The kids are not all right

When easing lockdowns, governments should open schools first
The costs of keeping them closed are too high

Covid-19 has shut the world’s schools. Three in four children live in countries where all classrooms are closed. The disruption is unprecedented. Unless it ends soon, its effect on young minds could be devastating.

During some epidemics keeping children at home is wise; they are efficient spreaders of diseases such as seasonal flu. However, they appear to be less prone to catching and passing on covid-19. Closing schools may bring some benefit in slowing the spread of the disease, but less than other measures. Against this are stacked the heavy costs to children’s development, to their parents and to the economy

A few countries, such as Denmark, are gradually reopening schools. Others, including Italy, say they will not do so until the autumn. In America, despite recent calls from President Donald Trump for schools to open, most states plan to keep their classrooms closed for the rest of the academic year—and possibly longer. That is a mistake. As countries ease social distancing, schools should be among the first places to unlock.

Consider the costs of barring children from the classroom. No amount of helicopter parenting or videoconferencing can replace real-life teachers, or the social skills acquired in the playground. Even in the countries best prepared for e-learning, such as South Korea, virtual school is less good than the real thing.

Poorer children suffer most. Zoom lessons are little use if your home lacks good Wi-Fi, or if you have to fight with three siblings over a single phone. And whereas richer families often include well-educated parents who prod their offspring to do their homework and help when they get stuck, poorer families may not.

In normal times school helps level the playing field. Without it, the achievement gap between affluent and working-class children will grow. By one estimate, American eight-year-olds whose learning stopped altogether with the lockdown could lose nearly a year’s maths by autumn, as they fail to learn new material and forget much of what they already knew.

School matters for parents, too, especially those with young children. Those who work at home are less productive if distracted by loud wails and the eerie silence that portends jam being spread on the sofa. Those who work outside the home cannot do so unless someone minds their offspring. And since most child care is carried out by mothers, they will lose ground in the workplace while schools remain shut.

In poor countries the costs are even greater. Schools there often provide free lunches, staving off malnutrition, and serve as hubs for vaccinating children against other diseases. Pupils who stay at home now may never return. If the lockdown pushes their families into penury, they may have to go out to work. Better to re-open schools, so that parents can earn and children can study.

The obvious rejoinder is that shutting schools brings benefits. Covid-19 can be deadly. Parents do not want their children to catch it or to give it to grandma.

In fact, though children are highly susceptible to flu, covid-19 is different. Two studies from China that trace the contacts of infected people find that children are at worst no more likely to catch the disease than adults—and possibly less so. If they do get it, they are 2,000 times less likely than someone over 60 to die.

Nor is there evidence that children who do end up catching the disease are silent spreaders who pass it on to their families. Researchers in Iceland and the Netherlands have not found a single case in which a child brought the virus into their family. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the European Union’s public-health agency, said last week that child-to-adult transmission “appears to be uncommon”.

Some of these conclusions are based on small samples. Perhaps children have not been seen to transmit the disease because schools were shut early rather than because they pose no special threat. Perhaps they will start to spread it in the playground.

Schools should thus re-open in stages. The youngest children should return first, to crèches and primary schools. They have the thirstiest brains and seem to be the least at risk. They also demand the most of their parents, since few have grasped the principles of self-directed learning. Little children are unlikely to keep their distance from anyone. Classes should be split in half so that they can attend on alternate days.

Those facing exams should come next. Several countries have cancelled important tests; others have postponed them. Older students may be more at risk than the youngest ones but they are also more able to follow new protocols. Social distancing is possible in high schools, particularly if class sizes are reduced.

School openings will need to be monitored. Scientists should adjust the rules if necessary. Children who must stay at home should be contacted directly by the school. Teachers will need support. Those most vulnerable to infection, such as diabetics, should be able to teach remotely. The rest will need guidance on hygiene and social distancing. They should be tested regularly for covid-19.

Governments are understandably wary of being called bossy: no politician wants to give orders that may be widely disobeyed. France is considering reopening schools but making attendance voluntary. The trouble with this approach is that it may entrench educational inequality. A recent poll there suggests that 48% of well-off families would send their children back; only 17% of poor ones would. Under Britain’s lockdown, more than 500,000 vulnerable children have been allowed to go to school, including those with special needs; just 5% have turned up.

The best approach would be to apply attendance rules sensitively. Insist that education is compulsory, but don’t fine frightened parents willy-nilly—especially if they have extra reasons to fear infection. As classes return, parents will see that it is safe, and come round to the idea of sending their own children. Governments should help children make up for lost lessons with free summer schools, shorter holidays and longer school days.

Reopening schools may feel like a rash experiment with young lives. In fact it is an exercise in risk-balancing. Schools are the most powerful engines of social mobility in any society. Let the children in, and let them learn.

SOURCE 





COVID-19 campus closures lead to questions about university overreach

With educational institutions increasingly closing their campuses and moving to online classes in response to COVID-19, university regulations on off-campus conduct raise fresh questions about the scope of university power over students.

