NEU officers and reps need firm advice on Covid-19 for the new term

National NEU too slow in issuing updated advice for reps

In July, the NEU issued a Covid-19 update, assuring members and leaders that new advice would be published before the start of the new term. Reps were also advised to remind their leadership that risk assessments will need to be revised in time for the new year. But, with some schools and colleges already open after the summer, as yet no new advice has been issued. Instead, the latest NEU press releases lack the clarity and firmness that its reps and members need.

Today's National Union’s “Back to School” press release rightly states that the Government’s announcement of £25 million to procure CO2 monitors for schools is an admission that risks remain, but that they “will not arrive soon enough, and only diagnose problems not solve them”. But, if that’s the case, then NEU reps need clear advice on actions their schools should be taking right now.

Scotland already shows that infection rates will rise once schools reopen

“Staff, school students, and their families understandably want the new academic year to be a return to ‘normality’ without the stress and disruption of the last eighteen months. But the transmissibility of the Delta variant, and the failure of Government to invest, means that sadly won’t be the case. Just as in September 2020, we will be returning to the same poorly ventilated, closely packed classrooms operating throughout the day, prime conditions for spreading an airborne virus”. (‘Why union groups must insist that schools reduce Covid risk’, 20/8/21) 

Since I posted that warning last week, news from Scotland has confirmed how the reopening of schools after the summer break is inevitably going to drive up infection rates again. In July, Independent SAGE had linked a decline in Scottish infection rates to the earlier start to their school holidays. But now, young people are mixing in schools again, 'fuelling' record case numbers according to BBC Scotland. Tellingly, around a third of the new cases have been in the under-19s age group.

Does this matter when so many adults are vaccinated? Absolutely it does. Yes, vaccinations have helped ensure that hospitalisation and death rates are much lower than they would have been, but protection is not guaranteed. A proportion of our diverse population will still suffer serious illness, and more again from long Covid, especially those who have existing conditions that leave them at greater risk. Even a small percentage of a large population of vaccinated adults - or unvaccinated children – still equates to significant numbers.

In the absence of National NEU advice (*see update below), here’s some suggested advice for risk assessments

Just as previously in the pandemic, schools have a responsibility to assess the ongoing risks from Covid-19, and then to take steps to mitigate them. In my earlier post, I outlined three key areas to consider for the new term:

(1) - Ventilation and Face Coverings

(2) - Isolation, Outbreaks and Contact Tracing

(3) - Staff and families at greatest risk

I have now compiled more detail on the above as suggestions for NEU Officers and Reps to raise urgently with their schools and employers. The advice - posted below - can be downloaded as a double-sided A4 briefing here.

Together with the workplace representatives of recognised trade unions, schools and colleges must act to reduce the ongoing risks from Covid-19:

(1) - Ventilation and Face Coverings

“Good ventilation is now widely accepted as being key to preventing the spread of Covid” (Paul Whiteman, General Secretary of the NAHT, joint union press release, 17 August 2021)

The DfE have belatedly announced that they will be procuring £25million of CO₂ monitors over the next term but, for now, few schools and colleges will have them in place. Even then, monitoring is only the start. Action then needs to be taken where poor ventilation is identified:

1.    Conduct an immediate audit of all classrooms and workspaces to assess the adequacy of ventilation and to set out the steps that can be taken to improve air flow in each case based on the HSE advice on ventilation & air conditioning during the Covid-19 pandemic.

2.    To assist this urgent risk assessment, rather than waiting solely for DfE promises, an initial supply of portable CO2 monitors should be purchased immediately by LAs/MATs.

3.    As was mandated for the start of term in Scotland, face coverings must similarly be worn by staff and students in secondary classrooms.

4.    Staff working in circumstances where there are particular risks, such as from children known to spit or bite, where children require intimate care or where staff may need to administer first aid, must be provided with appropriate PPE, including correctly graded face masks.

5.    Across all sectors, an assessment of other transmission risks, such as in corridors and communal areas, staffrooms, and at lunch and break times, should also be made, and steps taken to mitigate risks. Staff meetings should continue to be held online at present.

(2) - Isolation, Outbreaks and Contact Tracing

“[DfE guidance] appears to suggest that everyday contact in education settings …  is not going to be deemed close contact. This increases the risk that infections will go undetected, subsequently leading to more disruption and illness with the virus spreading more widely across schools”. (Letter from UNISON to Gavin Williamson, 18 August 2021)

If settings and employers only put in place the steps set out in the DfE’s latest operational guidance and contingency framework, Covid transmission will inevitably occur, leading to more disruption to education and infections amongst staff, students and our wider communities.

1.    The PHE guidance on actions to be taken by a ‘close contact’ should also be applied to unvaccinated young people who are below the age of 18 years 6 months in educational settings. They should NOT “continue to attend school as normal” as the DfE guidance advises but should “stay at home and self-isolate” as with other unvaccinated persons.

2.    Schools/Colleges should NOT rely only on a positive case or their parent to specifically identify close contacts as suggested in the DfE guidance. Instead, they should continue to identify close contacts on the following basis:

●    anyone who lives in the same household as another person who has COVID-19 symptoms or has tested positive for COVID-19

●    anyone who has had any of the following types of contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19:

o   face-to-face contact including being coughed on or having a face-to-face conversation within one metre

o   been within one metre for one minute or longer without face-to-face contact

o   been within 2 metres of someone for more than 15 minutes (either as a one-off contact, or added up together over one day)

●    A person may also be a close contact if they have travelled in the same vehicle as a person who has tested positive for COVID-19.

3. Schools/Colleges SHOULD make plans to take “extra action if the number of positive cases substantially increases” as the DfE guidance suggests but SHOULD NOT wait for the DfE’s suggested thresholds – such as 10% of pupils and staff in a class – to do so. Those plans should include remote learning with funding to cover additional staffing/supply costs in order to manage the resulting workload. These are costs we must also all demand the DfE meets.

