SCOTLAND'S biggest teaching union has described John Swinney's back-to-school plan as a "maybes aye, maybes naw" strategy.
The letter to members raises fresh pupil safety fears.
The country's schools are preparing to close for summer.
Plans for socially distanced teaching had been laid out and revealed to parents in most instances, with families told to prepare for a blended learning model which would see their youngsters in classrooms for a couple of days per week, depending on local circumstances.
But yesterday the Deputy First Minister said schools will aim to reopen full-time without physical distancing in August — if coronavirus continues to recede.
Days earlier, Swinney had said it was "unlikely" that schools would return to normal within a year.
Yesterday he said "the picture looks more positive" than when he began making blended learning plans in May, stating: "It is this more positive outlook that allows the Scottish government to make this change in planning for schools."
Responding, the EIS stated: "Everyone wishes to see schools operate as normal, but this should be done in a way which is demonstrably safe for students and staff, which doesn't undermine public health messages, and which is done with the interest of school communities being first and foremost and not political expediency."
Now it has described the Scottish Government's position as "maybes aye, maybes naw" in a message to members.
An email from general secretary Larry Flanagan says Swinney's Scottish Parliament statement has "sparked considerable debate, anxiety, frustration, confusion and even anger amongst many members".
Referring to the Scottish Government's routemap out of the crisis, it goes on: "Given that we are barely into Phase Two of moving out of lockdown, let alone in Phase Four, some significant caution needs to accompany yesterday's discussion and events in parliament.
"It is worth making clear that this was a political announcement from the Scottish Government — not an agreed outcome from CERG (Covid Education Recovery Group) which met only last week and discussed support for blended learning and the plight of NQTs [newly qualified teachers] but had no discussion around yesterday's statement."
Flanagan continued: "The Scottish Government appears to have moved from the previous presumption that the level of covid infection in Scottish society come August would require schools to reopen on a blended learning model, to one which suggests that the virus will have been suppressed sufficiently to allow schools to reopen with all pupils attending, albeit it with certain public health mitigations in place.
"That is certainly a shift in planning emphasis from the Scottish Government.
"Essentially it is a 'maybes aye, maybes naw' scenario, as ultimately the decision is dependent on where the level of Covid-19 infection will be in seven weeks time."
The letter said the EIS is "not convinced that no physical distancing between pupils is safe" and is "absolutely certain that physical distancing between pupils and teachers remains essential", stating: "It may be that the actual distance, come August, will have been reduced from the current 2 metres if the level of infection has dropped further, but there cannot be a social distancing rule for outside of schools and a different one for inside classrooms.
"We have raised already the issue of further mitigations potentially being required.
"At the moment we have asked for these to be considered without specifically advocating for them, and it may be that members will have different views which we will need to ascertain but, for example, why would it be mandatory to wear a face covering on public transport but not in a classroom?
"Why would a till assistant be protected by a perspex sheet but not a teacher?"
The Scottish Government has been asked for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel