Post primary return to schools roadmap

Treppen · 23-08-2020 8:58pm

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".

Lord above. It's all kicking off now. Their attitude would change very quickly if they had a sick member of their family and they were advised to wear a facemask.

wirelessdude01 · 23-08-2020 9:05pm

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.

Legally we don't have a leg to stand on really.

solerina · 23-08-2020 9:06pm

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.

We are one of those schools !! It makes no sense, our CP day is now happening online !!

RealJohn · 23-08-2020 10:05pm

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.

km79 · 23-08-2020 10:08pm

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.

And then the other side of it is
If children get sick parents will point the fingers at schools for failing to make sure students wear masks

Lose lose
It’s all too loose and largely unworkable
Arse covering and buck passing by the dept is all it amounts too

Smacruairi · 23-08-2020 10:10pm

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.

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 · 23-08-2020 10:19pm

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?

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 · 23-08-2020 10:25pm

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.

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 · 23-08-2020 10:26pm

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.

I'm not sure that that's actually the case, but even if it is, you can't make them sign it. If a parent is going to say that the child can't wear the mask for some reason, we can't refuse to allow them to come to school.

Rosita · 23-08-2020 10:31pm

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.

Couldn't agree more. Teachers will have enough on their plates without having to police an inflexible rule.

Rosita · 23-08-2020 10:37pm

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?

Rosita · 23-08-2020 10:43pm

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.

That's fine in theory. But we had a guy in our school last year who wouldn't even wear the uniform for the last three months or so that we were there. The code of behaviour provides clarity and gives the school more basis for its rules but actual compulsion is another matter. School still relies hugely on consensus.

The only real power the school has is to send a student home for no mask. But if you do that many more will refuse to wear them/lose them. The unintended consequences could be significant, and that's before you get to the legality of it. Trying to force this is fraught with difficulty.

Smacruairi · 23-08-2020 10:47pm

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.

On point 1,the state provides FOR schools. They can say "to attend school wear a mask or go source your own".

RealJohn · 23-08-2020 10:47pm

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?

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.
Similarly, if schools are following all of the protocols properly, and two students have Covid, unless those two students are in the same class, it's probaby still more likely that neither of them got it in school.

What he's not saying is that if one student has Covid, he/she is likely to pass it on to classmates and teachers, and the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that we'll see that sort of thing.

In summary, I don't think what he's saying is untrue, but I do think he's deliberately misleading the public by saying that.

RealJohn · 23-08-2020 10:48pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

On point 1,the state provides FOR schools. They can say "to attend school wear a mask or go source your own".

I doubt that would hold up in court.

Smacruairi · 23-08-2020 10:49pm

RealJohn wrote: »

I doubt that would hold up in court.

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?

Rosita · 23-08-2020 10:59pm

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.

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 100 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.

RealJohn · 23-08-2020 11:08pm

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.

I think he was saying it in reference to other countries. Like I said, I don't think he's saying that children will be "relatively immune". I think he's just implying that, and I think he's doing it because he's been told to.

RealJohn · 23-08-2020 11:11pm

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?

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.

Smacruairi · 23-08-2020 11:15pm

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.

Obey the code of behaviour or you don't come in. Code says wear a mask. Now try argue against it. I'll ask again, Are you against masks?

RealJohn · 23-08-2020 11:57pm

Smacruairi wrote: »

Obey the code of behaviour or you don't come in. Code says wear a mask. Now try argue against it. I'll ask again, Are you against masks?

Why do you care about my position on masks? It’s irrelevant to what’s being discussed.
The code of behaviour is unenforceable (and probably unconstitutional) if it insists children must wear masks, unless their parents support it (and even then, it might not be enforceable).

TheValeyard · 24-08-2020 12:04am

RealJohn wrote: »

I'm not sure that that's actually the case, but even if it is, you can't make them sign it. If a parent is going to say that the child can't wear the mask for some reason, we can't refuse to allow them to come to school.

Of course we make them sign it. Its the same with the AUP policy or half dozen policies as condition of placement within the school.

Example if a student and parent refuse to sign the AUP then that student does not use any IT equipment. Simple.