(3) - Staff and families at greatest risk

“School staff, some of whom will not be double vaccinated, or are in a vulnerable group, are also in some cases still at risk of serious illness”. (Joint Union letter to Gavin Williamson, 17 August 2021)

The absence of mitigations and the DfE’s reckless guidance will be causing real concern to staff and students who are at greater risk to serious illness, as well as to those who live with family members who face those risks too.

1.    Every member of staff who believes they, or a person they live with, are at a higher risk of illness from Covid-19 should be provided with an individual risk assessment.

2.    Individual risk assessments should list the protective measures that will be put in place to address those risks. These should include being able to work from home and funds should be set aside to cover for additional staffing/supply costs required to meet those needs.

3.    Schools/Colleges and employers should advocate the benefits to 16-17 year olds, as well as to adults, of getting vaccinated and drive for the widest uptake of vaccinations as possible.

4.    All children aged 12 to 15 years eligible for a vaccine – either those with a condition that means they’re at high risk or who live with someone who is more likely to get infections should be included in this drive too.

*Update: National NEU advice

After this post was published, offical joint union advice was issued on the NEU website - you can read it here.

I remain concerned that the advice lacks the firmness and clarity needed. For example, rather than clearly stating that unions are calling for face coverings to still be worn by staff and students in secondary classrooms, it only states that "secondary settings should ... urgently consider the case for continuing to require their wearing". It also fails to recommend that 'close contacts' isolate, as I have done above.

The joint union advice also links to some useful detailed guidance on ventilation and on individual risk assessments for those at higher risk.

Why union groups must insist that schools reduce Covid risk

Please also read further updated advice from 26 August on this blog here: 

We all want ‘normality’ but Covid risks are still far from ‘normal’

“We are heading into a new school year with infection rates 25 times higher, and hospitalisation rates 10 times higher, than this point last year and with most mitigations removed” (Letter from UNISON to Gavin Williamson, 18 August 2021)

Staff, school students, and their families understandably want the new academic year to be a return to ‘normality’ without the stress and disruption of the last eighteen months. But the transmissibility of the Delta variant, and the failure of Government to invest, means that sadly won’t be the case.

Just as in September 2020, we will be returning to the same poorly ventilated, closely packed classrooms operating throughout the day, prime conditions for spreading an airborne virus. Few young people have been vaccinated. Without mitigations in place, an acceleration of transmission in schools, and then back into school communities, is inevitable.

Relying on vaccinations alone is not a sufficient strategy

“Staff who are fully vaccinated are still at risk of catching the virus and potentially developing Long Covid, which is already afflicting tens of thousands of school staff” (Joint Union letter to Gavin Williamson, 17 August 2021)

Yes, vaccinations are certainly making a difference. They have helped make sure that hospitalisation and death rates are much lower than they would have been given our ongoing high infection rates. But protection is not guaranteed. A proportion of our diverse population will still suffer serious illness, especially those who have existing conditions that leave them at greater risk. 

Death and hospitalisation numbers have been rising since June. Even a small percentage of a large population of vaccinated adults - or unvaccinated children – still equates to significant numbers. These are risks that schools have a responsibility to assess – and then to seek to mitigate.

Insist on reducing risk (1) - Ventilation and Face Coverings

“Good ventilation is now widely accepted as being key to preventing the spread of Covid” (Paul Whiteman, General Secretary of the NAHT, joint union press release, 17 August 2021)

Education unions have called on the DfE to urgently invest in ventilation measures in our schools, just like education authorities in countries like Germany and the USA have already done. The DfE have since belatedly announced that they will be procuring £25million of CO2 monitors over the next term but, for now, few schools and colleges will have them in place. Even then, monitoring is only the start. Action then needs to be taken where poor ventilation is identified. 

Having correctly identified the risk, unions now need to insist schools act to protect against airborne transmission. If CO2 monitors and air filters are not in place, the simplest and most effective mitigation is the wearing of face coverings in classrooms. As US ventilation expert Professor Shelly Miller advises “universal masking without portable HEPA air cleaners will do more to slow the spread of Delta variant than portable HEPA air cleaners without universal masking”.

Insist on reducing risk (2) - Isolation, Outbreaks and Contact Tracing

“[DfE guidance] appears to suggest that everyday contact in education settings – even when sitting alongside a positive case – is not going to be deemed close contact. This increases the risk that infections will go undetected, subsequently leading to more disruption and illness with the virus spreading more widely across schools”. (Letter from UNISON to Gavin Williamson, 18 August 2021)

Everyone wants disruption to education to stop. But declaring that close contacts under 18½ don’t have to self-isolate won’t stop disruption. Nor will failing to carry out contact tracing in schools, and nor will waiting until 5 individuals in a class test positive for COVID-19 before taking any action. Yet this is exactly what the latest DfE guidance advises, without providing any scientific justification.

As Unison’s letter to Gavin Williamson correctly warns, following DfE guidance simply means that infections will go undetected and transmission will spread, leading to more disruption and illness.  But again, having correctly identified the risk, unions now need to insist schools have in place safe systems for isolation, contact tracing and, when necessary, staffing to support online learning.

Insist on reducing risk (3) - Staff and families at greatest risk

“School staff, some of whom will not be double vaccinated, or are in a vulnerable group, are also in some cases still at risk of serious illness”. (Joint Union letter to Gavin Williamson, 17 August 2021)

The absence of mitigations and the DfE’s reckless ‘schools COVID-19 operational guidance’ will be causing real concern to staff and students who are at greater risk to serious illness, as well as to those who live with family members who face those risks too. The guidance does at least state that “no pupil should be denied education on the grounds of whether they are, or are not, wearing a face covering” and certainly no school management should prevent the voluntary wearing of masks.

Unions have made clear throughout the pandemic that high risk or vulnerable staff have a right to an individual risk assessment and protective measures being put in place to address those risks, including being able to work from home. But individual union members can best be backed by the strength of the collective union group insisting on an overall risk assessment that protects both individuals at greater risk as well as the health, safety and welfare of staff and students as a whole.

Download this advice as an A4 double-sided document here.

