it on here but nowhere else.
OrlaFS2017 wrote: » Probably because freshly laundered clothes is a crèche requirement now. So people are assuming that the school requirements may be similar
rovers_runner wrote: » Teachers delighted, danger money pay claims incoming.. All in the interests of the children of course...
wirelessdude01 wrote: » Don't forget to mention your finder's fee.
Bananaleaf wrote: » I saw it on here too but nowhere else until Sunday when I was talking to an ex colleague who is a deputy principal. Ex colleague wasnt claiming to have any inside knowledge, they just said it was doing the rounds as a suggestion. I can see the pros and cons of it myself but to those instantly dismissing it as 'stupid' ... this just goes to show that in fairness to Dept of Ed, no matter what they come up with in Sep (please DoE ... come up with something!!!) they'll be slated for it
Scoondal wrote: » My son's teachers have been useless since 15 March. All respect has been lost. Cheap holidays (with homework ) now on my agenda.
History Queen wrote: » I'm really sorry for you and your son that that has been the case. I note you say teachers, is he second level? Surely not all of his teachers were useless? What were the issues? (If you don't mind me asking)
Blondini wrote: » I'm actually cringing with embarrassment for you, I really am.
Scoondal wrote: » No, he is in primary. There has been no connection between pupil and school. All work was sent to parents. No interactive pupil to class via internet. No communications directly to the pupil. It has really opened my eyes to home schooling and what is best for my son's education in the coming months.