A MONTH ago, the First Minister announced plans for schools to return on August 11, but with “blended” learning: part-time attendance, and part-time at home. A week later, Government guidance said that such a model was expected for “a period of time”; on Tuesday, John Swinney reiterated that position, saying it was the product of weeks of work involving unions, local authorities and parents. Then at First Minister’s Questions, Ms Sturgeon described it as a “contingency”.

It’s reasonable to see this as a softening of the language, if not necessarily the policy, and to point, as opposition MSPs did, to the danger of “mixed messages”. It is not quite fair, however, to accuse the Government of “dithering” – it is weighing up the medical advice, trying to safeguard children and teachers, and essentially keeping in step with the Westminster Government’s policy, which is certainly no clearer.

And in one sense, every policy in this period is a “contingency” or, if you prefer, an aspiration. Every restriction and relaxation proposed or implemented has been dependent upon circumstances and attended by caveats declaring them subject to cancellation or reversal. That remains the case even if Holyrood and Westminster have both been guilty of misjudgment or inconsistency; indeed, errors and their correction are a practically unavoidable part of that process.

More decisive thinking, greater clarity and swifter action are nonetheless now essential when it comes to education. Without a return to something like normal schooling soon, a large section of the workforce will be hamstrung. Even more important is the urgent need to make up the shortfall already created in children’s education.

Despite the stalwart efforts of many teachers, this hiatus has been damaging, and unfortunately the evidence suggests it has had a disproportionate effect on the poorest pupils, and those who for other reasons need the most support. The commitment and sacrifice of individual teachers does not always seem to have been matched by the teaching unions, which have sometimes appeared more anxious to raise objections and reasons for delay than to seek ways of making schools’ reopening viable. Edinburgh Council’s plans, which could involve cutting provision by two-thirds, are equally unrealistic; claiming a need for funding or resources is one thing, but essentially disregarding the future prospects of children for convenience is deplorable.

As an entirely devolved issue, it is for the Scottish Government to take the decisions. It should, of course, plan restrictions if the course of the virus demands them but, given the view of Professor Devi Sridhar that she can “see right now no reason” why schools should not return in August, the aim and default should be to examine how near normal – including exams – we can get.

That may require protection for teachers – one of the few cheering points is that pupils themselves are one of the least at-risk groups – additional measures and, if necessary, funding for cleaning and other logistics, and contingencies for shielding measures or local closures where outbreaks occur.

The experience of other countries, such as Finland, with no rise in cases after the return of schools, should be considered; Northern Ireland has already decided that social distancing of one, rather than two, metres (the advice in many countries, and from the WHO) is appropriate for schools, even if more cautious guidance applies elsewhere.

This is not a question of changing policy on the basis of wishful thinking, public demand, or even balancing health risks against the damage closures have done to children’s education and prospects. We accept the Scottish Government is making those difficult calculations, and with the best intentions. But when there is considerable evidence and powerful arguments for schools going back being one of the most important, and least risky, elements of recovery, it is the Government’s responsibility to aim for that goal, and strain every sinew to achieve it.