Random sample wrote: » We are being put in our subject meetings for staff meetings, and will join a zoom meeting like that.
RealJohn wrote: » That might be alright. Most of the people in my departments are good craic. Probably would be much paying attention to the meeting going on though. We've been told to report to the room in question though, so I assume that the current plan is that we're all in one room, at the start anyway.
Rosita wrote: » There's been a lot of furore about the 81 people in Galway on Wednesday. Presumably that was in a large space. There'll be schools that will exceed that in a full staff meeting. My own school will be 50+. To my mind it's extraordinary that staff meetings are being blithely organised as if there are no general restrictions regarding large gatherings. Obviously anyone can point to the fact that we are entering a crazy situation regarding classroom numbers but at least Principals have control over the organisation of staff meetings. So fair play to the TUI. Some have commented, after Clifden, if there are different rules for the "elites"........well the opposite is also true - if we accept attending in a situation after which we expected them to resign then maybe we are saying there are different rules, which is that teachers do not have the same expectation of safety that the Oireachtas Golf Society should have.
wirelessdude01 wrote: » Personally think buses will continue as per usual for well over half the country. Additional buses and staff aren't there.
mirrorwall14 wrote: » Honestly I’ll be kicking up a riot if we have staff meetings or any kind of meetings which are not 2m apart. We have a large staff 50+. I’m high risk for two reasons and will be taking no chances at all
Ophelia Modern Firehouse wrote: » Have all your schools sent out or published their detailed individual plans for parents yet? There are two post primaries near me and I have friends and family with children in both. One has put up their plan and has already had to backtrack and change masks optional to masks required in classrooms. Both scenarios caused upset to some parents on social media.
wirelessdude01 wrote: » So when it was masks optional some parents gave out, and same when it's mandatory. Can't suit all of the people all of the time.
Ophelia Modern Firehouse wrote: » Yes, the initial plan had them optional even though it was after the guidelines saying they are required. Parents were annoyed, pointed this out and demanded guidelines be followed. Others are anti mask and are insisting their child won't be "muzzled" etc etc. It's the kind of place where we can expect major, maybe even physical, confrontation over it. I would not be surprised to see some group of facebook vigilantes descend on the school to film themselves "asserting their rights".
am_zarathustra wrote: » Jesus, schools have enough to be doing without there lunatics. I'm really hoping we don't see any in our school but I'd honestly volunteer to set them straight. I wonder legally where schools stand given the wishy washy nature of the guidelines.
wirelessdude01 wrote: » Funnily enough I've heard of schools pulling their Crok Parks day before going back as it goes over the limit of 6 yet have full school the following day. Couldn't make this stuff up.
RealJohn wrote: » Mandatory masks for students simply is not workable. The strongest we can be is that they're strongly encouraged for all students who can wear them. All students really have to do is claim that they have trouble breathing or that wearing a mask gives them "anxiety" or any number of other excuses which will be true in a small minority of cases but that we won't be able to contest in the cases they're not. Making them mandatory only creates problems for teachers. I think most students will be willing to wear them, most of the time, and I think that's the best we can hope for. Going on about "setting people straight" if they send their kids in without masks will acheive noting, other than ill-feeling and worry.
Smacruairi wrote: » I agree with the sentiment and flow of your argument, but this is the whole point about needing hard rules, not "where possible", guidelines. If every school has a bespoke approach, it becomes a race to the bottom in terms of standards. As far as I know from the updated protocols, mask wearing is mandatory. Thus, if you can't wear a mask, you are not coming in, the exact same way for a shop or public transport? This has to be non negotiable, you can't compromise on health guidelines, you wouldn't ease up on seatbelts for example surely?
RealJohn wrote: » On seat belts, the driver is responsible for everyone in the car, to the best of my knowledge, so it's self-policing, because the driver is the one who gets it in the neck if anyone breaks the rules, so it becomes "if you want me to drive you somewhere, you wear your seat belt, or you can find another way". That isn't going to work here. I think it comes down to two points: 1. The students have a constitutional right to education, which for most is only really available in schools. 2. The students are minors (mostly) so we can't force them to wear masks or leave. It's not like a shop or a cinema or any other business where they have the right to refuse anyone admission if they so choose. Schools do not have that right in the same way. We could possibly say that it's mandatory for anyone over 16, and we could definitely make it mandatory for any students over 18, but that's about as far as we can go, I think.
TheValeyard wrote: » On point No. 2. Once it's written into the code if behaviour and signed by student and parent, they can be made to wear the masks.
RealJohn wrote: » Mandatory masks for students simply is not workable. Making them mandatory only creates problems for teachers. I think most students will be willing to wear them, most of the time, and I think that's the best we can hope for.
Rosita wrote: » The claim by Philip Nolan that kids are more likely to be infected at home than in school seems extraordinary. I wonder what's the science behind that claim? It seems to fly in the face of all the lockdown and restriction logic where you mingled with as limited a cohort of people as possible. Now he's claiming that mixing with hundreds of others is actually safer than some of your family who mightn't be leaving the house?
Smacruairi wrote: » On point 1,the state provides FOR schools. They can say "to attend school wear a mask or go source your own".
RealJohn wrote: » I doubt that would hold up in court.
RealJohn wrote: » I don't think that's actually what he's saying. I think that's just how he's presenting it, because he's been told to present it that way. I think what he's saying is that right now, if a student gets Covid, it's more likely that he got it at home, and that's probably true. Covid doesn't just appear magically out of thin air. You have to get it from someone, and if one person in a school has it, they can't really have got it in school, simply because nobody has it to get it off.
Rosita wrote: » But it's not a particularly useful or instructive opinion given that people aged 5 to 14 are neither in the workplace or in school at the moment. Some 200 of them have been infected in the past fortnight. I think the fact that they have proven so infectious is the significant point. The idea that suddenly they will be relatively immune once they cross the school threshold seems dubious.
Smacruairi wrote: » Why? They say if you attend a state school you have to attend x amount of days. Why would the wearing of a mask as a health provision not be enforceable. Are you against the wearing of masks?
RealJohn wrote: » That's the opposite case though. That's an attempt to ensure students get their education, as is their constitutional right (and parents don't have the right to deprive them of it, just to take on that responsibility directly themselves), not something that would actively prevent many of them from getting their education.