Schools and Covid: Government needs to act to reduce risk, not ignore it.

The summer school holidays are providing a much needed break for staff and students alike from the stressful conditions of teaching and learning in the midst of a pandemic. The fact that school communities, not least unvaccinated young people, are no longer closely mixing in poorly ventilated classroom spaces, is also likely to be a significant factor in the drop in reported Covid cases over the last fortnight. 

But the current prevalence of the Covid virus, even without any new variants developing, remains a serious threat to health. While vaccination of much of the UK's older population has certainly helped reduce the risk of death, a proportion of a diverse population will inevitably still face hospitalisation, particularly those who have existing conditions that leave them at greater risk. Many more again will join the hundreds of thousands already reported in the Government's own data as suffering from the debilitating effects of "Long Covid" many months after their likely date of original infection.

A Government that was serious about protecting communities, and to stop the disruption to lives and livelihoods caused when outbreaks occur, would be taking the opportunity offered by the school holidays to make sure measures were in place to reduce the airborne spread of the virus in schools at the start of the new academic year. 

For example, they could be following the example of New York, where "to help curb the spread of COVID, all 56,000 New York City public school classrooms will be equipped with two air purifiers by September" ... "In addition, custodians have been given monitors to measure carbon dioxide levels, an indicator of how much fresh air is circulating". They could also extend the vaccination program to children over 12, for whom the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has been authorised for use.

Instead of acting to reduce risk, the Conservative Government is removing what limited mitigations have been in place in schools. In May, they removed the requirement for face coverings in secondary classrooms. They have now said that there will no longer be any requirement to teach pupils in consistent 'bubbles', and that pupils will no longer be required to self-isolate if they are 'close contacts' of a positive COVID-19 case. 

Of course, especially when the levels of infections and school outbreaks were as high as they were at the end of last term, isolation requirements have severely disrupted education. However, the steps taken by schools will also have helped contribute to the fall in infection rates now being seen:

Slide taken from independent SAGE weekly update, 30.07.21

Removing isolation requirements alongside other protective steps in schools won't prevent disruption to education when outbreaks inevitably occur. Instead, they risk making those outbreaks more likely, accelerating the spread of infection, and put at risk the falls in infection rates that will hopefully be sustained over the summer. These rash steps will also endanger the health of students, staff and the wider school community, particularly those medically at the greatest risk.

Instead of demanding Ministers invest in ventilation measures in our schools, or exposing their failure to provide workers with full pay when they have to isolate, or the ongoing lack of  properly functioning community test-and-trace schemes, sadly Labour leader Keir Starmer seems more interested in criticising Ministers for not acting fast enough to remove measures that can help protect against Covid transmission.

Once again, the responsibility will fall on school unions to use our collective strength to defend health and safety. We will need to insist that risk assessments are in place that ensure a safe environment for staff and the students we teach. If those steps are not in place then, once again, unions must advise members accordingly not to work in an unsafe environment.

Why the risks are far from over - iSAGE 30.07.21

As an addendum to my post, I am posting some of the key slides taken from the analysis from this week's briefing  by Professor Christina Pagel on behalf of independent SAGE:

1) Yes, vaccination has made a massive difference:

2) But we are still far from having a fully vaccinated population, especially when around 20% of the population are children:

3) Vaccination greatly reduces the risk of death and hospitalisation - but doesn't eliminate the risk entirely:

4) Encouragingly, the reported numbers of cases is falling - with one cause of the more prolonged decline in Scotland likely to be their earlier start to the school holidays:

5) However, although this PCR based survey can show a lag behind reported infections, the latest ONS Infection Survey does not yet confirm any overall decline in England, with rates still rising amongst younger unvaccinated age groups in particular:

6) Another factor in increasing rates in June/July may have been mixing - particularly of young men - during the Euros:

7) There is a danger that the further lifting of restrictions may cut across the gains made from schools being on holiday. However, surveys show that most people are cautious and appreciate that risks remain. It is Government failures that are to blame, not the public:

UPDATE: I was able to make many of these points - and more besides (!) - as a guest on this week's "Safe Education for All" broadcast on 'Socialist Telly'. Have a look here:

Unions should oppose flawed trials into Daily Contact Testing in schools

This morning, an important open letter signed by scientists and campaigners has been published by the British Medical Journal. It raises serious scientific and ethical concerns about the trials being conducted in some schools on the use of Daily Contact Testing as an alternative to isolation of contacts of cases. I share those concerns, and have signed the letter. 

As part of my campaign to be the first elected Deputy General Secretary of the NEU, I have made clear that I will speak up when I think a different perspective is needed. I would not expect this to be one of those occasions. However, to my surprise, the letter has not been signed officially by the NEU, nor other trade unions.

For all the reasons outlined in the letter, not least the greater transmissibility of the now dominant delta variant and the questionable accuracy of Lateral Flow Testing, I hope that education unions will make clear that they share the concerns raised today.

The health and safety of staff, students and their families will be at risk if the DfE presses ahead and uses these flawed trials as justification to adopt Daily Contact Testing as an alternative to isolation across schools and colleges as a whole. 

Educators and their trade unions should be insisting that, instead, the necessary mitigations needed to reduce transmission in schools, as well as the educational disruption that results from outbreaks, are in place. This should including supporting those who have to isolate - both financially and educationally - when that is needed to reduce further transmission within schools and their communities.

The full text of the letter can be found on the BMJ blog here:

A summary of the issues raised, as set out in the press release from the BMJ, is posted below:

"Daily contact testing trials in schools are unethical, and extending them to include the delta variant puts everyone at risk, warn experts in The BMJ today.
In an open letter to Gavin Williamson, UK Secretary of State for Education, a large group of healthcare professionals, scientists, educational bodies, parents, and caregivers call on the government to suspend these trials immediately, saying "the risks and potential consequences are very serious."
They welcome the principle of conducting research to reduce school absences associated with covid-19, and understand the appeal of a study evaluating the effectiveness of regular lateral flow testing in schools as an alternative to 10-day isolation for contacts of cases.
But they argue that these trials fail to meet several requirements in good clinical practice guidelines, such as sufficient information about how the trials are carried out, and what would happen should there be any significant safety concerns.

