How will schools be able to go back in September?

joe40 wrote: »

Firstly I am a teacher and understand the risks.
However small group gatherings are fine but teenagers need the interaction that only a school can provide.
We need to live with this virus it is not going away.
This is a plan it will need to be tweaked and amended as it is implemented, but at this stage I think we need to get started.

If I thought things would be better after Christmas then definitely extend the lockdown, but there is no indication things will be better in the medium term, years maybe.

We have no idea whether the situation will be better after Christmas or not.
I am not suggesting a second lockdown. That would a ludicrous overstep. What I have always said should happen is half classes until Hallowe'en midterm. It would allow for social distancing and monitoring of the situation before a full return in November.

To go from entire closure, masks, social distancing, limited interactions outside of the family circle, to a "sure, it'll be grand" approach should never have happened. At the very least, half classes should have be trialed for 4 weeks in June, again to monitor the rise (of lack thereof) in cases associated with school openings.

I do vehemently disagree that children "need" the social interactions in secondary school. By that age, children have found their interests, friend groups, hobbies etc. They can continue to work on these outside of the school setting.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

Oh no not at all, many of my poor students are high risk for this, I have type 1 diabetics, severe asthmatics, epileptics and other immunocompromised kids. I'm terrified for them, on top of that a few of them come from families that will be overjoyed at the thought of throwing them into school as normal. I think students (particularly PP) are after being completely forgotten about, every bit as much as staff.

So do you think schools should not re open at all. What circumstances would be safe.

Also pretty disgusting comment to suggest parents of compromised kids will be "overjoyed at the thought of throwing them into school as normal"

I'm a teacher and those type of comments affect us all.

Yosef Stocky Backspace wrote: »

I have 2xBSc and an MSc (in a health science) and an MEd. I paid for my own teacher training. I feel I'm reasonably well placed to interpret the relevant research, and to look at these guidelines in the realistic context of schools, having taught for 13 years in a DEIS school. I also run my own business so am quite familiar with the pressing needs of the economy and the realities of implementing Covid regulations. I find many of your posts so far removed from reality as to be comical.

What's removed from reality is thinking that because you have all of those qualifications (well done by the way) and are a teacher that everyone has a comparable background. I think you would be a perfect candidate for principal or on a board of management, but a teacher doesn't need half of those qualifications, thankfully. Overqualification for a position only needs to dissatisfaction in my opinion. Poor person/task fit.

Whatever people think about my attitude, the groupthink is more than apparent here. If anyone offers an alternative view we have the headless chickens running around ready to peck someone's eyes out. Not to mention the words being put into other people's mouths.

My only concern here is children's educational, emotional and social wellbeing. I care less about a teacher who won't go back to the classroom because their cousin in another county has psoriasis. Risks can be mitigated, and like I said this is an opportunity to improve schools for staff and children alike well into the future

Joe Kane wrote: »

Spare a thought for those of us with children that are extremely compromised too with respiratory conditions. These children and us parent's of said children seems to be completely forgotten about. It's not all about yourselves (teachers).

It boils my blood reading this thread and listening to the likes of Ciara Kelly coming out with statements like ''Lets face it guys the teachers are the main concern here''. It's not the main or only concern at all.

I am a teacher and have a child in the at risk category not very high risk. I understand your concern but really you are focusing in ciara kelly LC can’t go ahead but open the schools full time as the source for serious debate on this issue. Seriously. If you are that annoyed direct your ire where it is due the dep of ed. They after all published the guidelines. As an aside I’d consider any push towards safeguarding teachers as very positive as it will in turn benefit children.

joe40 wrote: »

So do you think schools should not re open at all. What circumstances would be safe.

Also pretty disgusting comment to suggest parents of compromised kids will be "overjoyed at the thought of throwing them into school as normal"

I'm a teacher and those type of comments affect us all.

Cool your jets, I never said all parents, I implied that there are a select few who can't wait to have their kids back in school come hell or high water, much like teaching, there are good ones and bad ones.

Regarding schools, yes they should open, but with reduced students per day (one week on one week off or something similar) and also using remote learning which while not perfect will still work to some degree.

Joe Kane wrote: »

My ire?

I was making a point.

The 'Mé féin' attitude within the teacher fraternity is rife though.

Your point was pure scutter.

