How do you feel about sending your kids back to school?

SteM

ax530 wrote: »

I feel schools would be safer if it was free for all school aged children to get test arranged if any doubts.
40e fee for GP to get referal will put some people off and they may risk going in if mild symptoms. A system where they can get test and back to school negative within a day or two would make everyone feel safer with the school environement.

This was mentioned on the Zoom call we had with our school last week -

Free GP assessment
Your test and GP assessment will be free of charge. This includes GP out-of-hours services.

Phone your GP. Do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital. The GP will assess you over the phone.

If you don't have a GP, any GP can arrange a test for you. The GP out-of-hours services can also arrange testing.

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/testing/how-to-get-tested.html

ax530

I phoned Gp had to pay a 40e fee prior to assessment over phone. Thanks for the link will review to see why I was charged, I didnt question it at the time as child is >6 so no longer has the children medical card

Erna123

Its indeed a very confusing situation. No one in family is high risk or so , but we're very prone to common cold and fever every now and then . So very worried that my kids could get sick or bring it home to us . But then again this is not going to end soon . so some sort of return to school is required and needless to say , kids are so excited.. They'd go in the next hour if they had to...

I do wonder why the schools are not asked to take it slow like opening for once/twice a week , for a few hours or something similar to give kids, teachers, school staff and parents a settling in time to the new protocols . I honestly don't understand this Big bang approach of starting back as usual from day 1 in the middle of a pandemic..

I'm hoping those approaches have been discussed and there must be reasons that I can't fathom for why they're not doing it .. Would anyone here have info on the same ?

pc7

Erna123 wrote: »

I do wonder why the schools are not asked to take it slow like opening for once/twice a week , for a few hours or something similar to give kids, teachers, school staff and parents a settling in time to the new protocols . I honestly don't understand this Big bang approach of starting back as usual from day 1 in the middle of a pandemic..

?

That would make it impossible for most working parents (I’m not suggesting school is a baby sitter as I have seen mentioned on other threads). My school going child gets dropped and collected by creche and I think they would struggle to have to do various drops/collections etc. parents need to work, business and life needs to keep going in some shape.

I personally wish they had of done something in June in bringing them back during the summer. But then they would have been hung for not having carried out the leaving cert.

ginoginelli

pc7 wrote: »

That would make it impossible for most working parents (I’m not suggesting school is a baby sitter as I have seen mentioned on other threads). My school going child gets dropped and collected by creche and I think they would struggle to have to do various drops/collections etc. parents need to work, business and life needs to keep going in some shape.

I personally wish they had of done something in June in bringing them back during the summer. But then they would have been hung for not having carried out the leaving cert.

It's not ideal, but it's better than not going at all, which is as strong possibility with the disastrous plan in place.

pc7

ginoginelli wrote: »

It's not ideal, but it's better than not going at all, which is as strong possibility with the disastrous plan in place.

I think they’ll be opening and closing as out breaks happen. Has happened a local creche, pod closed for two weeks, didn’t spread which gives some solace.

firemansam4

If your children don't have any underlying medical conditions and there is no one in the household with any conditions then there is probably more risk for your children being killed in a car crash than dying of this disease.

Now the other big question will be:
Will childrens health be impacted in the future if they catch the virus?

I hear lots of people claiming that it will have all sorts of affects on people for the rest of there lives if they catch the disease. But can anyone actually link to any proof of this happening, or is this just what people have heard somewhere?

seamus

I'm honestly no more concerned about them going back to school than I am about them playing with their mates outside. 1 starting preschool, another going back into primary.

Both schools seem to have decent frameworks in place, I have very few concerns from that POV. We'll probably minimise/avoid contact with the grandparents for the first 4-8 weeks while we see how it all shakes out.