Same with lockers, etc, its enforced, it works. With masks as part of the policy, students will wear masks or stay away.

Smacruairi · 24-08-2020 12:17am

RealJohn wrote: »

Why do you care about my position on masks? It’s irrelevant to what’s being discussed.
The code of behaviour is unenforceable (and probably unconstitutional) if it insists children must wear masks, unless their parents support it (and even then, it might not be enforceable).

Because I believe masks are a very important part of ppe, particularly when social distancing can't be maintained. I wonder what your opinion on masks is as you seem to not believe they are necessary, and that if people want to not wear them that thst should be allowed. I think it's a fair question to be honest.

The code of behaviour says you ain't coming in if you don't wear black shoes for example. Haven't seen a judge strike that one down yet,let alone something which is suggested by every health professional in the country, our minister for health, and our cmo.

wirelessdude01 · 24-08-2020 12:22am

Smacruairi wrote: »

Because I believe masks are a very important part of ppe, particularly when social distancing can't be maintained. I wonder what your opinion on masks is as you seem to not believe they are necessary, and that if people want to not wear them that thst should be allowed. I think it's a fair question to be honest.

The code of behaviour says you ain't coming in if you don't wear black shoes for example. Haven't seen a judge strike that one down yet,let alone something which is suggested by every health professional in the country, our minister for health, and our cmo.

But but but, civil liberties bro ðŸ˜

RealJohn · 24-08-2020 1:21am

Smacruairi wrote: »

Because I believe masks are a very important part of ppe, particularly when social distancing can't be maintained. I wonder what your opinion on masks is as you seem to not believe they are necessary, and that if people want to not wear them that thst should be allowed. I think it's a fair question to be honest.

No, you don’t, and you don’t have the integrity to admit it. You know that you’re on questionable ground, so you’re attacking my character instead of my argument.
My position on masks, or any ppe is not relevant because I’m not arguing whether or not I should have to wear them.
What I will say is it’s people like you, who make groundless accusations of anyone who disagrees with them, that encourage the people who actually are anti-mask.

Smacruairi wrote: »

The code of behaviour says you ain't coming in if you don't wear black shoes for example. Haven't seen a judge strike that one down yet,let alone something which is suggested by every health professional in the country, our minister for health, and our cmo.

Can you give me an example of a parent taking a case against a school because they think black shoes are causing their child to have breathing difficulties? The two aren’t remotely comparable, and you know they’re not, and even then, if a school expelled/indefinitely suspended a child for refusing to wear black shoes, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, and you know it.
The fact that nobody would take a stand like that over shoes is the reason you haven’t seen it, but they might well take it over masks.

Smacruairi · 24-08-2020 3:21am

RealJohn wrote: »

No, you don’t, and you don’t have the integrity to admit it. You know that you’re on questionable ground, so you’re attacking my character instead of my argument.
My position on masks, or any ppe is not relevant because I’m not arguing whether or not I should have to wear them.
What I will say is it’s people like you, who make groundless accusations of anyone who disagrees with them, that encourage the people who actually are anti-mask.

Can you give me an example of a parent taking a case against a school because they think black shoes are causing their child to have breathing difficulties? The two aren’t remotely comparable, and you know they’re not, and even then, if a school expelled/indefinitely suspended a child for refusing to wear black shoes, they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on, and you know it.
The fact that nobody would take a stand like that over shoes is the reason you haven’t seen it, but they might well take it over masks.

What a rant. Where did I attack your character. What accusation did I make? I asked if you believed in wearing masks.if you think that is an attack on your character you are majorly projecting,my friend. Where is my lack of integrity while we are at it? You refused to answer a simple question twice, and then blew up with the above, I'll answer what you ask. I'm pro face coverings in workplaces by the way where the social distance is minimal. I'd recommend the same for anyone.

And no parent has taken a school to court over black shoes as they understand that what is in the code of behaviour is final. They don't have to accept it, they can go elsewhere. Again, the state provides for education, not the education you specifically want. Now if a school changes the code and I'm doing so breaks their own procedures, they'd have a case, but I don't think most boms would go against govt guidance.

So when schools put masks in their codes, as they can do when the guidelines states masks are a must when distancing is less than 2m for staff, then that is it. But if you want to take those facts as an affront to your character there, Jim, then play away.

RealJohn · 24-08-2020 9:12am

Smacruairi wrote: »

What a rant. Where did I attack your character. What accusation did I make?

Smacruairi wrote: »

... you seem to not believe they are necessary, and that if people want to not wear them that thst should be allowed.

There you go. Whether you're going to admit that's an accusation or not dependings on your integrity, which "you seem to" be lacking. (That's an accusation.)

Smacruairi wrote: »

I asked if you believed in wearing masks.if you think that is an attack on your character you are majorly projecting,my friend. Where is my lack of integrity while we are at it? You refused to answer a simple question twice,

I refused to answer it because it's irrelevant, and I only refused once. I ignored it initially, because it was irrelevant and I'm not interesting in answering irrelevant questions. The second time you asked, I addressed it, but I'm still not answering it, because it's no more relevant now than it was last night.
If you're that interested, I'm pretty sure I've said how I feel about masks elsewhere in the thread.

Smacruairi wrote: »

So when schools put masks in their codes, as they can do when the guidelines states masks are a must when distancing is less than 2m for staff, then that is it.

Except that if it's in the entrance policy that they'll accept students from certain primary schools, and then those students refuse to sign that because of the mask issue, they'll find it very hard to prevent them from attending, especially depending on the local circumstances (only school in the area, only suitable school in the area, other schools at capacity etc), but they might get away with that.
However, if students who have already enrolled refuse to sign it because they've already signed one in first year (that had nothing about masks), they'll have awful trouble excluding them until they do.

Smacruairi wrote: »

But if you want to take those facts as an affront to your character there, Jim, then play away.

At no point have I disputed any of your "facts" about masks. Again, that's an attempt on your part to attack my character, not my argument. My argument is that it's not workable to make masks mandatory for students in schools, and probably not constitutional.

Now, can you stick to the discussion points please, so we don't get further off topic. I'm not speculating about your motives, so maybe you should think about not speculating about mine.

Bananaleaf · 24-08-2020 9:42am

Has anyone else contacted the reopening schools helpline email? Wow, it's a serious patience tester!!

Bobtheman · 24-08-2020 9:50am

I would not get bogged down in arguments over uniforms or masks. Common sense will prevail.
Remember vast sections of the education system are farcical. The middle class play the system. Sometimes painfully so. A good swathe of the working class do SFA.
But we plough on. Do our best . More resources needed for weaker kids . Special classrooms for those who are disruptive.
As to social distancing. We all know it's a joke in schools and is for show. Let's hope testing is ramped up.
May the Lord protect us .

Bananaleaf · 24-08-2020 9:56am

I think the teacher has a better chance of maintaining social distancing than the students do for the most part. I'm post primary. I won't be interacting with my colleagues at all. I will arrive to teach my classes and I will teach them from the threshold of the door, walking into the room only once to connect my laptop to the projector.

Supervision is going to be a bit mental but I'm thinking that if you are supervising kids on the move then you can be on the move too. If supervising them in a room, you should be able to enforce a 2m barrier between them and you at least

Bananaleaf · 24-08-2020 10:41am

Did Michael Martin just say on Radio 1 that he expects that there will have been large scale inflation of LC grades this year? Did I hear that right?

khalessi · 24-08-2020 10:45am

Bananaleaf wrote: »

Did Michael Martin just say on Radio 1 that he expects that there will have been large scale inflation of LC grades this year? Did I hear that right?

