[ad_1]
meA va Harratt, 13, would love to go to the park to meet her friends, but it is prohibited because she lives in Oldham, the city of Greater Manchester that faces restrictions due to an increase in Covid-19 cases. And yet, in five days, he is expected to return to his school of 1,370 students and attend classes of 30.
He likes school, misses his friends and wants to go back, but his mother is in the most vulnerable category due to an autoimmune disease. “I think going back to school is not an option for me. They don’t seem to have given much thought to families with protective members or how that might affect them. Personally, I would prefer things to get back to normal as soon as possible, but in the current situation, it’s just not plausible for me, ”says Eva.
His mother, Mary, who worked as a babysitter before falling ill 12 years ago, has written to the manager to explain the position and hopes he will be understanding. However, Oldham’s council, the education authority, says that while schools will take a “nurturing approach” to understanding non-attendance, they will ultimately follow the government’s guidance and approve parents who keep their children in home, except in the “most exceptional” circumstances. .
“I’m going around and around in circles trying to decide what to do,” says Mary. “My son is 17 and has to start over at university, but only for three hours every fortnight, the rest is online learning; that is why we have decided that it is not worth taking the risk of him going there ”, he adds.
“I feel sorry and guilty for them. They have both been brilliant throughout and haven’t complained once, I just wish I had a solution. I have explored many options, from moving to finding another place to live, but since it would be for an indefinite period, it is not really practical, “he says.
Surveys last week suggest that many other families face similar dilemmas. Back to school this year is much more than just a new uniform. A survey of 5,000 parents conducted by online agency childcare.co.uk found that 30% did not plan to send their children back to school. Of those, 91% said they would continue homeschooling for the foreseeable future or until an effective vaccine is found.
Netmums found that one in five parents are still unsure, with 88% of those saying they would be prepared to risk a fine to keep their children safe, and more than a third having lost trust in the government. from the test grade debacle and confusion over the school’s reopening. Then the Barnardo’s charity reported its survey, stating that hundreds of thousands of children might refuse to go back to school, while those who did would need significant emotional support.
Large families will be particularly vulnerable, says Kay Tart, who has four children who already attend a primary school in Hitchin, Hertfordshire, with the youngest joining kindergarten next week.
“I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I desperately want my children to have a proper and complete education and not the poor substitute that I provided them during the school closings, despite my best efforts, but on the other hand I really don’t trust the government to have The My children’s best interests are at the forefront of decision-making about reopening schools, ”says Tart.
“I am very concerned about the risk of allowing them to return. With five children in the same school, our family completely destroys the bubble concept that so many schools are embracing and relying on to reassure parents. Our children will mingle with up to 150 other families and share that risk with them and with their teachers and support staff. My mother lives with us, this also means an unnecessary additional risk for her, ”he says.
“I believe that the decision to return children to school in a hurry is motivated by economic reasons and not educational or health reasons. To say that parents should send their children back to school or face a fine is a shame and I feel exceptionally uncomfortable. This is a decision parents in the UK have never had to face and I think the government is doing them a disservice by treating it so lightly. It is with real trepidation that I plan to allow our children to return next week, but will remove them again at the slightest hint of a second wave or local spike. Nothing is more important than your safety and the safety of the most vulnerable in our society, and I would not hesitate to act to protect them. Good or not, “she adds.
Debra Kidd, a former teacher, is also considering keeping her son at home, at least until the students can wear masks all the time. “We were told in a letter from the school earlier this week that children wearing masks on public transport should put them away when they arrive at the facility. Now the government has said that children can wear masks, the school has changed to say that they should wear them in the hallways but not in lessons, which worries me.
The principal’s letter says that the reason for not allowing children to wear masks in the classroom is “to reduce the chances of transmission due to inadvertent misuse and to ensure that they can fully participate in their learning.”
Kidd believes that the prime minister should tell schools that students should wear masks in lessons to protect adults.
“My son is 13 and I’m pretty sure if he gets the virus he will be fine, but I think we have a responsibility to everyone in the community at large,” says Kidd, who also lives in Oldham.
The Department of Education has reintroduced truancy penalties, suspended during the nationwide lockdown, though Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, has said they should be used as a “last resort.” Principals decide whether to authorize absences and, if they do not do so for a period, usually five to ten days, local authorities enforce the fines. The Association of Local Governments, which represents city councils, says that decisions about when to issue fines should be made locally with the circumstances in mind.
Parents should speak to schools about their concerns before making any decisions, says Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL). “The government has advised schools that they must record attendance and track absences, and that there are penalties available, including the use of fixed fine notices. We are disappointed that the government has included this in their guidance and we feel they should have said that there would be a grace period to build trust, ”she says.
However, the onus has been shifted to the schools, adds Barton: “The last thing schools and local authorities will want to do is use fixed penalty notices, and principals will be understanding in these dire circumstances. But it is imperative that parents speak with their school to allay concerns and get their children back in the classroom. “
While the government doubts whether or not children should wear masks, Caroline Barlow, head of Heathfield Community College, East Sussex, leaves that to personal choice.
“We’ve taken a lot of precautions, like making sure all desks are facing forward and providing visors for students when facing each other, like in design and technology, and putting plastic screens where they will be facing each other. face to face with a staff member, ”he says. “We have a one-way system in our wide corridors, the students will stay in the same year groups and the teachers will stay in their classrooms with the students who come to them,” she adds.
“We are doing everything we can think of to keep everyone safe, but both staff and students have the absolute freedom to wear a visor or mask if they wish,” she says. “We strongly recommend that students wear masks between lessons, but we don’t insist on it unless government guidance changes again. What we want to do is eliminate anxiety and instill in students as much optimism as possible so that the more reassuring, confident and optimistic parents feel that they can be for their children, the better placed we will be, ”she says.