Looking forward to getting a bit of routine in place, and the kids are really looking forward to it. Not looking forward to dragging them out of bed at 6:30, but we'll all get over that soon enough.

r93kaey5p2izun

ax530 wrote: »

I phoned Gp had to pay a 40e fee prior to assessment over phone. Thanks for the link will review to see why I was charged, I didnt question it at the time as child is >6 so no longer has the children medical card

You should not have been charged, even if an out of hours service. K Doc were charging but have been pulled up on it so it shouldn't happen again. Follow it up.

smellyoldboot

Telecoms Executive wrote: »

A fundamental concept appears to be completely overlooked by a lot of people. The concept of the trade off between risk and reward. When assessing if an activity should be permitted it's important to assess both risk and reward in order to determine if the reward is worth the risk.

Let's compare pubs and schools. The data would suggest that pubs are a greater health risk than schools. In terms of reward I think most would agree the reward of children being educated is greater than the reward of pubs being open.

Therefore it's not unreasonable for schools to be open even though pubs are closed.

Pubs will open a week or two after the schools. It's the perfect FF sleight of hand trick. Then plenty of useless parents will spend all weekend in them and drop the "Childers" off to school on Monday. School is just Phase 1 of "Back in Lockdown for Christmas".

Bright n Breezy

firemansam4 wrote: »

If your children don't have any underlying medical conditions and there is no one in the household with any conditions then there is probably more risk for your children being killed in a car crash than dying of this disease.

Now the other big question will be:
Will childrens health be impacted in the future if they catch the virus?

I hear lots of people claiming that it will have all sorts of affects on people for the rest of there lives if they catch the disease. But can anyone actually link to any proof of this happening, or is this just what people have heard somewhere?

Just in relation to you posting if a you or child have no underlying health conditions that is not strictly true, there are plenty of viruses out there that attack perfectly healthy people e.g. meningitis bacterial or viral. These viruses aren't interested if you passed or failed your most recent health screening and covid19 is exactly the same.
You can be an asymptomatic carrier and bring it home, go to local supermarket and pass it somebody who maybe immunocompromised and they contract covid.
They scientists have no clue as to what damage this disease does to ones body, if you contract pneumonia you will be left more to chest infections, so surely with covid being a v agressive virus it is bound to leave a mark on your health.

Coming at it from a different angle, if a child is showing symptoms and is brought to the isolation room, is there a risk of bullying taking place when that child returns to school. Will that chils be turned into the class leper regardless whether its a positive or negative screen..

Just my views on it all, I'm not full of glee about my children returning to school, I am fearing for my parents health.

Fuascailteoir

seamus wrote: »

I'm honestly no more concerned about them going back to school than I am about them playing with their mates outside. 1 starting preschool, another going back into primary.

Both schools seem to have decent frameworks in place, I have very few concerns from that POV. We'll probably minimise/avoid contact with the grandparents for the first 4-8 weeks while we see how it all shakes out.

Looking forward to getting a bit of routine in place, and the kids are really looking forward to it. Not looking forward to dragging them out of bed at 6:30, but we'll all get over that soon enough.

What time does their school start? That is a very early start

Mrsmum

I was speaking today to a lady I know. Her daughter is seventeen going into LC. Very healthy child and before this, very happy at school. But just this last couple of weeks, she (the girl not the mother) has had the most dreadful panic attacks at the thought of going back. She has taken on board the seriousness of Covid to the point of extreme anxiety and her mam's nerves are up to ninety at the idea she might refuse to go back. Tough situation. I think maybe when people are at pains to stress that schools will be hotbeds of infection, they might consider that some people simply can't cope with that message.

byhookorbycrook

Mrsmum wrote: »

I was speaking today to a lady I know. Her daughter is seventeen going into LC. Very healthy child and before this, very happy at school. But just this last couple of weeks, she (the girl not the mother) has had the most dreadful panic attacks at the thought of going back. She has taken on board the seriousness of Covid to the point of extreme anxiety and her mam's nerves are up to ninety at the idea she might refuse to go back. Tough situation. I think maybe when people are at pains to stress that schools will be hotbeds of infection, they might consider that some people simply can't cope with that message.

