Local Primary Schools Phased Return (June 2020)

I would agree that the government needs to lift lockdown for a Now non existent threat. But teachers need to find their sense of focus and purpose. I’d be back in the classroom like a flash if I was a teacher. What an opportunity to prevail in your profession, yet instead there’s a cowering where there should be a lead by example. Lead from the front. Don’t believe the MSM. There’s no threat if you’re young and healthy.

Would you take a vaccine for an illness that you’re Highly likely to to recover from?

Since when were ‘facts’ hurtful arguments? Wow. This is the brave new world.

Yes, every time. While I might be highly likely to survive some illness - those with weakened immune systems, or those that are just plain unlucky might not.


My boss is a fit youngish yoga teacher and cyclist with no underlying conditions and has been very sick with the virus since before lockdown. A friend’s child has been in hospital with the severe Kawasaki immune reaction to the virus. And the R rating has decreased only because of weeks of lockdown. As a non scientist, your estimation that this lurgy is mild and fizzling out is very bold. I expect that my kids, who are both at Kilmorie, probably had it pre-lockdown but I still object to you belittling teachers, who have been teaching throughout, under a pseudonym on your initial post above. You also misrepresent the school’s position, which is in fact as Dave sets out above. I’ve also seen at least two single mums on other threads object to your slur on them. Perhaps it is you who should ‘hang your head in shame’.


This had been been noted thorough flags and is being looked into.

Good. There is an identical original post made by Tom Hocknell on his own FB page. Opinions are welcome. Slagging off frontline workers under a pseudonym, not so cool.


I think Tom’s criticism was directed at those teachers who are choosing not to work on the frontline.

Imagine if doctors and nurses also chose not to work on the frontline…


Having recently heard of the loss of a former colleague who was widely described as young and healthy, I would respectfully disagree that this is a non-existent threat.

All the teachers I know at both primary and secondary level have been busting a gut to ensure that the children usually in their care have the materials they need to continue their education at home. Those who have been returning to school to care for the children of key workers have reported how nigh on impossible it is to implement and police social distancing between children, and that’s with only a handful of kids. Some kids are anxious and wary. Others have been told at home that the whole thing’s a fuss about nothing and act cavalier accordingly.

Every school will have a different capacity to adapt, different challenges unique to their space, and different timescales in which they’ll be able to safely make necessary changes. The schools are getting nowhere near the guidance they have the right to expect from the government. I can’t quite understand how one school is being accused here of being anything other than cautious and sensible, protecting the health of the children, their families, and the staff.

And while children may be bouncy and bulletproof, the teachers aren’t. Particularly not the older teachers and teaching assistants. Not all staff are young and healthy. Are we going to insist that only the young and healthy teachers return to teach the young and healthy children, because they’re no longer at risk? Do children with underlying medical conditions have to stay at home? And are we going to accuse older, more vulnerable members of staff of ‘cowering’ rather than seizing the opportunity to be Superteacher, because they’re uncomfortable collecting books and worksheets from those young and healthy children, some of whom have been taught to believe COVID-19 is a non-existent threat?


As Dave and Fran have explained in their informed posts, this isn’t about teachers not working. The school has a sensible plan in place which prioritises vulnerable children and the children of key workers and gets the rest back in asap yet safely. It’s great big non-story.


The current allowances are (rightfully) for the children of key workers. That is not the same as vulnerable children, who may not even be identified during this situation.

It’s the parents choice whether to send their children back to school… unless the school is shut, in which case there is no choice.


So the teachers are willing to work?

And many parents are willing (but not forced) to send their children back.

So why would we tolerate unions trying to override a government decision (made with the guidance of the UK’s top scientific advisors) that children should be allowed back on June 1st?

Yes, people on this topic have all sorts of opinions. However, many of these are moot, given the statistics laid out by @TomAngel.

I think if we started censoring opinions for being “moot” because they are opinions rather than theses, you wouldn’t have much of a forum.

1 Like

Who’s suggesting censoring any opinions?

Aside from @Nick_Wilson_Young, stating which comments are “welcome” and which are “not so cool”

This to me read as a belittling, and as a dismissal of others’ opinions, should they suggest a different viewpoint, or present one not fortified by statistics.

If I misread you, my apologies.

Sorry that I came across as belittling - that was not my intention.

1 Like

Are you sure it’s isn’t for vulnerable kids too? That has always been govt policy, typically identified by the allocation of a social worker to the child. Aside from this, it seems that so long as school attendance is optional the majority of these vulnerable children will not be attending.


Yes, you are of course right.

Yes, this was more what I was thinking, and also that without regular contact with schools and teachers, some safe guarding issues may not be noticed, particularly at reception age.


Are you a parent who has received a letter from the school? This is covered in it.

Are any of you teachers? It is very easy to judge when not directly involved in the job.