thread I have two staff who are pregnant, lots who are high risk so not in school
and others who live with high risk people. Lots are parents who have been forced to send their own kids back to school because we can't provide places of wet don't have the staff.

We have a number of parents whose grasp of English is scant at best, and a number who certainly aren't boothroyd with distancing and will gather at the gates unless shouted at.

It's far more complicated than "kids are a low transmission risk".
permalink yep, for sure
but the people who aren't boothroyd with distancing will do that wherever they are.

and arguably it's the kids from more difficult backgrounds who have much more need to go back to school.
permalink Good schools will already have them in, at least part time,
but there's no legal driver for parents to send them in.
permalink There is for those children who are already designated as
vulnerable.
permalink You don't need an EHCP or anything official like that,
you just need the school to identify you as vulnerable.
permalink Which I sort of dislike, because teachers are really poorly placed to make this sort of decision,
being (for around 79% of them) inexperienced of any scenario that is not 'being at school'.

But yes, it works for those who it catches.
permalink There are kids in my school for one day a week
who have been identified by the school as young carers, but not anybody else.

If they didn't have the authority to declare those kids as vulnerable then they'd be carers without any kind of respite for months. Until at least September for most of them.

You say they're inexperienced of anything outside of school, but they know who is getting fed, who is getting a decent night's sleep, who has a regular supply of clean clothes, etc etc.
permalink Yeah, but they flag up a LOT of false positives for people who are not exactly like them.
It is a weird situation we have, where we expect to get young people ready for life after education in an environment where nobody has experienced it.