Can I suggest that the student talks to someone at school and that NEPS might be able to offer support ?

i_surge

firemansam4 wrote: »

If your children don't have any underlying medical conditions and there is no one in the household with any conditions then there is probably more risk for your children being killed in a car crash than dying of this disease.

Now the other big question will be:
Will childrens health be impacted in the future if they catch the virus?

I hear lots of people claiming that it will have all sorts of affects on people for the rest of there lives if they catch the disease. But can anyone actually link to any proof of this happening, or is this just what people have heard somewhere?

That is the big question alright.

Increased stroke risk in young people? I haven't heard much on that since April, but I also haven't looked, warrants precaution. Anyone know?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200604095600.htm

the corpo

Never knew this before but here's a particular difficulty for those considering holding their kids back. Unless you're child is very high-risk and your absent for illness or holidays, you're obliged to notify the school after 15 consecutive school days if you'll be returning or homeschooling. If not the school has to make that place available to another child.

I may have the specifics wrong, but there is a real risk you may not have a school place to return to... So, double check!

JP Liz V1

As a relative of young kids (aunt) I'm more nervous than their parents

isup

the corpo wrote: »

Never knew this before but here's a particular difficulty for those considering holding their kids back. Unless you're child is very high-risk and your absent for illness or holidays, you're obliged to notify the school after 15 consecutive school days if you'll be returning or homeschooling. If not the school has to make that place available to another child.

I may have the specifics wrong, but there is a real risk you may not have a school place to return to... So, double check!

I've been thinking about this. There should be an option for the people who don't think it's safe to go back.

seamus

Fuascailteoir wrote: »

What time does their school start? That is a very early start

We've to be there at 8:30 and we live a ten minute walk away. Yes it is an early start, but this child move likes a snail through honey. Any later and we won't make it.

byhookorbycrook

isup wrote: »

I've been thinking about this. There should be an option for the people who don't think it's safe to go back.

Most schools wouldn’t have waiting lists for classes beyond junior infants .

15 days is new to me , hundreds
of children miss even multiples of 15 days a year and are kept on the school roll-books .



Unless the child is proven to be enrolled elsewhere or you choose to officially notify the school that you are withdrawing your child , they stay “ on the books .”

https://www.tusla.ie/services/educational-welfare-services/information-for-parents-and-guardians/school-attendance-what-every-parent-needs-to-know/

This is it

I'd say schools would want to keep them on the books. Lose too many and there's a possibility of losing a teacher.

We got a reply from the principal advising she's waiting for government/Dept. Of Education guidelines for parents keeping kids at home/home schooling.

jrosen

isup wrote: »

I've been thinking about this. There should be an option for the people who don't think it's safe to go back.

There is an option to register to home school.

byhookorbycrook

This is it wrote: »

I'd say schools would want to keep them on the books. Lose too many and there's a possibility of losing a teacher.

We got a reply from the principal advising she's waiting for government/Dept. Of Education guidelines for parents keeping kids at home/home schooling.

It’s not a question of “ wanting to keep them,” there are rules as I outlined above . Teachers are allocated by the number of children on the rolls at the end of Sept. for the following year .So unless a parent formally withdraws the child and registers for home schooling , the child is not removed from the school numbers .

firemansam4

Bright n Breezy wrote:

Just in relation to you posting if a you or child have no underlying health conditions that is not strictly true, there are plenty of viruses out there that attack perfectly healthy people e.g. meningitis bacterial or viral. These viruses aren't interested if you passed or failed your most recent health screening and covid19 is exactly the same. You can be an asymptomatic carrier and bring it home, go to local supermarket and pass it somebody who maybe immunocompromised and they contract covid. They scientists have no clue as to what damage this disease does to ones body, if you contract pneumonia you will be left more to chest infections, so surely with covid being a v agressive virus it is bound to leave a mark on your health.

Well what you said is correct but I never said there is no risk at all.