They outline several concerns including:
* risks due to missed infections by lateral flow tests in schools
* inadequate informed consent
* lack of consideration and communication of possible harms
* additional risks to children, staff and families posed by the spread of the delta variant
* lack of robust mitigations (masks, ventilation, smaller bubbles, outdoor learning) in schools

These concerns have become even greater in the light of the dominance of the delta variant and recall of the INNOVA lateral flow test following investigations by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), they explain.
"In light of the above, we ask the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to suspend these trials immediately, pending adoption of comprehensive mitigations and to allow time to prepare and provide vital clarity to students, families, teachers, the wider public and the scientific community about the scientific justification and ethical considerations for these trials," they write.

"We would be very concerned about results from these trials being used as the basis for any public health policy, given the assessment of risk of increased transmission arising from these trials is inadequate."

They add: "It is deeply concerning that the daily contact testing trials are being presented as a solution for educational disruption when so little has been done in the way of basic and highly effective mitigations that would help reduce educational disruption, and investment in catch-up learning to address inequities created by this." 

"Keeping potentially infected and infectious children and staff in school may make attendance numbers look better for the short term, but the risks and potential consequences are very serious," they conclude.

Uncertainty reigns over the effectiveness of Lateral Flow Testing in Schools

Perhaps the only certainty in schools in England since they opened fully to pupils on 8 March is that staff have once again stepped up to meet the latest challenges thrown at them as best as they can.

Otherwise, stress and uncertainty remain - from a lack of information from Exam Boards over this summer’s assessments, to a continued concern about levels of Covid transmission within schools.

Lateral Flow Testing was supposedly meant to help clarify the latter issue – at least in secondary schools. But the reality is that the lack of any genuine prior piloting of these devices in school settings means the school testing programme is being rolled out despite serious uncertainty about its likely effectiveness in identifying positive cases.

Is the ONS modelling wrong – or are LFDs simply failing to detect many positive cases?

A quick comparison of two pieces of official statistical evidence released at the end of last week shows that something doesn’t add up.

On 19 March, the ONS produced the latest weekly results from their ongoing ‘Infection Survey’. Their modelling, based on PCR test sampling that will include both asymptomatic and symptomatic cases, shows a continued welcome decline in the percentage of the UK population testing positive.

In Wales and most English regions the estimated positivity rates are still falling. However, rates may be levelling out in Northern Ireland and northern regions of England. In Scotland, it appears positivity rates are starting to rise again. As Independent SAGE have pointed out, this may well be linked to rising case numbers amongst primary pupils since a phased primary school return began in Scotland on 22 February.

However, the data that I want to concentrate on here is the estimated positivity rate for young people in the secondary school age range. The ONS estimate, for England only, is a positivity rate of 0.3% or 1 in 333 testing positive.

Separately, on 18 March 2021, the Government released data on the results from Lateral Flow Devices (LFDs) in schools, and some other community settings, from 4 to 10 March.

The sharp increase in LFD Testing carried out on secondary school students after 8 March is shown in the following graphs from the LFD report:

Analysis of the data provided shows that “2,762,775 tests on secondary school children were reported to have produced 1,324 positives. This is 0.05% or 1 in 2087 pupils testing positive”.

The ONS estimate suggests 6 in 2000 secondary school students should test positive, but LFDs have found a positivity rate of only about 1 in 2000. 

Even taking into account that some positive cases might be identified symptomatically without a LFD, that's a very significant discrepancy. Is it because the ONS modelling is wrong – or because LFDs are missing the majority of cases? The evidence suggests the latter is far more likely to be the reason for the discrepancy.

The 18 March 2021 Report itself reports that the LFD data “should be treated with caution whilst the understanding of the data and its quality improves”. This is in part owing to the fact that individuals may report more than one test and that some results may not be reported – but there is a more concerning underlying issue and that is the reliability of the LFDs in comparison to PCR testing, particularly in a school setting.

Lateral Flow Devices are not reliable enough to be trusted with school safety

From the very outset last summer, when Ministers came up with their “Operation Moonshot” plan for mass testing, its own advisers in the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) warned that “the cheaper, faster tests that will be useful for mass testing are likely to have lower ability to identify true positives (lower sensitivity) and true negatives (lower specificity) than the tests currently used”.

However, a clinical evaluation went ahead that claimed that “Lateral Flow Tests are accurate and sensitive enough to be used in the community, including for asymptomatic people”. However, a closer reading of the University of Oxford evaluation report shows that, while the Innova LFD test had a sensitivity of 79.2% (156/197) for all PCR positive individuals when used by laboratory scientists, this fell to 57.5% (214/372) when carried out by self-trained members of the public. This, of course, is how school staff have now been asked to conduct the testing.

A further two-week pilot of mass testing using the Innova devices was carried out in Liverpool. It only confirmed concerns over the accuracy of the Innova tests. A Liverpool University Report on the Pilot concluded that “the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow device sensitivity was lower than expected (based on the preceding validation studies) at 40% but identified two thirds of cases with higher viral loads”.

This was confirmed to the Government in a paper presented to the 70th meeting of SAGE on 26 November 2020 that said “emerging evidence from Liverpool is that the lateral flow tests being used are not as sensitive as had been expected from the test validation”.

The data shows that LFDs are likely to miss a majority of positive cases in a school setting

The 40% sensitivity estimate – even lower than the sensitivity rates reported in the initial Oxford University clinical evaluation report - is explained below. Only 28 of the 70 cases detected by a PCR test were detected by the Innova Lateral Flow Test:

This second table shows how the majority of the cases that were not detected were for cases where the “Ct level” was high – or, in other words, where the “viral load” was low.

Table 2: Comparison of LFT site results and PCR results, by Ct levels

But asymptomatic children are more likely to have a lower viral load. Therefore, the sensitivity rates in a school setting may be even lower than the 40% estimate found in the Liverpool pilot.

