I think unions are using this language as a shock tactic of sorts to get heard. There's no way, speaking from the general feeling amongst the staff I work with, that teachers will simply not plan or prepare ahead of June 1st. Ahead of that date there will be many meetings between SLT and teachers to determine the best way forward, as well as a continuation of the remote teaching we've become accustomed to over the past 6 weeks or so.

Originally Posted by: SJV 

I absolutely agree with everything you say and it is of great concern.

But it’s wrong for the unions to say ‘don’t engage in any planning’!   I think it’s vital that teachers are involved!  They need to voice their opinions and right any wrongs.  If they think it won’t work, they need to be able to show why it won’t and what needs to be done before schools can go back.  Involving those on the ground in decision making is the only way forward. 

Originally Posted by: Caz 

What is it with the main teacher unions? How come they are so hard left, childish and pathetic? How did teachers allow their unions to be taken over by petulant lefties with the attitudes of spotty student union activists?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/national-education-union-tells-teachers-not-to-engage-with-planning-for-reopening-schools-ck2st7fzs

From the article:

"...

Kevin Courtney, the joint general secretary of the NEU, told teachers in the meantime: “Don’t engage with planning a June 1 return to wider opening. Await further union advice.”

Unison, which represents school support staff, agreed. Jon Richards, its head of education, tweeted that he would work with other unions to agree a joint position and “until then we advise members not to engage with planning for a June 1 return.”"

Utterly dismal and completely pathetic! "Don't engage" - student union politics in a nutshell.

What are the miserable and puerile unions complaining about? Danish and French schools have gone back. English schools have a whole three weeks to prepare for the limited return to school advertised by the Government. How did the many decent teachers allow their unions to be grabbed by petulant and childish ideologues out to prove a stupid point instead of getting on with the job they are paid to do?

Originally Posted by: Maunder Minimum 

HMG has, via Lloyd’s, just lent me £25k at 2.5% APR with nothing to repay for 12 months. I would be crazy not to take advantage of this 

Originally Posted by: Justin W 

One thing that report does not consider as far as I can see is the amount of covid exposure to the individual infected I have read quite a few of these type of reports a number seem to indicate level of covid exposure at the time of infection is also key.

Originally Posted by: Polar Low 

• The risks of dying from COVID-19, among people who get it (known as the Infection Fatality Rate IFR ).


• The risk of dying from COVID-19, among people who do not currently have it (known as the Population Fatality Rate PFR).

Article wrote:

I could be wrong but there seems to be a very lazy feel to things at the moment. 

1) Some people this morning at the farm shop were wearing masks and some weren't

2) Trains appear to be taking more than 15 people per carriage

3) I'm not aware of queuing systems being operated at train station entrance (could be wrong on htis)

4) The contact tracing app hasn't been deployed yet

5) Antibody testing on a large scale doesn't appear to be underway

6) A steady trickle down to normality seems to be taking place

7) In instances where the government is pulling the "levers of power" little appears is be happening

Perhaps new data being held back supports the theory about this virus being less transmissible than had previously been thought. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

HMG has, via Lloyd’s, just lent me £25k at 2.5% APR with nothing to repay for 12 months. I would be crazy not to take advantage of this 

Originally Posted by: Justin W 

How very sensible. You will go a long way - but probably not on here 

Originally Posted by: fairweather 

Are you eyeing up another Brexit-related bet?

Originally Posted by: Saint Snow 

It’s all in the draft stage and subject to change for a number of reasons most understand here.

I have been one of several Essex head teachers (not me guys)who have been working with the Local Authority to consider how a phased return might work and as part of this I was interviewed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate.  As a profession we are therefore confounded with the decision that Early Years and Year 1 children have been selected as the year groups to return first.  Year 6 however seems a sensible choice and a decision that I support.  However that is the decision that the government, based on advice from the scientists, has made.  The guidance says that we must halve classes so that there are no more than 15 children in a class.  This means that at %%%z there will be 18 classes open and then an additional one or perhaps two more classes for those children of key workers and vulnerable children in Year 2, 3, 4 and 5.  However, I do expect a fairly high number of non-attendees particularly in the first few weeks until public confidence grows.  It is therefore going to be necessary for ALL staff to return to full time work in school on 1st June.  There will obviously be a detailed plan to ensure that certain measures are fully implemented and that classes of 15 and the staff assigned to them do not mix with other classes.  Members of staff who are shielding are the only exception and they will be expected to take on duties working from home that will require them to work the same hours as those in schooL

Originally Posted by: Polar Low 

Yes, it's just considering general risk of death by age and gender as far as I can tell. Also he's careful to point out it's not considering other factors like other long term consequences of catching the disease.

I thought the distinction between IFR and PFR was useful, and is often missed in news items as the article points out:

If the article is correct, it would confirm that there is virtually no mortality risk to younger children in sending them back to school. From the article "For under 15s, the possibility of COVID added a negligible fatal risk." However, I would assume there would be increased risk of mortality among older people (teachers, parents and the wider community) if open schools contribute to the general spread.

Devil's advocate: It all suggests nasty questions about how long younger people's lives should be put on hold to save their elders. It could be argued the young are currently sacrificing their liberty for the old - so at what point should it be reversed in the interests of fairness? Should older people accept confinement at some point in order to let younger people live more normally?

