This is particularly concerning attendance targets are already driving many headteachers to threaten vulnerable households with fines and prosecutions.
He emphasises the fact that schools must not use the following mitigations: bubbles or isolation of contacts.
Whilst insisting on the need to improve attendance "maximising school attendance a top priority" in a #Pandemic.
2/
Next, something we have been pushing for (if only it wasn't in that same paragraph demanding attendance). An acceptance that vulnerable children have been impacted more than others. * although no mention of children in vulnerable households.
3/
"This is not only crucial for ensuring that all children and young people, including the most vulnerable, are taking advantage of the education recovery programme, but also for their own physical and mental wellbeing."
4/
Children in CV/CEV households have been disproportionately impacted by lost learning through shielding and and increased sensitivity to potential symptoms. We welcome the recognition of the specific need to support their education and wellbeing.
5/
"Communicate clear and consistent expectations around attendance to families and working with your LA, make full use of enforcement actions where appropriate. During the height of the pandemic, suspending the use of these measures felt most appropriate, ..."
6/
"but as we push now to maximise school attendance, it is important that they are once again being applied across the country."
Apparently we are past the height of the pandemic (Germany, with less cases, wouldn't agree) & yes, schools tried to fine and prosecute us then too.
7/
Maximising school attendance implies that it is suboptimal currently. Perhaps Nadhim is missing some important causal factor?
Schools are encouraging sick children into school and administering Calpol to those with Covid symptoms.
8/
Individual and class attendance awards (discriminatory to those with medical conditions) are being used to bribe and peer pressure the sick into school.
This idea of measuring headteachers on attendance needs to go, because that is the fuel. Especially during a Pandemic.
9/
"Identify pupils who are reluctant or anxious about attending or who are at risk of disengagement and develop plans to re-engage them - especially those who are or at risk of being persistently absent."
"Anxious" has always been a code word for those facing a risk to life.
10/
Persistent absentees are likely to be predominantly from Clinically Vulnerable households and the long term sick @LongCovidKids. Perhaps the press could get a breakdown for us?
11/
"Develop plans to re-engage them"
This is ominous.
On past form, it includes school and LEA staff calling and emailing. Demanding we sign contracts. Unannounced doorstepping. Finally involving Social Services threats of fines & prosecutions. Constructive off-rolling.
12/
Families compelled to withdraw children are losing their Human Right to formal education.
Places in special school are allocated on need. Selective and competitive schools are also in high demand. Withdrawal risks permanent loss of school places, a community and friends.
13/
"Use the additional recovery funding, including for tutoring,as well as existing pastoral & support services,attendance staff &resources & pupil premium funding to put measures in place for those families who will need additional support to secure pupils' regular attendance."
14/
We really want to read this as a positive. But what "support" and "measures" will be implemented to "secure regular attendance"?
Remote learning is the dream. No mention of that, which suggests more of the above, leading to more withdrawals thus improving attendance.
15/
Mitigations hold the longterm answer we all need to improve attendance.
But without funding and the desire to make these improvements, in class attendance for some families will remain off the cards for now.
16/
"We are at a crucial point in the pandemic and must collectively act now to ensure lower levels of attendance do not become the accepted norm. I hope you agree on the urgency around tackling school attendance issues and that you will do all you can to address this."
17/
"We are at a crucial point in the pandemic"
Because Winter is coming and infections are high?
Because children are unvaccinated / only partially protected against a novel virus making them more Vulnerable with each infection?
No.
18/
Because, apparently, there is an urgent need for schools to improve attendance *in a Pandemic*.
Look at the graph 👇
Most of those infections are in children and their parents, exposed through unsafe schools.... and yet "maximising school attendance is a top priority".
END/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵A letter, signed by Prof Jennifer Harries OBE, has informed parents of Clinically Extremely Vulnerable children that they are not CEV anymore.
Even being identified as needing a vaccine isn't a reason to shield.
NB/ Many (12-15) have still not received a first dose yet. 1/
Seeking to reassure parents
"Recent clinical studies have shown that children & young people are at very low risk of serious illness if they catch the virus. We are pleased to let you know that your child is therefore no longer considered to be clinically extremely vulnerable" 2/
...before the big blow...
"It is important that your child continues to attend their school or other educational settings."
* With a caveat that actually maybe your child is still CEV and "will still have to isolate or reduce their social contact".
#vax4kids #MasksInSchool
T&T billions supporting in-school contact tracing
HEPA
Quarantine of those taking PCRs
OR of households with +ves
Updates on Delta symptoms
Reductions in class sizes
How can CV/CEV households keep safe exposed by schools?
"The JCVI recommends vaccines for children 12-15 who have severe neurodisabilities, Down's Syndrome immunosuppression and profound or multiple learning disabilities."
1/
"The JCVI advice also recommends offering the vaccine to children and young people aged 12-17 who live with someone who is immunosuppressed."
2/
Whilst this is a start and we welcome the offering of vaccines to these children to protect incredibly vulnerable families, we feel this does not go far enough.
CV/CEV households all need #vax4kids urgently. We don't understand the risks posed by all of these vulnerabilities.
3/
CV/CEV families are being exposed to a deadly virus:
via public transport
via workplaces
via supermarkets (no priority slots)
via unsafe schools
1/
At Home
They should only meet with double vax outside or should be responsible for ventilation if they meet inside. All of their visitors should test with a Lateral Flow first.
They can't meet their own kids any more, of course, who will be unvax.
2/
In the Workplace
There will be no social distancing but they don't need to work from home.
Employers are now responsible for their safety.
Their colleagues / clients won't take Lateral Flows.
They can to take their employer to court.(They may need an Eng / Epidemiology PhD)
3/