In short, the initial evaluations of the Innova tests in practice suggest that they will fail to find the majority of cases in our school students and that “false negatives” will be common.

Of course, as staff are already finding, explaining to a student who has been told they are “negative” that this may be a false reassurance - and that they need to maintain social distancing, mask-wearing and all the other necessary mitigations, becomes more difficult.

(The unreliability of the tests also means that there may also be “false positives”, which could lead to children isolating without good reason, as explained in other articles).

So where are the scientific studies into the use of Innova tests in schools?

So, could the discrepancy between the ONS modelling (6 in 2000) and the results so far found in schools with LFDs (1 in 2000) be down to their lack of sensitivity when being used on young people in a school setting (or indeed, a home setting, as will soon be the case) ?

Scandalously, there is no clear data available because the Government failed to carry out any proper pilot into their use in schools. For example, the original Oxford University evaluation listed the settings in which the Innova tests had been trialled and their results compared with those from PCR tests:

But, as the table shows, where school settings were involved, none of the results were checked against PCR tests at all!

The Government claim they then carried out a further “pilot” into the use of Innova tests in schools. Indeed, Schools Week has reported that part of their “flimsy” evidence backing up their use of the Coronavirus Act to prevent Greenwich council closing its schools, was a claim that closing schools would prevent them using “testing programmes” – and that two Greenwich schools were then “involved in a pilot testing programme”.

But, as an article on the DfE blog makes clear, this pilot was about trialling the use of LFDs to “minimise staff and student absence” by offering them the opportunity to “remain in school and be tested daily rather than self-isolate when they were identified as COVID-19 contacts”. Were the DfE happy to allow participants to ignore their legal responsibilities to self-isolate under their own Government’s legislation? It was certainly without the clearance of the MHRA, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency as also revealed by Schools Week and discussed on my blog in a previous article.

Instead of trialling an unsafe procedure which they were then forced to abandon, the Government missed another opportunity to compare the results from LFDs with those from PCRs. Instead, schools are being expected to run a testing system that has had no serious prior evaluation about its appropriateness in such a setting.

Do not draw false reassurance about transmission in schools from LFD results

Sadly, there is a risk that the low number of positive cases detected through LFDs will give a false reassurance about the amount of transmission taking place in schools.

For example, I was disappointed to read the Director of Public Health for Lancashire, where I am a member of the NEU Branch, saying that "thankfully, the positivity rate in our schools remains extremely low. Between Monday, March 8 and Sunday, March 14, 47 tests taken by secondary pupils were reported as positive, from more than 71,000 tests”.

For all the reasons explained above, this is a false conclusion to draw. Actual positivity rates, and transmission risks within schools, may be far greater, particularly in those areas where local infection rates remain of real concern.

The table below, which I have compiled from official Government data, shows that on 13 March, at the end of the first week of full opening of schools, 34 English Lower Tier Local Authorities had infection rates of over 100/100,000 population over 7 days – and in most of these areas, rates were increasing. Looking at the full UK data, then Merthyr Tydfil and Anglesey in Wales, plus several Scottish Local Authorities, also have similarly worrying high infection rates.

And, while Lateral Flow Testing in schools may be missing many positive cases, Government data nevertheless shows that the numbers that are being recorded are also on the rise. This is a further indication that, just as was expected, infection rates in schools are, indeed, starting to climb once again.

Despite all the good work that is being done with vaccination, the risk of a further spike in infections remains. We must continue to fight for the mitigations necessary to reduce transmission risks in schools and their local communities.

Johnson to announce "road-map" on opening schools - but will the NEU Executive be ready with a firm enough response?

On Monday, Boris Johnson will announce his “road map” to easing the ‘lockdown’, rumoured to include a timetable for a full reopening of schools in England on 8 March. Education unions must be ready to respond with collective action to any reckless proposal which puts the Government’s short-term economic interests ahead of the long-term safety of our schools and communities.

In a welcome move on Friday, nine education unions and governance organisations issued a statement warning that a full return of all pupils, bringing “nearly 10 million pupils and staff into circulation in England – close to one fifth of the population”, seems “reckless”. “It could trigger another spike in Covid infections, prolong the disruption of education, and risk throwing away the hard-won progress made in suppressing the virus over the course of the latest lockdown”.

The warning is correct but, sadly, it will take more than joint statements to make Ministers think again. It was the action of tens of thousands of education staff asserting their individual rights under “Section 44” not to attend an unsafe workplace that forced Johnson to back down in January. Education unions now need to have the courage to advise members of their rights once again.

Nobody wants to stop schools opening fully for longer than is necessary. Online learning, certainly if set to the demands of an unchanged curriculum, puts pressure on staff, students, parents and carers. However, as the joint statement says, “it would be counterproductive if there is a danger of causing another surge in the virus, and the potential for a further period of lockdown. Wider opening must be safe and sustainable”.

But education unions, and especially the NEU, need to go further. We must prepare members to use their collective strength if required to resist any unsafe return, based on clear and specific demands about what constitutes a safe wider opening.

Our demands can be objectively based on the advice of experts like Independent SAGE who have analysed the latest scientific evidence and the Government’s own data. For example, they have pointed out how rates of infection have fallen least in January amongst primary aged children – precisely those settings where attendance has remained high. This is yet another indication of the role schools can play in community transmission.

National Executive debates what position NEU should take

Worryingly to me, reports from the initial discussions that took place at the NEU National Executive on Saturday raise concerns that the necessary firm national stand may not be being taken.

An emergency motion put to an Executive Sub-Committee correctly stated that “Independent SAGE has recommended a maximum rate of 100 per 100,000 to commence wider opening” and for that “opening to be properly phased”. However, I understand that it was left to NEC members Kirstie Paton and Nicky Downes to try and add in other key parts of the independent SAGE recommendations through an amendment, namely:

• "When the rate is between 50 and 100 cases per 100k, schools should employ ‘red light’ safeguards, including reduced class sizes through prioritising the return of certain year groups and/or through a rota system within years whereby, at any point in time, half of pupils learn in-person and half online", and

• "wearing of masks in all classes for all school students, primary and secondary". 

