How will schools be able to go back in September?

I'll be honest, I don't really care about the teachers, I do but I care about myself more.

And if the plan is to send 1.1 million people back into an environment where the government advice is not based on science but based on "shure be grand".

That effects everyone, every single person in the country, whether you are a teacher, a parent or not.

So people looking to have a snipe at feckless greedy teachers need to remember one thing, if they fúck up the return to schools and it goes títs up that will bring the whole house of cards down.

Then we will have real problems going forward.

[Deleted User]

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/attendance_and_discipline_in_schools/school_attendance.html#:~:text=The%20legislation%20governing%20school%20attendance,Education%20(Welfare)%20Act%202000.&text=There%20is%20no%20absolute%20legal,primary%20educator%20of%20the%20child.

Parents must ensure that their children from the age of 6 to the age of 16 attend a recognised school or receive a certain minimum education. There is no absolute legal obligation on children to attend school nor on their parents to send them to school.

The Irish Constitution recognises the family as the primary educator of the child. It guarantees to respect the right and duty of parents to provide (according to their means) for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children. Parents are free to provide this education in their homes or in schools recognised or established by the State.

blanch152 wrote: »

The studies may have been limited, but they have been done, and the risk is low for teachers.

The study so limited it's insignificant. Junk.

blanch152 wrote: »

You have previously mentioned that the science has moved on, but you have yet to produce a study to back you up.

I all ready quoted from the study that was cited.

blanch152 wrote: »

Schools have been back around the world for weeks and even months, yet we have no reports of thousands of teachers dying from Covid-19. Why is that? Answer: because the risk is very small.

Well no, most schools are still closed, except for limited circumstances and where open very strict measures.

blanch152 wrote: »

Teachers are scared, I get it, but it is surprising that such a well-educated cohort are refusing to accept the science that there is little risk in a return to school.

You haven't cited any science.

Your ill informed opinion is not science.

downthemiddle

seamus wrote: »

Mask wearing is appropriate in applicable scenarios. Namely periods of 15 minutes to two hours where social distancing cannot be maintained.

.

What is recommended after two hours or does the danger mysteriously disappear? Perhaps you can clarify the science.

seamus wrote: »

Outside of these scenarios it is not necessarily recommended.

You should get onto the CDC with your "science" and "recommendations" would save them a lot of trouble.

Guidance for K-12 School Administrators on the Use of Cloth Face Coverings in Schools

boogerballs

Augeo wrote: »

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/attendance_and_discipline_in_schools/school_attendance.html#:~:text=The%20legislation%20governing%20school%20attendance,Education%20(Welfare)%20Act%202000.&text=There%20is%20no%20absolute%20legal,primary%20educator%20of%20the%20child.

Parents must ensure that their children from the age of 6 to the age of 16 attend a recognised school or receive a certain minimum education. There is no absolute legal obligation on children to attend school nor on their parents to send them to school.

The Irish Constitution recognises the family as the primary educator of the child. It guarantees to respect the right and duty of parents to provide (according to their means) for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children. Parents are free to provide this education in their homes or in schools recognised or established by the State.

Thanks for the reply.

sideswipe

This thread could do with being split into a primary School and secondary School threads.

The 20 days just gets flagged for a Tusla follow-up, parents aren't breaking the law if kids miss 20 days of school.

The purpose of the Tusla visit will be to ascertain that the kids are being cared for and it's not a case that they're missing school because they're covered in bruises or because the parents couldn't be arsed.

I'd be inclined to contact the school first with your plan and see if the teacher is willing to give you guidance on what she plans on doing with the kids for the first month. At least then when you send them back they won't be a month behind the class. The school may also be willing to ignore the asbsences if you're engaging with them - sending in homework, etc,

downthemiddle wrote: »

What is recommended after two hours or does the danger mysteriously disappear? Perhaps you can clarify the science.

Alternative measures are recommended. Such as social distancing, changing masks, ventilation, etc.

All of the recommendations are contingent on risk and location and should be balanced against such.

Dylan94

Any idea how they plan to keep even 1 meter of distance between secondary studnets who would mostly have double desks?

CruelSummer wrote: »

The hysterical posts on this thread re masks are ridiculous. No child should be forced to wear one on their faces all day long. There is research out there that shows masks are ineffective after a certain amount of time.

Also..what about children who cannot keep on a costume mask, Halloween mask for more than 5 minutes? They handle, fiddle with them constantly, they find them suffocating at times and that alone would spread Covid easily...are any of the posters on this thread actually teachers or even parents?

Couldn't agree with you more, it's pointless to even try get them to wear a mask.

