Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Schools Open For Vulnerable Children
27 Answers
schools are closed except for vulnerable children, and those of "key workers". a very recent change to guidance means that "vulnerable" now includes children that don't have laptops.
https:/
does this measure effectively un-close the schools?
https:/
does this measure effectively un-close the schools?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The definition has also been expanded to include those with insufficient space to study. This is why so-called "lockdown" will have little effect here. The amount of people now eligible to send their children to school has expanded enormously.
Meanwhile Mrs NJ and I still can't go and sit in the corner of a quiet well spaced restaurant o have a meal.
Meanwhile Mrs NJ and I still can't go and sit in the corner of a quiet well spaced restaurant o have a meal.
our school are "looking again" at the criteria for critical workers - we have had several emails saying that parent's ought to consider what they actually need in the way of school provision as there are many, many more children attending than in the first lockdown, and it means that there is fewer spaces for vulnerable children. Effectively, it's emotional blackmail.
I don't understand how there are so many more children this time - I can't imagine that swathes of people have changed their job since last year (or maybe they have?)
I have a feeling it'll come down to the school choosing which key job is more important than the other and opening for those children.
How do you chose between a teacher, a nurse, a Tesco delivery driver and so on - all essential in their own way?
I think about half of the school are there (my daughter's class is just over half it's normal complement) and when I dropped her off yesterday, it seemed like the whole school was there!
According to the radio, it's a moral issue
I don't understand how there are so many more children this time - I can't imagine that swathes of people have changed their job since last year (or maybe they have?)
I have a feeling it'll come down to the school choosing which key job is more important than the other and opening for those children.
How do you chose between a teacher, a nurse, a Tesco delivery driver and so on - all essential in their own way?
I think about half of the school are there (my daughter's class is just over half it's normal complement) and when I dropped her off yesterday, it seemed like the whole school was there!
According to the radio, it's a moral issue
“ I read yesterday that the BBC 2 will be broadcasting lessons...no laptop needed. I don't know what age group though.”
That probably works better with primary age.
Some of the school’s advice is unrealistic : lessons should not be attended in bedrooms for example. Each imposes different standards I suppose
That probably works better with primary age.
Some of the school’s advice is unrealistic : lessons should not be attended in bedrooms for example. Each imposes different standards I suppose
keeping schools open for a few children aka keyworkers kids, basically an empty school with all the electric and heating on, so some teachers
and other school employees are expendble if they catch the virus of said key worker child..as nj said fine for kids but not fine for adults
to have a meal in a pub or restaurant.
and other school employees are expendble if they catch the virus of said key worker child..as nj said fine for kids but not fine for adults
to have a meal in a pub or restaurant.
The school has to be open if children are to continue to be taught.
Teachwrs need access to resources, and computer rooms are used for the attendees to join online lessons.
I agree that the rules on "vulnerable" are contentious, tho I think that is largely because of the use of the word "vulnerable".
In my view any child who for whatever reason is going to be seriously disadvantaged by their non-attendance at school comes into that category, so then the question is what do you do about it.
I'm really sorry for NJ and his wife, but I think schools are more important than restaurants at the moment.
Teachwrs need access to resources, and computer rooms are used for the attendees to join online lessons.
I agree that the rules on "vulnerable" are contentious, tho I think that is largely because of the use of the word "vulnerable".
In my view any child who for whatever reason is going to be seriously disadvantaged by their non-attendance at school comes into that category, so then the question is what do you do about it.
I'm really sorry for NJ and his wife, but I think schools are more important than restaurants at the moment.
This is wrong. Either the schools are closed or not. Once they open then it makes a mockery of Lockdown. How can you stay at home if you have to travel around taking kids to school and older grandparents or relatives have to care for them after school.
Some of the families that have been shown on tv have as many as 5 or 6 children. How on earth will they manage all the laptops that they are going to be given? Different levels of learning all taking place in the one room.
Some of the families that have been shown on tv have as many as 5 or 6 children. How on earth will they manage all the laptops that they are going to be given? Different levels of learning all taking place in the one room.
Education isn’t going to shut down. It doesn’t need to. It’s an unsatisfactory situation either way but there ways of coping. I think in extreme situations where there are a lot of children it’s not beyond the wit of everyone to sort something out. Headphones for example if there really do need to be people in the same room.