For example, at Indiana University, campus police have broken up off-campus parties attended by IU students, threatening disciplinary action against students who violate government social distancing guidelines and stay-at-home orders. At the University of Dayton in Ohio, police in riot gear broke up students partying after the university suspended classes and campus housing. Also, at Clemson University, administrators promised disciplinary sanctions against students who continue to flaunt a ban on large gatherings.

Violations of local and state law, as well as disruptions to the normal operations of the university, are grounds for university discipline in virtually every code of student conduct. However, when it comes to university rules untethered to illegal acts, it remains an open question how far these rules can extend to ensure student safety during a pandemic.

The scope of these rules merits heightened scrutiny when they conflict with the university’s obligation to uphold students’ constitutional and statutory rights. Students have the First Amendment right “to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends” — from fraternity parties to meetings for local community organizations. As students’ interactions become increasingly limited to online contacts, the institution’s interests in protecting safety may, in some cases, diminish, limiting their ability to penalize or police student expression.

That institutions may assert dubious safety rationales that burden students’ rights is not merely theoretical. In the name of student safety before the COVID-19 outbreak, FIRE has seen universities ban students from communicating with one another over social media; punish students for seeking to form an off-campus, non-university affiliated group; and, in a particularly egregious instance of administrative overreach, level Title IX charges against a student at another college. (We’re looking at you, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.)

In these circumstances, where university restrictions impinge upon constitutional rights, we’ve criticized schools for imposing regulations having little to no relationship with the ills supposedly addressed. This reflects a central principle of American constitutional law: If the government seeks to restrict liberty, especially the core freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the restriction must actually further the alleged goal. When universities assert dubious or pretextual safety rationales to justify rights restrictions, it damages their credibility for when legitimate safety concerns actually require incremental burdens on expressive or associational rights.

As governments home and abroad take extraordinary repressive measures in response to COVID-19, FIRE is keeping a sharp eye on universities that do the same. FIRE remains ready to push back against undue restrictions on students’ rights, and we will continue to monitor as circumstances evolve. To that end, we encourage students and faculty who believe their rights have been violated by their universities to reach out to us.

SOURCE 





Australia: Year 12 given priority as schools plan return - but not all parents are happy

NSW public high schools are encouraging year 12 students to return to school full-time from next week as independent schools increasingly resume normal classroom operations.

Premier Gladys Berejiklian wants students at school one day a week from May 11 but high schools are prioritising year 12, with many providing full-time classroom teaching from next Monday.

Newtown Performing Arts High has written to parents telling them school resumes full-time for year 12 from May 11, while Killara High is open "each day for those year 12 students who wish to attend".

Other high schools − Sydney Girls, Tempe and Greystanes − have allocated at least three or four days.

Their decision comes as a growing number of independents schools, including St Andrew's Cathedral School, are asking year 12 students to return five days a week from next week.

Headmaster Dr John Collier said: "Parents have overall received this very well."

But parents across the state have mixed views about the safety of returning to school and using public transport. Those with year 12 students were more concerned about the loss of up to six weeks of HSC preparation time.

Anne-Maree Williams from Peakhurst said she was glad to be sending her 18-year-old son Jack back to his secondary Catholic college because he was in his crucial final year.

"He needs to be back in the classroom with his teacher and learning with his mates because it is the most important year," she said.

Keeli Cambourne from Nowra said she was keen for her son Archie Lasker, 17, to return to complete his HSC and wishes schools had not gone into lockdown.

But a mother from Ryde, an area that has experienced COVID-19 outbreaks, said her daughter in year 7 was"really unhappy about going back to school".

The mother, who did not want her name published, said her daughter felt like children were "being used like guinea pigs", and that it was impossible to socially distance in the high school corridors.

A Southern Highlands mother of two teenage boys, who also did not want her name published, said she liked the idea of her sons returning for social reasons, but felt anxious about the potential health risk. "I will send them and follow the rules. But I'll feel anxious," she said.

A spokesman for Education Minister Sarah Mitchell said: "We deliberately gave our 2200 NSW public schools the flexibility to implement the return to classrooms in a way that benefits all their students. These individual school plans are examples of principals using this flexibility to provide for all their students while prioritising their HSC students."

NSW P&C Federation president Tim Spencer said parents had very mixed views about sending their children back and many saw online learning from home as "treading water".

The Australian Parents Council, which represents parents of children at independent schools, said "many are fearful about sending their children back to school for face-to-face teaching".

President Jenny Rickard said she had received mixed views from parents but "predominantly it is expressing concern".

Parents were also concerned about risks associated with the risk of infection on public transport.

NSW Teachers Federation president Angelo Gavrielatos said teachers were concerned and "looking closely" at infection outbreaks in New Zealand and Victoria where a teacher at a primary school has tested positive for coronavirus.

The concerns of teachers and parents were raised as federal Education Minister Dan Tehan admitted he had overstepped the mark and withdrew his comments after accusing Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews of a “failure of leadership” for not reopening schools.

Melissa Socrates from Sydney's northern beaches said while she had faith in government assurances that it was safe for her to send her three children back, she still felt slightly worried about the safety risk.

"I am relatively comfortable with them going back. I'm a little bit apprehensive but I'm comfortable with the way the schools are approaching it in terms of the social distancing and staggering the years coming back," she said.

SOURCE