The pros and cons are weighed up and for kids there's a reason why masks aren't mandatory.

Any benefit would be negligible and its not worth the discomfort of forcing them to wear them, like you said proper use of masks just not possible for kids and would be more of a hindrance.

They know they won't be able to force children to wear them and that's why it's not happening.

downthemiddle

seamus wrote: »

Alternative measures are recommended. Such as social distancing, changing masks, ventilation, etc.

All of the recommendations are contingent on risk and location and should be balanced against such.

Could you translate this to a school context please?

boogerballs

seamus wrote: »

The 20 days just gets flagged for a Tusla follow-up, parents aren't breaking the law if kids miss 20 days of school.

The purpose of the Tusla visit will be to ascertain that the kids are being cared for and it's not a case that they're missing school because they're covered in bruises or because the parents couldn't be arsed.

I'd be inclined to contact the school first with your plan and see if the teacher is willing to give you guidance on what she plans on doing with the kids for the first month. At least then when you send them back they won't be a month behind the class. The school may also be willing to ignore the asbsences if you're engaging with them - sending in homework, etc,

Yeah I'll be speaking with the school alright, was just really checking on the legality of it so thanks for that.

I am just weighing up the risk of sending them back, which I think at the moment is very low given the numbers of community transmission against what they would miss education wise in the first month.

If they do go back to segregated pods and staggered times they may not get a whole lot done in the first month anyway.

There are a number of kids in their classes from foreign countries and I know they are have gone back to those countries for the summer, if they arrive home a few days before school starts and just go in without 2 weeks quarantine that is my biggest concern.

solerina

am_zarathustra wrote: »

For the parents on here, would it be better in Secondary to have

a) Week on week off
b) Half days every day
c) Three days roughly a week

I don't have kids myself so I'm just wondering what parents think would suit best if a full return isn't possible in every school. I know this will be much trickier at Primary level and will have a larger knock-on effect of parents there!

My gut feeling would be half days but I can see the advantage of say Monday, Wednesday, Friday too

PP teacher.....It totally depends on your own situation but for second level I would prefer week on week off, that’s the only way students will cover their full timetable, if it was two on Then a day off they would miss a lot of certain subjects just by the nature of their timetable. Every second day would also work as they would get every class at least once a fortnight. Half days wouldn’t work at all.

downthemiddle wrote: »

Could you translate this to a school context please?

Short answer -

Kids under 10 are very low risk for viral transmission and thus social distancing or masks provides very little additional protection for the amount of effort required. Low-effort practices such as hand washing and avoiding large crowds should be maintained.

Kids over 10 present a slightly higher risk (which increases as you get towards 18) and should practice social distancing, or mask wearing if that's not possible. On top of the usual hygiene measures.

Adults (i.e. teachers and sixth years) should practice social distancing at all times and avoid mixing outside of their core class groups.

The riskiest and most difficult part of reopening schools is not the gaggle of kids in primary schools sitting without masks.

It's secondary schools - senior cycle especially - attempting to maintain wide subject choices & streamed classes while minimising risk.

Low risk isn't no risk and while no risk isn't possible, why aren't we looking to eliminate the risk we reasonably can?

Wearing a mask isn't the ordeal some of ye are making it out to be

They definition of a kid seems to vary aporox below 10-13 years, depending on viewpoint/agenda.

Nearly all 2nd level students are not classed as kids.

It's not going to kill anyone to wear a mask or even change mask 3 times a day.

Older Children Spread the Coronavirus Just as Much as Adults, Large Study Finds

seamus wrote: »

Short answer -

Kids under 10 are very low risk for viral transmission and thus social distancing or masks provides very little additional protection for the amount of effort required. Low-effort practices such as hand washing and avoiding large crowds should be maintained.

Children under 10 were roughly half as likely as adults to spread the virus to others....Even so, the number of new infections seeded by children may rise when schools reopen, the study authors cautioned. “Young children may show higher attack rates when the school closure ends, contributing to community transmission of Covid-19,” they wrote. Other studies have also suggested that the large number of contacts for schoolchildren, who interact with dozens of others for a good part of the day, may cancel out their smaller risk of infecting others

seamus wrote: »

Kids over 10 present a slightly higher risk (which increases as you get towards 18) and should practice social distancing, or mask wearing if that's not possible. On top of the usual hygiene measures.

those between the ages of 10 and 19 can spread the virus at least as well as adults do...The study is more worrisome for children in middle and high school. This group was even more likely to infect others than adults were, the study found. But some experts said that finding may be a fluke or may stem from the children’s behaviors

JRant

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

Low risk isn't no risk and while no risk isn't possible, why aren't we looking to eliminate the risk we reasonably can?

