Gradually, the lockdown eases further,
with Boris announcing in the last week that more people can meet together
outdoors including in private gardens; outdoors markets and car salerooms can
re-open with other non-essential shops re-opening in a couple of weeks; and
nurseries should re-open while pupils in Reception and years one and six return
to primary schools. There are lots of
caveats: social distancing must continue, retailers must adapt so social
distancing can be promoted and respected, schools must adopt myriad new
practices to protect families and staff, and it all depends on the R remaining
below one and on rates of infection and death continuing to fall.
There’s plenty of
scepticism. Was the latest easing of
restrictions rushed to deflect from awkward questions about Dominic Cummings’
misguided trip to Durham? How different
is ‘the tests are being met’ from ‘the tests have been met’? How wise is it when we remain at level four
on the alert scale and the new NHS test and trace system is far from fully
operational? How guided by the science
are political decisions when one SAGE member (Prof. Calum Semple) refers to
them as ‘brave’ and warns that the pan is still at risk of boiling over,
adding, ‘We need to get it down to simmer before we take the lid off, and it’s
too early,’ and epidemiologist, Prof. Sian Griffiths remarks that if scientists
were in charge of decisions, lockdown would probably not yet be eased?
The distinction between what
Boris can control and what he can not is becoming more stark. He can legislate for business, retailers,
schools and other organisations, but he relies on individuals to use their own
judgement and common sense and to take reasonable personal risk and
responsibility for our behaviour. He has
little choice after Dominic Cummings took his family and his own infection on a
roadtrip across the country – on instinct.
For the past fortnight, we’re only supposed to have met one other person
from outside our own household in a public place, but many of us have convened
in larger socially-distanced groups on the beach, in parks and even in each
other’s gardens. Boris’ talk now of ‘allowing’
groups of six people to meet in gardens is laughable. He won’t allow us to go into each
other’s houses except to use the toilet or even to have sex with someone who
isn’t a member of our own household, but we all know there is no way all his
latest edicts can be enforced and it remains to be seen how closely everyone
will comply with them. He seems out of
touch with reality, and his government’s authority over each of us is shaky at
best.
The re-opening of schools to more
children has perhaps been the most controversial of the measures to ease the
lockdown.
For one of my class’ Citizenship
lessons, I asked students to read a news feature about schools re-opening to
more children, analyse the arguments for and against, and reach their own
conclusion in preparation for a short debate we then had on Zoom. It’s the sort of thing we do regularly when
we’re in class together – keeping up with current affairs, learning about the
wider world in the news and discussing the issues they raise.
They proved a microcosm of wider
society, with mixed views. One student
wrote, ‘schools shouldn’t re-open because of the risks but I think we should, otherwise
it will be a lot harder getting back into that routine’. On one hand, they said that children need to
learn and see their friends; they need to get back before it becomes too
awkward; and those in transition years should get to say goodbye to their
teachers and friends. On the other, they
recognised that the pandemic hasn’t ended so it is too soon to return to school
and that they could continue learning at home where it’s safer. None of them commented that they enjoy being
at home, although I suspect that may be a factor for one or two of them.
The anxiety and caution among
teachers, parents and children is understandable for all the same reasons that
many are still apprehensive about coming out of lockdown in other ways. The past three months have been traumatic and
frightening; we’ve all watched as an unexpected, invisible and silent killer
has appeared in our midst, striking indiscriminately and taking tens of
thousands of lives. We’ve not known when
it might arrive in our own neighbourhood or who might bring it, so we’ve
hidden, shielded ourselves and survived.
We’re afraid of emerging lest it lurks close at hand and strikes us down
yet. It is no wonder then that many fear
sending those who are the most precious to us and of whom we are most
protective – our children – back to their classrooms.
There are other reasons too for
people’s apprehension. We were angered
by the failure to equip the NHS properly so we worry that the same might happen
in schools. We saw the neglect of care
homes so we’re anxious for the implications for children and school staff of a
similar disregard of schools. There is
still so much we don’t know about the virus; while children seem to be the
least vulnerable to it, can they still carry it and pass it on to each other,
their family members and their teachers?
It’s imperative that schools model all the social distancing
expectations that children will face beyond the school gates, but we’re unsure
of the practicability of this, especially among our very youngest children who
may not fully understand and who will naturally want to play, hurt themselves,
become upset and need comforting. We
need reassurance that systems for monitoring of infection rates and the new
test and trace processes are effective, yet they remain largely untested, and
those wary scientific views give us the jitters.
At the same time, however, we can
not keep children away from school indefinitely; the effect on their education
and their longer-term futures could be catastrophic. Moreover, as the sages in my own class
acknowledged, it is not just the learning that children are missing out on that
is a concern; it is the routine and practice of learning that makes them better
at it. It’s worrying too that the
closure of school to many has a disproportionate effect on disadvantaged,
poorer children – those without access to a computer and the Internet,
those living in overcrowded homes, those whose parents are less educated
themselves and lack confidence in supporting their children’s learning at home
– and that the gap between them and their peers will grow.
Perhaps, after all these weeks of
lockdown, the risk will not get much lower than it is now; another three weeks
or another three months may not make much difference. There may also be evidence from other
countries that schools can operate safely without having a negative impact on
the R. Slowly, therefore, we are coming
to terms with a difficult new reality: for the foreseeable future, we must
learn to live alongside coronavirus, including in our schools.
The decision to return the very youngest
children – those least likely to understand and practise social distancing - to
school and nurseries has been widely questioned. Could they become vectors for
cross-contamination between households?
There is a certain logic to their return: the disease is far less
dangerous to them; their parents are likely to be of an age that also leaves
them at less risk to it; and we know that early years education – social interaction
and the development of early communication skills, for example – are critical
to continuing success at school. On the
other hand, their experiences and opportunities will be very different – even limited. Meanwhile, older students’ secondary schools
remain closed to them, despite that they could reasonably be expected to
understand and practise social distancing, and many – believing they are at
less risk, perhaps – are meeting each other out of school anyway. Certainly, groups of teenagers on the beaches
and in the parks of Bournemouth are not uncommon. Inevitably, it was a contentious decision; if
it had been mine, I may have started with older students returning to school
first, with the youngest following later.
Schools – their teachers and children – must adapt and will be very different places. It's a challenge to school leaders and teachers on a scale that surely hasn't been seen for decades, if ever, and I, for one, have renewed respect and admiration for headteachers and my teaching colleagues everywhere as they confront it. Good teachers are resourceful, adaptable, imaginative, creative, optimistic and positive, always with the best interests of children as their priority. We may need to tap new reserves of all those qualities in the coming months and we will need to continue learning ourselves and tweak our plans and the approaches we take, but I have no doubt we can rise well to the challenges we face.
My own school welcomes a limited number of children back to Reception, year one and year six on Thursday. Classrooms have been cleared of all but the absolute essentials those children will need: gone are any soft furnishings; gone are any balls; gone are many of the toys they would otherwise use for stimulation and social interaction; gone are most of the books; gone is the notion of sharing. Instead, they will have to get used to limited interaction in tiny classes of just one or two; one-way systems; restriction to their ‘bubble’; staff in masks, aprons, gloves and visors; temperature checks and regular disinfection of everything. We were given a stark warning yesterday: You must behave as if you have Covid.
It is going to take a lot of getting used to.
No comments:
Post a Comment