The original motion also noted the “importance of clear measures to be taken at a workplace level to minimise the spread of infection during any wider opening, and the successful use of checklists by the union in June 2020”. 

However, in my view, school-by-school action alone is insufficient. It relies on the strength of individual workplace union groups rather than the strength of the wider Branch and District. It risks a fragmented response rather than the universal response required right across a local area if a pandemic is to be successfully controlled. 

Kirstie and Nicky therefore also proposed in their amendment that the NEC:

• notes the successful use of Section 44 in preventing an unsafe wider opening in January and calls on members to assert their right to a safe workplace.

NEU members need to be aware that all parts of the amendment were defeated, with only three members of the committee, Kirstie, Nicky and Rob Illingworth, voting for it. The majority of the Sub-Committee, including some other DGS candidates, voted against*. (see footnote 2 below - Saturday's vote took place at an Executive Sub-Committee, not at the full National Executive, so only some NEC members were present)

The debate will, however, be returned to when the NEU National Executive reconvenes on Wednesday with new motions and amendments in the light of whatever Johnson announces on Monday.

Speak to your NEC members before Wednesday's continued debate

I am not a member of the NEU NEC and cannot judge what contributions or arguments were made at a distance today, nor what proposals are going to be tabled on Wednesday. However, I am sufficiently concerned to suggest NEU members reading this post contact their NEU National Executive members and call on them to vote on Wednesday in support of:

a) the Union calling on Districts and Branches to organise members to act to oppose any unsafe wider opening, including advising members of their individual rights under Section 44 should they reasonably believe they are facing a serious and imminent danger to their health and safety.

b) The Union setting out a clear set of demands along the following lines:

Test One

Insistence that:

i) There should be no wider opening until Covid-19 cases are securely beneath the rate of 100 per 100,000 population over a 7-day period in their area.

ii) No school should open with more than 50% class sizes until infection rates are securely beneath 50 per 100,000 population over a 7-day period in their area.

Test Two

Given the greater knowledge that now exists on the significance of airborne transmission, insistence that employers will guarantee adequate ventilation and CO2 monitoring as well as mask wearing in classrooms in primary, secondary and post-16.

Test Three

Guarantees from Government that:

i) a properly functioning test, trace, isolate and support system will be in place in order to maintain low levels of infections and support those who have to isolate or stay at home to provide childcare. 

ii) additional financial support is provided to ensure schools have the additional staffing and resources needed for a safe phased return, providing both online and in-class rota learning, and to put in place a recovery curriculum that meets the needs of all students.

Test Four

In addition to the overarching demands in these new ‘5 tests’, that there are clear agreed risk assessments that ensure acceptable measures are in place in every workplace, particularly in Early Years, Special and other settings where students may not be able to securely follow social distancing and other mitigation measures.

Test Five

Students and staff who are at high risk of severe illness, or who live with people at high risk should be able to work from home, using the teaching and learning methods developed over the last year.

Join the meeting to discuss how NEU members should respond to Johnson's school opening plans

For clarity, two minor amendments made to post on Sunday 21/2:

1) Post-16 in addition to primary and secondary in 'Test Two'.

2) To make clearer that Saturday's vote took place at an Executive Sub-Committee, not at the full National Executive. 

A new ‘5 Tests’ to avoid an unsafe, unprepared, premature school opening

Einstein is supposed to have said that “insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results”.

While it probably wasn’t Einstein who said it, many current scientific experts are warning that the UK Government is about to ignore that adage and repeat the mistakes it has made previously over fully reopening schools. We must assess their advice, and the available evidence, and set our own clear demands over how and when more students can return to face-to-face teaching, without risking another repeat surge in infection rates.

If our demands are not met, then trade unions must use their collective strength to make sure Ministers are not able to put health, safety, and livelihoods at risk once again. As we did in January, we must resist any unsafe, unprepared, premature school opening plan.

Assess the evidence – and challenge unsafe conclusions from Government backers

In recent appearances on both BBC Breakfast and BBC Radio 5 Live,  epidemiologist Dr Deepti Gurdasani from the University of London has outlined the scientific evidence that the Government should be basing their actions upon. Her conclusion, supported by those also reached by both Independent SAGE (UK) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), is that schools should not open further until infection rates are lower. All of them call for wider opening to be on a phased basis reflecting local community transmission rates, and, even then, only alongside appropriate additional mitigation measurements being put in place, particularly mask wearing, ventilation controls and reduced pupil numbers.

Of course, there will be other scientists arguing differently. On the Radio 5 Live recording, Dr Mike Tildesley, a member of one of the modelling subgroups of SAGE, claims that “the evidence suggests that really schools aren’t contributing significantly to community transmission, particularly primary schools”. His arguments were strongly challenged by Dr Gurdasani, who pointed out that his argument was contradicted by SAGE’s own data.

The Government will claim that their reopening plans have scientific backing. But we must question where that backing is coming from and on what evidence it is based.  For example, a January 2021 ONS Report made the much-publicised claim that  school staff were at no greater risk  than other occupations. It was shown by Dr Sarah Rasmussen to be erroneous. The Office for Statistics Regulation have since written to the ONS about the weaknesses in their conclusions and analysis. 

I am summarising below the evidence which I believe can be relied on for constructing a safe plan for a phased return to fully open schools.

Do schools and school-aged children contribute significantly to community transmission?

The fact that schools are “vectors for transmission, causing the virus to spread between households” should not really be a debate. After all, it was Boris Johnson himself who admitted this when changing his plans over school reopening at the start of January.

i)  SAGE evidence

In case there is any doubt, it’s worth starting with the evidence presented to the Prime Minister by his own SAGE advisers at the end of last year. They concluded that:

1)      “Accumulating evidence is consistent with increased transmission occurring amongst school children when schools are open”

2)      The ONS Infection Survey modelling for December, when schools were fully open, and new variants on the rise, showed that school aged children showed the highest positivity rates of all age groups.