The big problem is motivation for the majority. Some people will live learning at home and some will hate it
The big problem is motivation for the majority. Some people will live learning at home and some will hate it
This is the BBC webpage about lessons.
https:/
Some of our local schools are teaching reduced class sizes, to allow for social distancing, with pupils attending 2 days and 3 days the rest of the week alternating each week. Don't think it's a good idea because young people often don't show any signs and just fetch the virus home to infect more people.
https:/
Some of our local schools are teaching reduced class sizes, to allow for social distancing, with pupils attending 2 days and 3 days the rest of the week alternating each week. Don't think it's a good idea because young people often don't show any signs and just fetch the virus home to infect more people.
//I'm really sorry for NJ and his wife, but I think schools are more important than restaurants at the moment.//
So do I but thanks for your sympathy..
//Odd that some here seem to think dining out is as important as education.//
I don’t.
And I think you both completely misunderstand me (which is my fault for assuming too much). This country, we are told, is under “lockdown”. It has been imposed in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus. Because of that people cannot “gather” indoors with anybody beyond their household. So restaurants are closed – even those which present, probably, very little risk of transmission if they are run properly. Never mind, needs must. On the other hand an ever increasing number of children are being allowed to go to school. They “gather” together from different households, they sit in the same room as each other and their teachers for many hours. After they are released they head off back home (if they go straight home, that is – the older ones are more likely to head off to the local supermarket and roam round there for a while before heading to a takeaway for some food). Then they go home. Then, having mixed with all and sundry for most of the day, they mix with the people they live with (some of whom may be their siblings who have done precisely the same thing but at different schools). But people who would sit in couples (from the same household) for a couple of hours at a table in a well spaced restaurant present too much risk.
This government’s strategy to deal with the virus, apparently, is to keep everybody away from everybody else. I accept I cannot go to a restaurant based on that strategy. But if a so-called lockdown is to succeed (and previous experience suggests that it won’t) then allowing ever increasing numbers of children to attend places so they can be looked after doesn’t fit with that strategy. Furthermore, falsely labelling children as "vulnerable" to include children who don’t have “somewhere quiet” to learn at home is disingenuous and lessens the seriousness of the situation that properly vulnerable children find themselves in. It also discriminates against those whose parents have made such a facility available but whose children cannot go to school and be taught properly.
It’s a complete mess. The whinging will stop when the government makes up its mind whether it wants to suppress the virus or support the economy and education. It can’t do both and at present it is doing neither.
So do I but thanks for your sympathy..
//Odd that some here seem to think dining out is as important as education.//
I don’t.
And I think you both completely misunderstand me (which is my fault for assuming too much). This country, we are told, is under “lockdown”. It has been imposed in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus. Because of that people cannot “gather” indoors with anybody beyond their household. So restaurants are closed – even those which present, probably, very little risk of transmission if they are run properly. Never mind, needs must. On the other hand an ever increasing number of children are being allowed to go to school. They “gather” together from different households, they sit in the same room as each other and their teachers for many hours. After they are released they head off back home (if they go straight home, that is – the older ones are more likely to head off to the local supermarket and roam round there for a while before heading to a takeaway for some food). Then they go home. Then, having mixed with all and sundry for most of the day, they mix with the people they live with (some of whom may be their siblings who have done precisely the same thing but at different schools). But people who would sit in couples (from the same household) for a couple of hours at a table in a well spaced restaurant present too much risk.
This government’s strategy to deal with the virus, apparently, is to keep everybody away from everybody else. I accept I cannot go to a restaurant based on that strategy. But if a so-called lockdown is to succeed (and previous experience suggests that it won’t) then allowing ever increasing numbers of children to attend places so they can be looked after doesn’t fit with that strategy. Furthermore, falsely labelling children as "vulnerable" to include children who don’t have “somewhere quiet” to learn at home is disingenuous and lessens the seriousness of the situation that properly vulnerable children find themselves in. It also discriminates against those whose parents have made such a facility available but whose children cannot go to school and be taught properly.
It’s a complete mess. The whinging will stop when the government makes up its mind whether it wants to suppress the virus or support the economy and education. It can’t do both and at present it is doing neither.
i had to go out and get some essential food items, and while walking to shop i passed my greggs and what do i see gang of kids standing around maskless talking to each other munching sausage rolls..
but i digress schools must stay closed due to transmission of covid.
why cant i have a sausage roll in a pub mmm
but i digress schools must stay closed due to transmission of covid.
why cant i have a sausage roll in a pub mmm
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles55 mins ago
ChatterBank55 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Body & Soul66 mins ago