There is a risk, but we take risks in life everyday. Every time any of us put our children in a car and drive somewhere we are putting there lives at risk, and the stats show that it is more of a risk than that of this disease.
Yet many of us still choose to take that risk and drive children in our cars everyday.

Now as to the long term health effects of this disease there is still no evidence yet, but I would like to know more myself if there is evidence out there about this?

I think I there can also be long term health effects from the flu as well, scarring of the lungs and other effects.

Bright n Breezy wrote:

Coming at it from a different angle, if a child is showing symptoms and is brought to the isolation room, is there a risk of bullying taking place when that child returns to school. Will that chils be turned into the class leper regardless whether its a positive or negative screen..

Yes this could be a problem and something that will need to be handled carefully but it is not a reason to keep the schools shut.

Bright n Breezy wrote:

Just my views on it all, I'm not full of glee about my children returning to school, I am fearing for my parents health.

Yes and everyone is entitled to there own view on this and I do understand why you have concerns.

I do myself, but I have a son who requires extra help at school and was already falling behind before this pandemic started, I feel that he needs to get back to school ASAP and I think the need for this outweighs the risks which on the evidence looks very small at the moment.

the corpo

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Most schools wouldn’t have waiting lists for classes beyond junior infants .

15 days is new to me , hundreds
of children miss even multiples of 15 days a year and are kept on the school roll-books .



Unless the child is proven to be enrolled elsewhere or you choose to officially notify the school that you are withdrawing your child , they stay “ on the books .”

https://www.tusla.ie/services/educational-welfare-services/information-for-parents-and-guardians/school-attendance-what-every-parent-needs-to-know/

My apologies, it is 20 days, not 15.

As I understand it the DES circular that outlines the rules for attendance and retention on the roll is 0028/0013 which states that 'a pupil's name must be struck off the Roll Book for the following reasons:
ii) on the first Monday following an absence of 20 consecutive school days'

My kids school is querying this with the Department as they don't want any parents pressured into sending the kids in for fear of losing their place, but they imagine the Dept is fielding a lot of similar queries and will have to provide clarity.

irishblessing

henireland.org

HOME EDUCATION
Should you decide that school is not the right option for your child, you can remove them at any stage and inform Tusla (Phone: 01 771 8638 / online ) that you intend to home-educate. You will have to submit in writing your intention to Home Educate. Once this has been submitted Tusla will acknowledge your application and discuss it with you if necessary (usually within 24 hours). You are now legally covered to home-educate your child (although you are not yet registered as home-educating).
You will be required to complete an assessment process with Tusla in order to be officially registered. While they aim to start this process approx 16 weeks after the intention to register, due to high numbers of applications you could be waiting for up to a year for your assessment to take place.

Tusla will notify your child’s school of your intention to register as a home-educator and require them to hold your child’s place in the school until the assessment has been completed and the child is officially registered as being home-educated. The school may ask you to indicate in writing that you wish to leave but that will not alter the fact that your child remains on their register until Tusla informs them otherwise.

Funsterdelux

Annoyed more than worried, we have one in primary and one in montessori in rural schools. My OH is an SNA in a city primary school.
The communication from our kids schools has been very good compared to where my OH works where she only found out offically yesterday when they have to come back in and what the plan is.

We also wont be visiting the grandparents for the while/see how it goes. Any sniff of a case in either school we'll be pulling the plug.

Murple

the corpo wrote: »

My apologies, it is 20 days, not 15.

As I understand it the DES circular that outlines the rules for attendance and retention on the roll is 0028/0013 which states that 'a pupil's name must be struck off the Roll Book for the following reasons:
ii) on the first Monday following an absence of 20 consecutive school days'

My kids school is querying this with the Department as they don't want any parents pressured into sending the kids in for fear of losing their place, but they imagine the Dept is fielding a lot of similar queries and will have to provide clarity.