3)      “Children and young people are more likely to bring the virus into the household than those aged 17+”

4)      “Young people (aged 2-16) are much more likely than those aged 17+ to be the first case in their household (see figures for ‘Relative External Exposure’)  

5)      “2-16 year olds are more than twice as likely to pass on the virus within their household compared to people aged 17+” (see figures for ‘Relative Transmissibility’)

ii)  Public Health England Data – and transmission amongst Primary Aged Children

The weekly PHE Influenza Surveillance graphs provide further evidence for the link between school opening and increased transmission. As pointed out by SAGE’s Task and Finish Group Report (above), there is a correlation between confirmed Covid-19 cases and school holidays, with rates dipping during the half-term school closure, for example.

The graphs also point out that, since January, clusters and outbreaks have continued to be reported in those settings where Headteachers have been under pressure to maintain high numbers in class – i.e. Nursery, Primary and Special Needs. Not only is this further evidence of a correlation between school opening and viral transmission, it is also evidence that nursery and primary settings are not protected from such risks either.

This risk of viral transmission in Primary and Early Years settings where pupil numbers are too high is also borne out in the latest positivity rates reported in the latest ONS Infection Survey. Thanks to the present lockdown measures, positivity rates have been falling across all age groups. However, the rate of fall has been slowest in the “Age 2 to School Year 6” age group.

It’s important to recognise from SAGE’s Task and Finish Group report that, while the estimated rates of test positivity and External Exposure are highest of all for secondary-aged children, the rates of Transmissibility are the same across the whole 2-16 age group. In addition, while primary-aged test positivity and External Exposure rates may have been lower than those of secondary-aged children, they were still found to be higher than those of adults aged 17+.

In short, unions and parents should not accept the argument that there are minimal risks associated with the full reopening of primary schools. This is not backed up by the UK data.

iii)  International Data – and the new variants

One argument that will be made by those arguing for a premature unsafe school reopening will be that “there is no firm evidence of school transmission”.  But the reason that UK conclusions are having to be based in good part on correlation, rather than clear cause, is because of the failure to have reliable working track and trace systems that could have provided that UK evidence!

However, there are many international studies that have provided such additional evidence, evidence which must not be ignored in the UK. I have posted links to some of these international studies in previous articles.

A recent British Medical Journal article reports on further international evidence from Israel and Italy. Both raise particular concerns about the greater transmissibility of the new variants of the virus amongst young children.

Israeli figures suggest that the spread of the “UK variant B1.1.7”  has been linked to a sharp rise in new daily cases accounted for by children aged under 10. Similar concerns have been raised by a study in northern Italy where 10% of a village’s population of 1400 were reported to have tested positive for the virus.  60% of those positive tests were from children of primary or infant school age. These young children are thought to have infected other family members.

This potential of greater transmissibility of the new variants amongst younger children is another reason to proceed with caution when it comes to reopening primary schools fully.

Vaccination must be considered separately to transmission

The UK Government must ensure that infection levels are much lower before moving to release lockdown, including starting to fully reopen schools, or we will just see a repeat of the surges seen when this was done previously.

Dr Gurdasani made these key points in her presentation to the BBC on 12 February:

1)      It’s clearly very welcome that lockdown measures have helped lower the Reproduction Number ( R ) beneath 1.0  but the latest ONS Infection Survey still estimates that 1 in 80 people in England are infected and the number of confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospital is still higher than the April 2020 peak.

2)      Vaccinated individuals may still transmit the virus, so measures to decrease and maintain low transmission rates must be in place. These must be considered separately, and in parallel, to extending the level of vaccination across the population. Remember that the vaccine is not yet licensed for use with children.

3)      High levels of transmission also provide more opportunities for mutation and replication of new variants, potentially undermining vaccination response.

4)      A good test, trace, isolate and support system must be in place to address outbreaks and maintain low levels of infections. (‘Support’ includes financial help for those isolating or stay at home to provide childcare).

5)      If the Government adopts such a careful ‘elimination’ strategy, we could return to more normal lives, as seen in e.g. Australia, but, if they don’t, then we may have to endure repeated lockdowns and restrictions for years to come.

6)      We cannot only focus on Covid deaths, again Office for National Statistics evidence confirms that around 10% of those infected are also suffering from “Long Covid” with a range of symptoms remaining after 12 weeks.

7)      Further ONS data on Long-Covid estimates around 300,000 individuals are presently suffering from “Long Covid” symptoms after 5 weeks and that includes a significant proportion (over 1 in 7) of school-aged children.

So when will it be safe to start reopening schools fully?

A range of different bodies have reached the same conclusions about what needs to be done. This should form the basis of a trade union position, with unions also using their collective strength to put these demands into practice, if necessary, to defend safety:

i)   Independent SAGE – “Data not Dates” – A Tiered Approach

I have previously reported on Independent SAGE’s proposals for a tiered reopening of schools, based on the case rates in a local authority area. In summary, their Traffic Light system proposes:

• Schools in a local authority area should begin to reopen when R is less than 1 and the incidence falls below 100 per 100,000 confirmed cases per week.

• When the rate is between 50 and 100 cases per 100k, schools should employ ‘red light’ safeguards, including:

-          Reduced class sizes either through prioritising the return of certain year groups and/or through a rota system within years whereby, at any point in time, half of pupils learn in-person and half online (with necessary provision of IT, broadband etc);

-          Wearing of masks in all classes for all school students, primary and secondary.

• When the rate is between 10 and 50 cases per 100k, schools should employ ‘amber light’ safeguards. These will allow all pupils to access full time in-person classes. However, mask wearing and banning of assemblies will be maintained.

• When the rate is below 10 cases per 100k per week, schools should employ ‘green light’ safeguards. These will remove all safeguards bar mask wearing in crowded spaces, basic social distancing and hygiene measures.

ii)   CDC Strategy for Phased Mitigation – Masks, Those At Higher Risk, Vaccination

In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, has just released a similar set of recommendations to those proposed by Independent SAGE.