I listened back and he said that if you leave it to the results in the schools the likelyhood is that you will have very very significant grade inflation. Talk about having confidence in teachers as professionals

amacca · 24-08-2020 10:50am

khalessi wrote: »

I listened back and he said that if you leave it to the results in the schools the likelyhood is that you will have very very significant grade inflation. Talk about having confidence in teachers as professionals

Dont worry the depts algorithm will save the day......:pac::pac:

Bananaleaf · 24-08-2020 10:51am

khalessi wrote: »

I listened back and he said that if you leave it to the results in the schools the likelyhood is that you will have very very significant grade inflation. Talk about having confidence in teachers as professionals

Well, that settles it so. We couldn't possibly be expected to ever do it again if we're that sh1te at it

Bananaleaf · 24-08-2020 10:54am

Nice how - according to the Taoiseach this morning on Today with Claire Byrne - when it comes to the reopening of the schools, the virus is just something that we need to live with, but when it suits him (re: wearing of masks) it is a terrible terrible virus that can sometimes take up to 6 months to recover from.

What an absolute bullsh1t artist :rolleyes:

Mardy Bum · 24-08-2020 10:54am

khalessi wrote: »

I listened back and he said that if you leave it to the results in the schools the likelyhood is that you will have very very significant grade inflation. Talk about having confidence in teachers as professionals

He is not wrong. It has been demonstrated internationally and teachers shouldn't be taking it personally. Some teachers will have done the job right others were a victim of their bias. Unfortunately, the algorithm will not be able to account for the teachers who did it right and will further punish them if it is similar to England and Scotland's.

Bananaleaf · 24-08-2020 10:58am

Mardy Bum wrote: »

He is not wrong. It has been demonstrated internationally and teachers shouldn't be taking it personally. Some teachers will have done the job right others were a victim of their bias. Unfortunately, the algorithm will not be able to account for the teachers who did it right and will further punish them if it is similar to England and Scotland's.

I don't think it is teachers taking it personally. It certainly isn't in my case. It is more about pointing out the obvious bull that comes out of the mouths of these people on a daily basis. They live to contradict. 3 months ago (when it suited them) we were being hailed as professionals who know our students well and could absolutely do the job objectively. Now (that it suits them) we can't. Exact same scenario is playing out now with how they present the seriousness of the virus, depending on whether the agenda is getting us to open schools or wear masks in shops.

Treppen · 24-08-2020 11:12am

khalessi wrote: »

I listened back and he said that if you leave it to the results in the schools the likelyhood is that you will have very very significant grade inflation. Talk about having confidence in teachers as professionals

he knows the stats already. If there company knows what it's doing they'll have multiple scenarios presented to the minister by now.

What they are doing in the next few weeks is judging public opinion by feeding statements. They'll go with whatever plays out on Joe Duffy the best.

khalessi · 24-08-2020 11:16am

ASTI talking to Clare on rte radio 1

Mardy Bum · 24-08-2020 11:17am

Bananaleaf wrote: »

I don't think it is teachers taking it personally. It certainly isn't in my case. It is more about pointing out the obvious bull that comes out of the mouths of these people on a daily basis. They live to contradict. 3 months ago (when it suited them) we were being hailed as professionals who know our students well and could absolutely do the job objectively. Now (that it suits them) we can't. Exact same scenario is playing out now with how they present the seriousness of the virus, depending on whether the agenda is getting us to open schools or wear masks in shops.

This is what happens when people with no expertise in assessment dictate policy. They change their tune quickly.
Imagine if NPHET was made up of journalists and pub owners...

Bananaleaf · 24-08-2020 11:19am

khalessi wrote: »

ASTI talking to Clare on rte radio 1

They are requesting a meeting. Anyone know itself TUI in on this? I think we should me getting our concerns across to them asap. I had a phone conversation with a TUI rep and they seem totally disinterested in communicating with government on the matter.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

This is what happens when people with no expertise in assessment dictate policy. They change their tune quickly.
Imagine if NPHET was made up of journalists and pub owners...

So true

rainbowtrout · 24-08-2020 11:25am

khalessi wrote: »

I listened back and he said that if you leave it to the results in the schools the likelyhood is that you will have very very significant grade inflation. Talk about having confidence in teachers as professionals

To be fair, he's not wrong. There was plenty of discussion on here where some posters said they were going to grade up to give the benefit of the doubt. Multiply that by 700 schools. Combined with a reluctance to give fail grades, that's more grade inflation at the other end.

rainbowtrout · 24-08-2020 11:33am

Bananaleaf wrote: »

I don't think it is teachers taking it personally. It certainly isn't in my case. It is more about pointing out the obvious bull that comes out of the mouths of these people on a daily basis. They live to contradict. 3 months ago (when it suited them) we were being hailed as professionals who know our students well and could absolutely do the job objectively. Now (that it suits them) we can't. Exact same scenario is playing out now with how they present the seriousness of the virus, depending on whether the agenda is getting us to open schools or wear masks in shops.

