Forum menu
Binners wins the internet!!!!
Well, daughters secondary school banged an out email straight away - 3 live lessons via Teams each day, and "registration" at 8.45 each morning for which they should be dressed.
Not sure how long they can keep that up, but fair play to them.
Like!
Well, daughters secondary school banged an out email straight away – 3 live lessons via Teams each day, and “registration” at 8.45 each morning for which they should be dressed.
Not sure how long they can keep that up, but fair play to them.
Dont think this is a good idea tbh, families need flexibility to do the work when they can if it is limited.
Exams cancelled too after that clown Williamson saying since July they definitely wouldn't be...
Waving data charges as suggested above will just swamp the mobile networks - and impact the millions of people who are already struggling to work from home in order to keep a roof over their family’s heads.
This analysis shows that children and young people are more likely to
bring the virus into the household than those aged 17+. They are also less
likely to catch the virus within the household. This is consistent with
previous analysis of household transmission (14 October).
• External exposure shows how likely someone is to be the first case in
their household. Young people (aged 2-16) are much more likely than
those aged 17+ to be the first case in their household. In particular, those
aged 12 to 16 are nearly 7 times as likely to be the first case in their
household, compared to those 17+.
• Transmissibility shows how likely someone is to pass the virus on within
the household, if they are the first positive case. The analysis shows that 2
– 16 year olds are more than twice as likely to pass on the virus within their
household compared to people aged 17+.
• Susceptibility shows how likely someone is to catch the virus, if someone
else in their household has brought it in. Children aged 16 or under are
less likely to get the virus from someone within their household compared
to people aged 17+
Dont think this is a good idea tbh, families need flexibility to do the work when they can if it is limited.
Families who can't will presumably contact the school to see what alternatives can be sorted out. Or not bother at all anyway, depending on the family. Not sure the efforts made for the majority (yes, middle class privilege) should be binned for those less fortunate?
will just swamp the mobile networks
By making access to sites such as…
https://www.thenational.academy
…not count against your data allowance?
Absolutely not. And bear in mind I used to work in this sector. They can cope just fine. It’s nothing compared to making football match video streams not count against data allowances, etc.
Families who can’t will presumably contact the school to see what alternatives can be sorted out. Or not bother at all anyway, depending on the family. Not sure the efforts made for the majority (yes, middle class privilege) should be binned for those less fortunate?
I disagree.
I disagree
We'll agree to disagree then.
I totally understand how those less fortunate will get left behind - both of us work or have worked with that demographic.
However, pitching our educational efforts to the lowest common denominator for an indeterminate amount of time may be just as counter productive at a societal level. Maybe a broader definition of "vulnerable" kids who would benefit from going into school is a better answer, I don't know. For some schools that could mean more attending than home schooling.
So little data on this (the government keeps using the line “no evidence”, but they haven’t been looking)… there is some now though…
https://www.tes.com/news/exclusive-teacher-covid-rates-333-above-average
there is some now though…
Comments from the previous page are ageing well.
Can everyone access that without logging on?
Here are some highlights
In Leeds, the rate for secondary school staff was more than four times that of the general population or 333 per cent higher.
The data shows that the prevalence rate was, on average, 1089.5 for primary staff and 1750.5 for secondary staff, compared to 404.3 for the LA as a whole. This average was taken for a period spanning from the week ending 19 October to the week ending 20 November.
And in Birmingham, the rate among school staff was more than three times higher than the local average. The data shows that, across the same time period, the prevalence rate was, on average, 1146.1 for primary staff and 1027.2 for secondary staff, compared to 312.2 for the LA as a whole. This excludes the half-term week.
In Greenwich, London, the prevalence rate was also significantly higher for school staff – at, on average, 264 for staff across primary and secondary schools, compared to 98 for the LA as a whole. However this average was taken for a longer period – spanning from early September to the end of November.
However, pitching our educational efforts to the lowest common denominator for an indeterminate amount of time may be just as counter productive at a societal level. Maybe a broader definition of “vulnerable” kids who would benefit from going into school is a better answer, I don’t know. For some schools that could mean more attending than home schooling.
Its not easy, more kids in school would mean more staff and less to do the live lessons for those not in school and you can still set challenging work without it being live. Most kids wouldnt turn up to live lessons, my school is only doing them for sixth form.