Why the CDC Is Stressing the Importance of Schools Reopening This Fall

COVID has created another new and intense debate: should schools reopen in the fall? If you watch CNN, you’d think to send kids back to school was akin to the death march to Bataan. It’s not. In fact, the socioeconomic impact of a whole generation of kids not learning for a year is probably more devastating than anything COVID could dish out. Accountability standards are spotty with this online learning protocol school boards are adopting. In some locations, like Nashville, around 30 percent of the 86,000-student body doesn’t have a home computer. In New York City, there are horror stories about how we really cannot gauge if students there learned…anything.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a pretty thorough post about why it’s key for kids to return to school. First and foremost, kids don’t appear to be heavily impacted by this virus. Transmission among kids is also low. And yes, that New York Times piece about schools being possible areas of spread from South Korea was flawed as hell. It’s par for the course, given another panic piece about churches being a mecca source for transmission. The CDC was quite clear about the risks for kids at school. It’s low. And the dangers for keeping them out of school (via CDC):

The best available evidence indicates that COVID-19 poses relatively low risks to school-aged children.  Children appear to be at lower risk for contracting COVID-19 compared to adults.  To put this in perspective, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of July 17, 2020, the United States reported that children and adolescents under 18 years old account for under 7 percent of COVID-19 cases and less than 0.1 percent of COVID-19-related deaths.[5]  Although relatively rare, flu-related deaths in children occur every year. From 2004-2005 to 2018-2019, flu-related deaths in children reported to CDC during regular flu seasons ranged from 37 to 187 deaths.  During the H1N1pandemic (April 15, 2009 to October 2, 2010), 358 pediatric deaths were reported to CDC. So far in this pandemic, deaths of children are less than in each of the last five flu seasons, with only 64.† Additionally, some children with certain underlying medical conditions, however, are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19.*

Scientific studies suggest that COVID-19 transmission among children in schools may be low.  International studies that have assessed how readily COVID-19 spreads in schools also reveal low rates of transmission when community transmission is low.  Based on current data, the rate of infection among younger school children, and from students to teachers, has been low, especially if proper precautions are followed.  There have also been few reports of children being the primary source of COVID-19 transmission among family members. This is consistent with data from both virus and antibody testing, suggesting that children are not the primary drivers of COVID-19 spread in schools or in the community. No studies are conclusive, but the available evidence provides reason to believe that in-person schooling is in the best interest of students, particularly in the context of appropriate mitigation measures similar to those implemented at essential workplaces.

[…]

Extended school closure is harmful to children.  It can lead to severe learning loss, and the need for in-person instruction is particularly important for students with heightened behavioral needs. Following the wave of school closures in March 2020 due to COVID-19, academic learning slowed for most children and stopped for some.  A survey of 477 school districts by the University of Washington’s Center on Reinventing Public Education found that, “far too many schools are leaving learning to chance.” Just one in three school districts expected teachers to provide instruction, track student engagement, or monitor academic progress for all students, and wealthy school districts were twice as likely to have such expectations compared to low-income districts.

We also know that, for many students, long breaks from in-person education are harmful to student learning.  For example, the effects of summer breaks from in-person schooling on academic progress, known as “summer slide,” are also well-documented in the literature.  According to the Northwest Evaluation Association, in the summer following third grade, students lose nearly 20 percent of their school-year gains in reading and 27 percent of their school-year gains in math. By the summer after seventh grade, students lose on average 39 percent of their school-year gains in reading and 50 percent of their school-year gains in math. This indicates that learning losses are large and become even more severe as a student progresses through school.  The prospect of losing several months of schooling, compared to the few weeks of summer vacation, due to school closure likely only makes the learning loss even more severe.

Disparities in educational outcomes caused by school closures are a particular concern for low-income and minority students and students with disabilities.  Many low-income families do not have the capacity to facilitate distance learning (e.g. limited or no computer access, limited or no internet access), and may have to rely on school-based services that support their child’s academic success.  A study by researchers at Brown and Harvard Universities assessed how 800,000 students used Zearn, an online math program, both before and after schools closed in March 2020.  Data showed that through late April, student progress in math decreased by about half, with the negative impact more pronounced in low-income zip codes. Persistent achievement gaps that already existed before COVID-19, such as disparities across income levels and races, can worsen and cause serious, hard-to-repair damage to children’s education outcomes. Finally, remote learning makes absorbing information more difficult for students with disabilities, developmental delays, or other cognitive disabilities.  In particular, students who are deaf, hard of hearing, have low vision, are blind, or have other learning disorders (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)) and other physical and mental disabilities have had significant difficulties with remote learning.

There’s also an increased risk to children regarding child predators. They sure don’t want these kids to go back to school. The data points to one thing: it’s safe for kids to go back to school with standard COVID precautions. The dangers of keeping them locked up for another year seems like the worse option by more than a few touchdowns.

