Post primary return to schools roadmap

RealJohn

Random sample wrote: »

We are being put in our subject meetings for staff meetings, and will join a zoom meeting like that.

That might be alright. Most of the people in my departments are good craic. Probably would be much paying attention to the meeting going on though.

We've been told to report to the room in question though, so I assume that the current plan is that we're all in one room, at the start anyway.

Random sample

RealJohn wrote: »

That might be alright. Most of the people in my departments are good craic. Probably would be much paying attention to the meeting going on though.

We've been told to report to the room in question though, so I assume that the current plan is that we're all in one room, at the start anyway.

Oh it’ll be great so long as we remember to mute the mic!

mtoutlemonde

Rosita wrote: »

There's been a lot of furore about the 81 people in Galway on Wednesday. Presumably that was in a large space. There'll be schools that will exceed that in a full staff meeting. My own school will be 50+. To my mind it's extraordinary that staff meetings are being blithely organised as if there are no general restrictions regarding large gatherings. Obviously anyone can point to the fact that we are entering a crazy situation regarding classroom numbers but at least Principals have control over the organisation of staff meetings. So fair play to the TUI.

Some have commented, after Clifden, if there are different rules for the "elites"........well the opposite is also true - if we accept attending in a situation after which we expected them to resign then maybe we are saying there are different rules, which is that teachers do not have the same expectation of safety that the Oireachtas Golf Society should have.

I think the idea of holding staff meetings is madness either in large space or small groups. If one person has symptoms, the entire staff/small group have to self isolate for 14 days which would probably or could close the school. It is still mad to think you can only have a gathering of 15 outside but multiples of that indoors if you work in a school.

jimmytwotimes 2013

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

Personally think buses will continue as per usual for well over half the country. Additional buses and staff aren't there.

I agree

mirrorwall14

Honestly I’ll be kicking up a riot if we have staff meetings or any kind of meetings which are not 2m apart. We have a large staff 50+. I’m high risk for two reasons and will be taking no chances at all

Mardy Bum

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Honestly I’ll be kicking up a riot if we have staff meetings or any kind of meetings which are not 2m apart. We have a large staff 50+. I’m high risk for two reasons and will be taking no chances at all

Meetings may be split in two as in the same meeting run twice for the introduction.

r93kaey5p2izun

Have all your schools sent out or published their detailed individual plans for parents yet? There are two post primaries near me and I have friends and family with children in both. One has put up their plan and has already had to backtrack and change masks optional to masks required in classrooms. Both scenarios caused upset to some parents on social media.

The other school have sent out a short outline of their main changes in class layouts, but won't have their full plan until Tuesday after a BOM meeting. A bit late in the day tbh. No word on masks at all and everyone in the community has something to say about that! I really don't envy these schools. There are a lot of parents involved who are active participants in Jim Corr/Gemma O'Doherty anti mask anti-lockdown protests. I think there will be a lot of conflict and the schools can't win either way.

wirelessdude01

Ophelia Modern Firehouse wrote: »

Have all your schools sent out or published their detailed individual plans for parents yet? There are two post primaries near me and I have friends and family with children in both. One has put up their plan and has already had to backtrack and change masks optional to masks required in classrooms. Both scenarios caused upset to some parents on social media.

So when it was masks optional some parents gave out, and same when it's mandatory.

Can't suit all of the people all of the time.

r93kaey5p2izun

wirelessdude01 wrote: »

So when it was masks optional some parents gave out, and same when it's mandatory.

Can't suit all of the people all of the time.

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".

am_zarathustra

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.

Treppen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?