Again, the CDC propose a phased approach based on the same “Traffic Light” levels of community transmission. They also stress the requirement for five key mitigation strategies to also be in place. These must be replicated in any serious plan for wider opening in the UK:

1)      Universal and correct use of masks

2)      Physical distancing

3)      Handwashing and respiratory etiquette

4)      Cleaning and maintaining healthy facilities

5)      Contact tracing in combination with isolation and quarantine

It’s important to note that the CDC are clear that “masks should be worn at all times, by all persons in school facilities, with exceptions for certain persons who, because of a disability, cannot wear a mask or wear a mask safely, or for certain settings such as while eating or drinking. Masks should be required in all classroom and non-classroom settings, including hallways, school offices, gyms, etc.”. This applies across ALL school sectors.

Staff should also remember that UK Legislation (The Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Reg.4) states clearly that “Every employer SHALL ensure that suitable personal protective equipment is provided to his employees who may be exposed to a risk to their health or safety while at work except where and to the extent that such risk has been adequately controlled by other means which are equally or more effective”.

The CDC also make clear that “students, teachers, and staff who are at high risk of severe illness or who live with people at high risk should be provided virtual options”.

On Vaccination, they state that: “Teachers and school staff hold jobs critical to the continued functioning of society and are at potential occupational risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. In order to support safe school reopening, state, territorial, local, and tribal (STLT) officials should consider giving high priority to teachers in early phases of vaccine distribution”.

“Access to vaccination should nevertheless not be considered a condition for reopening schools for in-person instruction. Even after teachers and staff are vaccinated, schools need to continue mitigation measures for the foreseeable future, including requiring masks in schools and physical distancing”.

iii)  Parents United – Open Letter, Ventilation, Close the Digital Divide

The 'Parents United' campaign, with the backing of some of the scientists mentioned above, have issued an open letter that draws on much of the evidence outlined above and calls for a similar tiered approach to that recommended by Independent SAGE and the CDC in the US.

It also raises these important additional demands:

- mitigate risk in high infection rate areas with smaller class sizes to reduce contacts, and the risk of airborne transmission. This could be achieved by the use of rotas, or by hiring more spaces and more mental-health and education staff. 

- acknowledge airborne transmission as a significant route of transmission of Covid-19, and provide school-specific guidance and funding for mitigation, which must be drawn up in consultation with aerosol science specialists and building ventilation consultants.  Mitigations likely to be suggested include reduced class sizes, increased mask use, installation of ventilation systems or the use of portable HEPA filters, and C0₂ monitoring.

- continue to disapply section 444 of the Education Act (so that parents are not fined over a lack of school attendance owing to Coronavirus health concerns) and ensure that a comprehensive, fully resourced online learning program is available to every family who wish to continue supporting their child’s learning from home.

- close the digital divide by providing laptops and broadband to children who need them to support learning from home - whether or not this is by choice.

    iv)   Infection rates not yet low enough in most Local Authorities even for partial opening

While infection rates thankfully continue to fall, if the “10/50/100 cases per 100,000” tiered "Traffic Light" criteria are applied in the UK, then no Nation and no English Region is yet (on 15/02/21) even in the ‘red light’ zone of under 100 per 100,000 cases over a 7-day period.

The latest official data can be found from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases. It shows that it’s possible that by early March, the date that the UK Government may be looking at to reopen schools fully, some Upper Tier Local Authorities (UTLAs) could be in a position to safely open – but only at an initial phase of reduced numbers. Even that depends on other mitigation measures to reduce the risks of transmission also being in place.

As things stand with a month to go , as the map on the UK Government Coronavirus Data website shows, infection rates in over 3/4 of UTLAs are still too high even for the partial opening suggested by Independent SAGE, and others, once a rate of 100/100,000 is reached.

The NEU must demand no school or college reopens fully unless our demands are met

Earlier in the pandemic, the NEU clearly set out ‘5 tests’ for Government to meet before schools could safely reopen. These were not in place sufficiently in September and, thanks to Government failure, our schools and colleges DID “become hot spots for Covid-19”, just as the NEU had warned would happen in our "5 tests".

In January, to avoid our members facing a serious and imminent danger, we had to urge members to invoke their “Section 44” rights to a safe workplace. We now urgently need to put forward a new set of “5 tests” that must be met if we are to avoid those serious dangers being repeated once again.

A new set of ‘5 tests’, based on the analysis above, could be:

Test 1 : Lower numbers of Covid-19 cases

No wider opening until Covid-19 cases in a Local Authority are securely beneath the rate of 100 per 1000,000 population over a 7-day period. No more than 50% in-school attendance* until Covid-19 cases are securely beneath the rate of 50 per 1000,000 population over a 7-day period.

Test 2 : Mitigation Strategies must be in place: Social Distancing, Masks, Ventilation

We insist not only on secure distancing and bubble protocols, but also, given the greater knowledge that now exists on the significance of airborne transmission, adequate ventilation and C0₂ monitoring as well as mask wearing in classrooms in primary and secondary schools.

Test 3 : Test, Trace, Isolate, Support

Guarantees that a test, trace, isolate and support system will be in place in order to respond to outbreaks, maintain low levels of infections and support those who have to isolate or stay at home to provide childcare. We also demand additional financial support to ensure schools have the additional staffing and resources needed for a safe phased return and to put in place a recovery curriculum that meets the needs of all students.

Test 4 : Whole school strategy

In addition to the overarching demands in these new ‘5 tests’, we insist on clear agreed risk assessments that ensure acceptable measures are in place in every workplace.

Test 5 : Protection for the vulnerable

Students and staff who are at high risk of severe illness, or who live with people at high risk should be able to work from home, using the teaching and learning methods developed over the last year.

This time, for the sake of the health, safety and welfare of staff, students, and our wider school communities, we must insist these tests are fully met.

* I have amended the wording of "Test One" from the initial "No full opening until ..." in order to leave no room for misinterpretation. This is based on the Independent SAGE proposals detailed above.

***

Download this post as a pdf file here: http://bit.ly/3pmoNOr