Originally Posted by: pfw 

The NEU and Unison want to retain control of negotiations so a uniform set of procedures and rules can be implemented nationally. They want the weight of the entire British teaching profession united behind them in order to maximise their negotiating position to ensure the best and safest deal is secured for their members. 

What they don't want is to have their position undermined by teachers in individual schools negotiating their own arrangements that are worse than those the unions are seeking, which would inevitably result in a worse position for all teachers. 

Originally Posted by: Saint Snow 

I could be wrong but there seems to be a very lazy feel to things at the moment. 

1) Some people this morning at the farm shop were wearing masks and some weren't

2) Trains appear to be taking more than 15 people per carriage

3) I'm not aware of queuing systems being operated at train station entrance (could be wrong on htis)

4) The contact tracing app hasn't been deployed yet

5) Antibody testing on a large scale doesn't appear to be underway

6) A steady trickle down to normality seems to be taking place

7) In instances where the government is pulling the "levers of power" little appears is be happening

Perhaps new data being held back supports the theory about this virus being less transmissible than had previously been thought. Time will tell.

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

 Unfortunately, I think you  are spot on, Brian.

My sister reports  people wandering around in Winchester, many not even putting up a pretence of Social Distancing. There are mountain ranges of evidence that Public Transport is not maintaining social distancing and mask use  on Public Transport and shops is sporadic.

Either we  are missing something here (higher UV pegging things back, or the thing not as virulent as  first thought)  or we are heading for one humdinger of a spike in 3 weeks time.

My personal view is that in hindsight we will look back on the VE Day celebrations as when the rot set in.

Originally Posted by: Bugglesgate 

I’m curious as to how “homeschooling” (although that’s not really what it is) will be organised if all teaching staff are working full time in the classroom. What will be the answer to education provision for those at home? It is okay now as many teachers are also working from home. 

On the other issue Caz is right that teachers need to engage and have a voice at the planning stage.

Originally Posted by: doctormog 

Yes, it's just considering general risk of death by age and gender as far as I can tell. Also he's careful to point out it's not considering other factors like other long term consequences of catching the disease.

I thought the distinction between IFR and PFR was useful, and is often missed in news items as the article points out:

If the article is correct, it would confirm that there is virtually no mortality risk to younger children in sending them back to school. From the article "For under 15s, the possibility of COVID added a negligible fatal risk." However, I would assume there would be increased risk of mortality among older people (teachers, parents and the wider community) if open schools contribute to the general spread.

Devil's advocate: It all suggests nasty questions about how long younger people's lives should be put on hold to save their elders. It could be argued the young are currently sacrificing their liberty for the old - so at what point should it be reversed in the interests of fairness? Should older people accept confinement at some point in order to let younger people live more normally?

Originally Posted by: pfw 

I'm thinking of doing my usual £200 insurance bet on Trump to win while he is still evens. He wins - I get £200 compensation to get pissed. He loses - more than worth losing £200 to be so happy! Works every time so far. 

Originally Posted by: fairweather 

HMG has, via Lloyd’s, just lent me £25k at 2.5% APR with nothing to repay for 12 months. I would be crazy not to take advantage of this 

Originally Posted by: Justin W 

He is going to win

Originally Posted by: The Beast from the East 

Not sure Michael then goes on to say this,,, first  time ever head thanked me

I met with senior leaders yesterday and we are developing a draft plan for a phased return on 1st June.  Clearly, many of you will be required to work with a group of children who are not from your current year group and senior leaders will ensure that there are clear plans for you to follow and that you will be well supported in this.  I aim to share the draft plan with you on Friday.  I must reiterate that it is only a draft plan and subject to change with further guidance likely to influence any plan and I must also reiterate that a phased reopening of schools on 1st June is CONDITIONAL at this stage and could well be delayed or redesigned. 

I know that you are feeling anxious and confused at the moment and this is completely understandable with so much in the media fuelling our anxieties.  But I want to remind you that for weeks now you have been applauded and thanked by the Nation for your selflessness and courage as you have put yourselves at risk by taking care of the children of NHS staff during a time when the disease was at its peak and the likelihood of infection at its height.  You have continued to play your part and come in to school on your day knowing that the vast majority of people were staying safe at home.  Our school has offered an outstanding provision for online learning and our safeguarding has been a model of good practice throughout with daily communications with social care and support for families who have been at breaking point.  I know that you will continue to adapt as we begin to move out of lockdown and with all my heart, I thank you for being such a fabulous team.

Originally Posted by: Polar Low 

Unfortunately, I think you  are spot on, Brian.

My sister reports  people wandering around in Winchester, many not even putting up a pretence of Social Distancing. There are mountain ranges of evidence that Public Transport is not maintaining social distancing and mask use  on Public Transport and shops is sporadic.

Either we  are missing something here (higher UV pegging things back, or the thing not as virulent as  first thought)  or we are heading for one humdinger of a spike in 3 weeks time.

My personal view is that in hindsight we will look back on the VE Day celebrations as when the rot set in.

Originally Posted by: Bugglesgate 

Just watching PM's QT. Your mate Boris still doesn't look or sound very well IMHO. I think you mentioned something about it earlier today. 

Originally Posted by: Brian Gaze 

None proof pics of the day its all hot air and disappointing 

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-13/coronavirus-lockdown-eases-public-transport-crowds-tubes-trains-buses-tfl/

Originally Posted by: Polar Low