Wearing a mask isn't the ordeal some of ye are making it out to be

They definition of a kid seems to vary aporox below 10-13 years, depending on viewpoint/agenda.

Nearly all 2nd level students are not classed as kids.

It's not going to kill anyone to wear a mask or even change mask 3 times a day.

Who pays for all these masks?
Is it nearly half a million daily users of the schools system in Ireland? That's a lot of masks that schools and the DES need to procure if that's the road they want to go down.

JRant wrote: »

Who pays for all these masks?
Is it nearly half a million daily users of the schools system in Ireland? That's a lot of masks that schools and the DES need to procure if that's the road they want to go down.

People cud pay half the cost for a pack of 20 reusable masks for the week, state cud cover rest of cost.

State cud do a deal with some crowd like O'Neills to buy them, we're p1ssing money away on plenty other things.

People wash masks at weekend. Job done

Edit: shud have been done a month ago but they cud still get a few companies to make them

JRant

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

People cud pay half the cost for a pack of 20 reusable masks for the week, state cud cover rest of cost.

State cud do a deal with some crowd like O'Neills to buy them, we're p1ssing money away on plenty other things.

People wash masks at weekend. Job done

Edit: shud have been done a month ago but they cud still get a few companies to make them

Reusable masks would definitely be the way to go for older children. Of course, there will probably be a whole raft of rules around the type of mask that can be worn. Don't agree with the State only covering half the costs though.

Supercell

JRant wrote: »

Who pays for all these masks?
Is it nearly half a million daily users of the schools system in Ireland? That's a lot of masks that schools and the DES need to procure if that's the road they want to go down.

Our local Lidl is selling 50 packs of surgical, 3 layer masks for €25 so 50c each, hardly a major expense for most. They are also selling cotton reusable ones too.
The younger kids in primary schools would be an uphill struggle to wear them but the senior kids aged 10+ should definitely do so IMHO.

Beasty

Threads merged

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

Low risk isn't no risk and while no risk isn't possible, why aren't we looking to eliminate the risk we reasonably can?

Wearing a mask isn't the ordeal some of ye are making it out to be

They definition of a kid seems to vary aporox below 10-13 years, depending on viewpoint/agenda.

Nearly all 2nd level students are not classed as kids.

It's not going to kill anyone to wear a mask or even change mask 3 times a day.

Kids won't be forced to wear masks in school, it won't be made mandatory so don't know why people keep banging on about it.

JRant

Supercell wrote: »

Our local Lidl is selling 50 packs of surgical, 3 layer masks for €25 so 50c each, hardly a major expense for most. They are also selling cotton reusable ones too.
The younger kids in primary schools would be an uphill struggle to wear them but the senior kids aged 10+ should definitely do so IMHO.

Why should parents be hit with this additional cost though?

I don't expect the teachers to pay for their own masks either.

Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: »

Kids won't be forced to wear masks in school, it won't be made mandatory so don't know why people keep banging on about it.

People can't believe they won't be required,that's why they're discussing it.

Thought it wud be the least they would do for ages 10+

I would hope unions push the issue for everyone's sake.

It's also an issue that's arising elsewhere

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/26/unions-urge-ministers-consider-making-face-masks-compulsory/

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

People can't believe they won't be required,that's why they're discussing it.

Thought it wud be the least they would do for ages 10+

I would hope unions push the issue for everyone's sake.

It's also an issue that's arising elsewhere

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/26/unions-urge-ministers-consider-making-face-masks-compulsory/

You hope the unions force children to wear masks?

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

Low risk isn't no risk and while no risk isn't possible, why aren't we looking to eliminate the risk we reasonably can?

Keyword there being "reasonably". Determining what's reasonable involves not just the level of effort required, but also the reward in doing so.

If the risk of viral transmission is very low, and the effort to do something (such as getting kids to wear masks) is high, then perhaps it's not a reasonable measure?

If you want to divide children into six-child "pods", then you need to double or triple your teaching staff.

If you want to do partial weeks, then society as a whole has to be restructured to account for kids not being in school five days a week.

But since the risk of transmission is very low, then none of these suggestions are reasonable for younger students.

Which leads to the conclusion that having younger kids go back to school without masks and distancing but with some of the other hygiene methods in place, is to "eliminate the risk we reasonably can".

Even with the alleged measures to be proposed today, schools are going to be considerably safer places than they were last September when there were practically zero hygiene practices in place.

Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: »

You hope the unions force children to wear masks?

Ah..... yeah

I'm amazed some of yere kids go to the hassle of putting on socks.

It's for their protection for gods sake