flynnlives wrote: » as usual the whinging teachers are out lookin for more money. They had 6 months now on full pay sitting on their arses. Time to stfu and get busy preparing for school term.
jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: » I'm hoping to squeeze a few grand out of it before we return tbh
xhomelezz wrote: » Flu vaccine is gonna be probably hard to get this year either..
Boggles wrote: » TBF cleaning is comprehensively covered in the document. The mechanical action of wiping. :pac:
Icyseanfitz wrote: » I signed up for salary protection earlier this year, I'd be tempted to take sick leave. Be nice to be able to spend Christmas with my family, or meet my friends over the next few months. If I go back to work with this lack of precautions I won't see anyone other than my wife, and she is high risk on top of it all.
isup wrote: » I totally feel for you. I'm thinking we can't see grandparents after the kids go back. I'd be at risk myself .
Icyseanfitz wrote: » tbh what with throwing 1/5 of our population back into a virus breeding ground with zero protections, i dont think anyone will be safe to visit anyone
joe40 wrote: » If the risks are so high why aren't our medical professionals totally opposed to this.
HerrKuehn wrote: » You seem to be one of the only teachers on here with a positive attitude on getting the schools open. I suspect this represents the majority of teachers. The ones on here all day criticising every suggestion are a vocal minority.
jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: » I suspect the same, the teachers voicing concern about the plan are probably all wasters
Peter Flynt wrote: » As teachers all that was required was a workable plan with realistic ambitions - not bullsh*t like 93 people in a cold poorly ventilated gym, or stuff like mandatory masks for kids on buses but not once they arrive at school. The plan is a recipe for disaster if a second wave hits Ireland.....at which point it will all fall apart and end up with the schools closing again anyway. It's a shot in the dark. . . A roll of the dice. . . with demands required of workers from one sector of the workforce that are not required of others. In some ways the plan has merits also. There is stuff in it which can work well in primary schools, but it is a complete disaster with no specifics for secondary level.
HerrKuehn wrote: » No matter what was suggested it would have been shot down by many here. It is the easiest thing in the world to be critical, it is a lot more difficult to come up with a plan that everyone is happy with. In fact it would have been impossible. It is about risk management now, we have to live with it. Some have said, why should schools go back when the pubs can't open? The benefits of opening the pubs are fairly minor, while the risk is high. The benefits of opening schools are high, while the risk is moderate or low.
Zahir Bitter Cellist wrote: » Cases are going to increase as more and more people get back to normal, it doesn't signify a second wave. The virus is not proven to be seasonal like influenza so the talk of a second wave is to be taken with a pinch of salt. NPHET have stated that even where there are cases in schools it doesn't spell closure for schools. How it will be dealt with will be handled according to individual factors involved. We won't see a nationwide closure a la March again that's for sure.
am_zarathustra wrote: » The one thing that would have won me over is taking teachers who can't be in school (for a variety of medical reasons), creating a central roll of them by subject specialism ( not for primary but def for secondary but I guess giving primary the option of year group. Given they might already have resources and experience would be no harm) then match them with students who can't attend school. This is not that complicated. Say I have a third year at home, immunocompromised, cystic fibrosis, whatever unfair hand they and their family have been dealt, I get their subjects. I go to my remote learning database of teachers and I give that child 2/3 hours of phoen, video or chat function help with their work. The teacher at home has their 21 hours a week of teaching, just remote and the student isn't just doing homework from a class they weren't in. I'd imagine that would appeal to the teachers involved too. Now the problem with this is the school can't do it, someone on far more money in the department would have to organise it. The department of health flew to China for PPE right in the middle of the worst of it but the DOE can't make a centralised list for the most vunerable students in out society that would actually utilise teachers that can't be in school
am_zarathustra wrote: » The one thing that would have won me over is taking teachers who can't be in school (for a variety of medical reasons), creating a central roll of them by subject specialism ( not for primary but def for secondary but I guess giving primary the option of year group. Given they might already have resources and experience would be no harm) then match them with students who can't attend school.