Bradford Liberal Democrats call for detailed plans for schools opening to be scrutinised

The current debate about when and how schools should “re-open” has already developed entrenched positions. It started from a Government-led position of expecting the re-opening of schools for certain groups from June 1st. A growing opposition of “no to that” has developed with Trades Unions and some Local Authorities leading the charge. The two camps are sat facing each other and there seems to be no basis for discussion. A recent report by the Children’s Commissioner suggests that children deserve better.

One thing that seems to be missing from the debate is the obvious point that schools are open and have been all along. I have not heard a single word of protest about what seems to have been accepted as a good thing for the children of Keyworkers and vulnerable children to be allowed to attend schools.

All those who now claim to be deeply concerned about more children attending school, often with dire predictions of the subsequent catastrophe that will ensue, have been silent so far on the accepted principle that at least some children should be going to school. The question now should be, how many more could be going to school safely? The question of “safety” is a difficult one because we have never been here before and the scientific and epidemiological evidence is weak and disputed.

What is not weak and disputed is the evidence that the continuing absence from a school, as a place visited every day and the continuing absence from education as a creator of opportunity, is deeply damaging – especially to those from disadvantaged families. The consequences of the loss of education to children from the poorest backgrounds is well known. It has been found that summer holidays alone account for up to two thirds of the attainment gap between rich and poor children at the age of 14.

Think then about what an impact the current absence from school is having on the estimated 2 million children in the country living in a household where there is domestic abuse, parental substance misuse or parental mental health issues. A far more important debate than whether or not certain age groups should return to school could be taking place on how schools, and indeed other empty public buildings such as youth centres and libraries could be planning in June, throughout the summer and beyond if need be, to support disadvantaged children until normal schooling recommences.

The question that needs to be addressed is how many more children, especially the most deprived and vulnerable, can go back to school – as soon as possible – in a safe way. The opening of all Primary Schools on June 1st is possible, but each school would need to risk assess the number of pupils that can be safely accommodated. Evidence from the experiences of other countries is available and should be looked at. Children from deprived backgrounds, vulnerable children and those with EHCPs should be given priority.

Here in Bradford the Liberal Democrat and Independent Group Education Spokesperson Councillor David Ward is calling for detailed plans for the re-opening of schools to be open to public scrutiny. He says waiting for the perfect time to “re-open” schools will mean a long wait and some children do not have that time because they have already suffered from school closures and will continue to do so as long as they are missing school. It is not about re-opening schools – many are already open – but about the safe phased return to normal, planning for that should begin today and be available for scrutiny so we can all be assured about the safety of children and staff.

* Cllr Jeanette Sunderland is the Leader of the Liberal Democrat and Independent Group on Bradford Metropolitan District Council.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News and Op-eds.
Advert

4 Comments

  • Not sure what the author is aiming for here. Seems a bit of do we or don’t we.

  • Tony Greaves 20th May '20 - 9:59pm

    The key bit here is: “The question that needs to be addressed is how many more children, especially the most deprived and vulnerable, can go back to school – as soon as possible – in a safe way.” I see very little discussion of how schools can be run to achieve this. I see very little evidence of sensible discussion between all the people who should be working on it – not just civil servants in London, and including people who run schools from local authorities to academies to heads to trades unions representing teachers and other school staff, to parents organisations… I see even less discussion (zero?) of how schools will cope with a full return at the start of the autumn term.

  • Phil Beesley 20th May '20 - 11:24pm

    Tony Greaves: “I see very little discussion of how schools can be run to achieve this. I see very little evidence of sensible discussion between all the people who should be working on it…”

    Or pragmatically. How do we double teaching space (floor plan area), employ a couple more teaching assistants (oh, we can’t do criminal record checks, because they’re looking at the people employed as Covid testers) or bring in cleaners between classes.

    The thing about bringing schools back is that government could have set up teams of workers. They should have worked out that every smart person who has passed a criminal record check is a potential ‘key worker’ and they should be offered school jobs that they can do.

    But these lads in government (lads, males mostly) don’t know anything. IQ off the score, but useless.

    We needed to double or treble the number of teaching assistants. Three weeks ago.

    But these high IQ lads and lasses don’t know how to do anything.

  • Nonconformistradical 21st May '20 - 8:24am

    “But these high IQ lads and lasses don’t know how to do anything.”

    Do they even THINK?????

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter Martin 9th Jul - 6:43am
    @ JoeB @ Michael BG Joes's simple example shows how we take $$ from the rich and give it to the poor. If Milton Friedman...
  • User AvatarKatharine Pindar 9th Jul - 1:29am
    The sad scandal of the unprotected care homes in which so many have died before their natural time will not be put right by any...
  • User AvatarMike Jay 9th Jul - 12:26am
    The article in "The Australian" that Peter referred to is behind a paywall. However, the article is freely available at https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
  • User AvatarMike Jay 8th Jul - 11:28pm
    I'm reminded of my undergraduate days back in the 1960s. The students' union repeatedly passed motions demanding that the US Government withdrew from the Vietnam...
  • User AvatarJoseph Bourke 8th Jul - 11:01pm
    Michael BG, Torry is clear that a tax increases are only viable if the net disposable income of the great majority of taxpayers is increased...
  • User AvatarGraham Evans 8th Jul - 10:29pm
    It's all very well blaming the care sector for its shortcomings but you get what you pay for. Providing social care is extremely labour intensive,...