Teachers have nothing to do with the plan you are complaining about, but you felt like having a pop anyway. :rolleyes:

thenetherrealm wrote: »

We have no idea whether the situation will be better after Christmas or not.
I am not suggesting a second lockdown. That would a ludicrous overstep. What I have always said should happen is half classes until Hallowe'en midterm. It would allow for social distancing and monitoring of the situation before a full return in November.

To go from entire closure, masks, social distancing, limited interactions outside of the family circle, to a "sure, it'll be grand" approach should never have happened. At the very least, half classes should have be trialed for 4 weeks in June, again to monitor the rise (of lack thereof) in cases associated with school openings.

I do vehemently disagree that children "need" the social interactions in secondary school. By that age, children have found their interests, friend groups, hobbies etc. They can continue to work on these outside of the school setting.

Nothing will have changed by Halloween. Whatever measures we need to work with now will be with us for years. There might even be more lockdowns required a local level.

I think we need to get started and amend as needed.
I was listening to Paddy Mallon today and he was saying largely the same thing.

And kids, including teenagers, definitely need the social interaction of schools.

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Do you find negativity from parents in your school ? Or are you basing it on this thread ? I must say the vast majority of parents I speak to are very supportive of teachers
My own local school where my kids went and now a grandchild have a very good relationship between teachers and parents
The same cannot be said about the unions I admit as many parents see unions as being less than supportive of parents and pupils
I am just telling it as I see it and not insisting that every school or parent thinks like that

Its a combination of media, this thread and people I would meet, it seems a strong majority are more than happy to throw us all back in the firing line whatever the risk. To be honest I have had no interactions with parents of my students since before summer.

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

Cool your jets, I never said all parents, I implied that there are a select few who can't wait to have their kids back in school come hell or high water, much like teaching, there are good ones and bad ones.

Regarding schools, yes they should open, but with reduced students per day (one week on one week off or something similar) and also using remote learning which while not perfect will still work to some degree.

You said a few of your "immunocompromised kids" come from families that will be "overjoyed to throw them back into school as normal"
That is still an outrageous comment.

As for the week on week off approach it may have some merit but it is not a long term solution.
At this stage we need long term solutions, nothing is changing anytime soon.

Boggles wrote: »

Your point was pure scutter.

Teachers have nothing to do with the plan you are complaining about, but you felt like having a pop anyway. :rolleyes:

Not at all.

I'm calling it as I see it.

Many reading this thread or looking on from the outside, in will agree.

God help the parents of compromised children that have to now go and engage with some of the teachers & principles on this thread.

Vicxas wrote: »

Can anyone outline what the plan is for primary schools? I tried to read the Journals breakdown of it but still wasnt clear. Are kids going back full time, are they going to be in pods too?

Basically it's pile em in and stack em high. Same as always.

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

I agree it is an opportunity but it will be wasted. Knee jerk reactions lead to money being wasted. There is no well thought through plan in place. No grand master plan in how to progress things. No objective to be achieved.

The only objective is short-term, by hook or by crook get the damn schools open and we'll wing it when the sh!t will be hitting the fan.

The bit in bold I think is very likely. But I still think that individual schools should have had a multitude of plans ready to go in case of all scenarios and it's a case of some do and some don't.

Lillyfae wrote: »

Extra staff for cleaning, subs where needed would be 2 such examples. €300,000,000 available for it. Nobody here actually has any idea how many subs are available in the country, there are just random numbers being thrown around.



€75,000,000 to improve infrastructure. The schools who need it the most will obviously be prioritised. Do you think that double the budget that is usually available will do nothing to improve things?

Extra cleaning is fair. The extra subs don't actually mitigate risk in any way. They are just more people moving through schools. It is also wildly optimistic to think that we have that many available subs when schools have struggled to find them for the last few years.


As for improving infrastructure...this is all to be done in the next 4 weeks. How much of that do you honestly believe will be long term structural improvements? I can see it being spent and I can see *some* of it being used for fixing things that should have been fixed. The reality is that it will most likely be used on temporary accommodations which, if experience is anything to go by, will become long term sub standard accommodation. How many things commissioned and built in 4 weeks do you know that stand the test of time?

I think there is a massive naivete out there among the general public as to what schools are actually like day to day. This 'plan' is anything but a plan. They are throwing money at schools and asking them to figure it all out, while knowing that they are likely setting schools up for failure but ensuring that the blame will also be placed on those schools.