I may be wrong but I think the instruction in the circular has been replaced. I know we used have to do this but I remember being told since that we can’t remove a child from the roll unless we have a letter from their new school confirming they are enrolled there. I believe it came in as a child protection measure so a child couldn’t just disappear.
However, a school would be obliged to report to Tusla that a pupil had been absent for 20 days.

nw1dqsv7amx026

Here's an analysis in the British Medical Journal of 651 children admitted to hospital in the UK.

I guess parents of children who are concerned about sending their kids back to school should look at it.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3249

I won't quote all the relevant text but my reading of it is that kids are less likely to catch coronavirus and those that do have less severe symptoms compared to adults.

The relatively low number of kids that needed to be admitted to hospital are most likely to have
comorbidities. This part is sensitive for parents of children with health issues so I won't comment further.

Finally the outcome I've listed below:-

Outcome data were available for 627 children (table 2). Six (1%) children and young people died in hospital. Three were neonates (age <28 days) with severe comorbidities/illness—very premature, complex congenital cardiac anomaly, and bacterial sepsis. Three were aged 15-18 years, two of whom had profound neurodisability with pre-existing respiratory compromise; the other was immunosuppressed by chemotherapy for malignancy and had bacterial sepsis. Two children under 5 years old, both with life limiting, complex comorbidities, were discharged with planned palliative care and cause of death was not related to covid-19.

irishblessing

Frank Old Skin wrote: »

Here's an analysis in the British Medical Journal of 651 children admitted to hospital in the UK.

I guess parents of children who are concerned about sending their kids back to school should look at it.

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3249

I won't quote all the relevant text but my reading of it is that kids are less likely to catch coronavirus and those that do have less severe symptoms compared to adults.

The relatively low number of kids that needed to be admitted to hospital are most likely to have
comorbidities. This part is sensitive for parents of children with health issues so I won't comment further.

Finally the outcome I've listed below:-

Outcome data were available for 627 children (table 2). Six (1%) children and young people died in hospital. Three were neonates (age <28 days) with severe comorbidities/illness—very premature, complex congenital cardiac anomaly, and bacterial sepsis. Three were aged 15-18 years, two of whom had profound neurodisability with pre-existing respiratory compromise; the other was immunosuppressed by chemotherapy for malignancy and had bacterial sepsis. Two children under 5 years old, both with life limiting, complex comorbidities, were discharged with planned palliative care and cause of death was not related to covid-19.

Hmm... except that flies in the face of the largest study done so far in South Korea, which this quoted article references. There is now also one from Norway, showing children are effective spreaders. I'll try to find that link too.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/26/o...ler/index.html

"The thinking went something like this: In addition to children generally having very mild disease with Covid-19, they were also very unlikely to spread the virus.
This was an astonishing hypothesis because it ran contrary to everything we know about the transmission of traditional respiratory viruses, such as influenza and the common cold, which, of course, is often caused by a type of coronavirus. With these traditional viruses, children are recognized as significant drivers of transmission."

On May 5, the normally staid British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an editorial titled "Children are not Covid-19 super spreaders: time to go back to school." The official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) quickly followed suit with a similar commentary, "Covid-19 Transmission and Children: The Child is Not to Blame." Both advocated for the reopening of schools, with the editorial from the BMJ going so far as to argue that, "Governments worldwide should allow all children back to school regardless of comorbidities."
Never mind the paucity of the available research at the time, nor the fact that the few existing studies had serious deficiencies in their methodology. Not to mention the presence of conflicting evidence.

nw1dqsv7amx026

irishblessing wrote: »

Hmm... except that flies in the face of the largest study done so far in South Korea, which this quoted article references. There is now also one from Norway, showing children are effective spreaders. I'll try to find that link too.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/26/o...ler/index.html

"The thinking went something like this: In addition to children generally having very mild disease with Covid-19, they were also very unlikely to spread the virus.
This was an astonishing hypothesis because it ran contrary to everything we know about the transmission of traditional respiratory viruses, such as influenza and the common cold, which, of course, is often caused by a type of coronavirus. With these traditional viruses, children are recognized as significant drivers of transmission."