I would imagine that the vast majority of teachers ranked their students accurately. I would imagine there were a significant cohort who did not grade their students accurately. The teacher who has a really good student who always hits high 80s, but has never got more than 87 in any exam, but they've given them the benefit of the doubt and put them down as a 92. It doesn't take many of them to skew the curve.

Bananaleaf wrote: »

They are requesting a meeting. Anyone know itself TUI in on this? I think we should me getting our concerns across to them asap. I had a phone conversation with a TUI rep and they seem totally disinterested in communicating with government on the matter.

So true

No point having a meeting based on non existant results. May as well wait until 7th September. I'd imagine that not only will they be looking at how the results play out in different scenarios but how it plays out with the CAO too.

mirrorwall14 · 24-08-2020 11:39am

Can anyone tell me where the 1m is to be measured from?

Bananaleaf · 24-08-2020 12:18pm

rainbowtrout wrote: »

I would imagine that the vast majority of teachers ranked their students accurately. I would imagine there were a significant cohort who did not grade their students accurately. The teacher who has a really good student who always hits high 80s, but has never got more than 87 in any exam, but they've given them the benefit of the doubt and put them down as a 92. It doesn't take many of them to skew the curve.

No point having a meeting based on non existant results. May as well wait until 7th September. I'd imagine that not only will they be looking at how the results play out in different scenarios but how it plays out with the CAO too.

Oh no, my apologies. The meeting is about the safe return to school.

I take your point re:the predicted grades and you are right.

amacca · 24-08-2020 12:20pm

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me where the 1m is to be measured from?

Tbh it might as well be measured from anywhere at all.....it appears to be just window dressing

Id say theyve "where possibled" it somewhere

Up to teachers to look after themselves where possible.

wirelessdude01 · 24-08-2020 12:32pm

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me where the 1m is to be measured from?

Isn't it all BS and window dressing. Remember the 40cm distance on the official layout guidelines. Even that was from dot to dot which is really nose to nose.

Dave0301 · 24-08-2020 12:32pm

Given that the set up of UK schools and Irish schools will be similar, this isn't the best start to Scottish schools reopening.

Link

Health officials in Tayside have disclosed that 17 teachers at a special school in Dundee have contracted Covid-19, alongside two pupils and three community contacts.

NHS Tayside shut Kingspark school last Wednesday for deep cleaning after the outbreak emerged, and on Friday closed it to allow staff and pupils to self-isolate for 14 days because of the pupils’ complex needs.

The board said on Sunday that 22 people were infected, up from 12 on Friday. It said contact tracing had identified links to two other schools in Dundee, with one positive case at St Peter’s and St Paul’s primary, and another at Happy Times out-of school club at Downfield primary.

All the pupils in the affected class at St Peter’s and St Paul’s have been asked to stay at home and self-isolate.

In a further outbreak, two primary school classes at High Blantyre primary school in Lanarkshire have been told to stay at home after a teacher and two pupils tested positive over the weekend.

17 teachers getting infected would suggest that transmission may have been through the staff themselves. Either that, or there are a lot of asymptomatic pupils!

am_zarathustra · 24-08-2020 12:42pm

The staff to staff transmission seems to be where all the action is. I'm regretting have dips in the school this year, though lord knows we will need the cover.

I'm bringing a nespresso machine and baby fridge into my office and that's where I will be between classes. Several of our teachers live together, are going out with each other, would be very close friends......I'd say one outbreak would close us staff wise with contacts isolating.

pandoraj09 · 24-08-2020 1:33pm

Bananaleaf wrote: »

Has anyone else contacted the reopening schools helpline email? Wow, it's a serious patience tester!!

Never knew there was one!!!

Post primary return to schools roadmap

Comments