On May 5, the normally staid British Medical Journal (BMJ) published an editorial titled "Children are not Covid-19 super spreaders: time to go back to school." The official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) quickly followed suit with a similar commentary, "Covid-19 Transmission and Children: The Child is Not to Blame." Both advocated for the reopening of schools, with the editorial from the BMJ going so far as to argue that, "Governments worldwide should allow all children back to school regardless of comorbidities."
Never mind the paucity of the available research at the time, nor the fact that the few existing studies had serious deficiencies in their methodology. Not to mention the presence of conflicting evidence.

Excuse me if I missed it but the main gist of the report I referenced was regarding the health of children and how they respond to coronavirus/covid, not whether they spread it or not?

The report is a statistical analysis of kids admitted to hospital, their ages, prior conditions, ethnicity and outcomes after hospitalisation.

You can talk about kids passing it to each other, the teacher or granny at home but not in relation to this BMJ paper. Raise a different post for that
Personally I would expect kids to spread it just the same as any other person and probably more since they generally are not social distancing.
As I look out my window, I see 4 kids from 4 houses all standing together looking closely at one of their phones. The mask that they wore in school won't help now, but the BMJ report strongly suggests they at least will be fine.

Queried

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Most schools wouldn’t have waiting lists for classes beyond junior infants .

15 days is new to me , hundreds
of children miss even multiples of 15 days a year and are kept on the school roll-books .



Unless the child is proven to be enrolled elsewhere or you choose to officially notify the school that you are withdrawing your child , they stay “ on the books .”

https://www.tusla.ie/services/educational-welfare-services/information-for-parents-and-guardians/school-attendance-what-every-parent-needs-to-know/

It may depend on the school and I do work in an area where school places are difficult to secure, but there is a waiting list for senior classes in my school. I teach 6th and was told today that a child in my class may not be returning and if so the place will be offered to a child on the waiting list. To be fair, I have worked in many schools where this was not something I'd experienced so it could be a rarity.

BonsaiKitten

Queried wrote: »

It may depend on the school and I do work in an area where school places are difficult to secure, but there is a waiting list for senior classes in my school. I teach 6th and was told today that a child in my class may not be returning and if so the place will be offered to a child on the waiting list. To be fair, I have worked in many schools where this was not something I'd experienced so it could be a rarity.

Same here, I work in a school that is in high demand (I think the area is as a whole) and I know that there's a waiting list for my class. We have had cases of parents withdrawing their children and later wanting to re-enroll, only to find the place isn't available any more.

Airyfairy12

seamus wrote: »

I'm honestly no more concerned about them going back to school than I am about them playing with their mates outside. 1 starting preschool, another going back into primary.

Both schools seem to have decent frameworks in place, I have very few concerns from that POV. We'll probably minimise/avoid contact with the grandparents for the first 4-8 weeks while we see how it all shakes out.

Looking forward to getting a bit of routine in place, and the kids are really looking forward to it. Not looking forward to dragging them out of bed at 6:30, but we'll all get over that soon enough.

Off topic but I will never understand why school and jobs start at 8.30am, it is a ridiculous time of the morning to be doing anything especially in the Autumn and winter when it's still dark, 8.30am is night time imo. 6.30 am start every single day sounds like torture and I say that as someone who has a 7am start most working weeks.

The big problem is that not all schools have decent frameworks in place, special needs schools have many vulnerable children and due to lack of spaces in local special schools quite a large number of students travel in crammed buses to different towns and cities to get to school.
Theres also the issue of kids and teenagers spreading the virus to staff who may be vulnerable themselves, live with vulnerable people or spread it themselves within the community during the asymptomatic days before feeling sick.

There is also a big difference between 4 friends hanging out on an estate and 20 - 30 kids coming from 30 different homes and sharing a classroom.