SOURCE






UK: How to defend free speech on campus

It is truly a sad state of affairs when a government has to insist that universities that need bailouts to manage the economic impact of Covid-19 will first have to ‘demonstrate their commitment’ to freedom of speech.

The education secretary, Gavin Williamson, has said that his government’s decision to provide financial support for struggling English universities will depend on the universities’ willingness to uphold free speech.

What is happening here? Throughout modern history it was the university that sought to uphold free speech against encroachment by governments. Until relatively recently, the commitment to freedom in all its forms was far more robust on campuses than in any other part of society.

When I began my career as an academic in 1974, I had no doubt that we enjoyed a wide degree of freedom to express even the most controversial of views. We felt reassured that the freedom to argue and debate was seen as being integral to academic life.

That was then. Today, in relation to freedom of expression, the relationship between the university and the world outside has been reversed. Linguistic policing and the ethos of censorship are flourishing on campuses. Indeed, these trends are now far more deeply embedded in the academy than in the rest of society. An academic with controversial views is far more likely to get a fair hearing in a pub or at public gatherings than inside many senior common rooms.

Tragically, higher education in the UK has become estranged from the values of freedom. When I was a student, many of us devoted considerable effort to testing the prevailing intellectual boundaries and to widening the scope for freedom. Today, many student activists seem to devote far more energy to the goal of constraining free speech. And yet, despite this, many members of the academic community have managed to convince themselves that the ‘free-speech crisis’ on campus is a myth.

There have been numerous reports about the scourge of No Platforming and cancel culture in universities. But a far more insidious development has been the growing tendency among students and academics to censor themselves. The fear of saying the wrong thing or using the wrong words has encouraged far too many sensible people to keep their heads down. Time and again I receive emails from academics praising me for taking a stand on free speech but also saying that they are reluctant to voice their views because of the possible negative consequences.

It is unlikely that Gavin Williamson’s measure of attaching funding to freedom of speech will have the desired consequences. Illiberal sentiments are deeply embedded in contemporary campus culture. There are no quick-fix solutions for encouraging people to embrace the value of free speech.

Nevertheless, at least Williamson is sending out a signal that, in a democratic society, freedom of speech, a foundational value of democracy, ought to be taken seriously by academics. Perhaps more people on campuses will be prepared to open their mouths if they feel that their institutions are at least formally committed to free speech.

Governments cannot impose freedom on institutions that have little appetite for it. Nor should they attempt to do so, for official intervention in academic life could further undermine the integrity of university life. However, in principle, governments have the right to insist that institutions that expect public funding should have a responsibility to uphold values that are integral to democratic public life. No doubt academics will rightly resent being lectured by government, but this is a problem of their own making

In the end, the future of free speech on campus depends on the attitudes of those in the academic community. The question at stake is this: are they going to squander the precious legacy of freedom and tolerance fought for by previous generations, or are they going to take matters into their own hands and reaffirm the core values of academic life?

SOURCE






For Our Kids' Sake, Open the Schools

The Left's no-school stance is becoming less tenable and less family-friendly.

The first two sentences of Dr. Scott Gottlieb’s recent Wall Street Journal op-ed were a masterpiece of straightforward simplicity: “Schools should open in the fall. It’s critical for meeting the educational and social needs of children.”

It’d be hard to improve on those 17 words, and Gottlieb doesn’t. Instead, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration spends the rest of his column walking an epidemiological tightrope — a tightrope that’s suspended just six inches off the ground. We now know that, despite the well-known caveats, schools are the best place for most children, and probably the safest place, too. But beyond Gottlieb’s forceful “Schools should open” viewpoint, he seemed unwilling to take a side in this critical discussion.

Missing from Gottlieb’s piece is the latest news out of the United Kingdom about the risk to teachers of being infected by their students — a risk that at this point seems to be, well, nonexistent. As the Times of London reports, “There has been no recorded case of a teacher catching the coronavirus from a pupil anywhere in the world, according to one of the government’s leading scientific advisers. Mark Woolhouse, a leading epidemiologist and member of the government’s Sage committee, told The Times that it may have been a mistake to close schools in March given the limited role children play in spreading the virus.”

Are there any other parents out there — parents who watched their kids struggle through week after week of sleep-inducing online coursework — who think, like Dr. Woolhouse, “that it may have been a mistake to close schools in March”?

James Freeman, also writing in The Wall Street Journal, poses an excellent question in his headline: “Do teachers have an excuse for missing class?” Freeman also cites the UK study, and then he adds, “Around the world, citizens have perhaps become more wary lately of the claims of epidemiologists. But at a minimum this report puts new pressure on lockdown advocates to produce evidence of alleged harms to justify school closures. This also creates a rather awkward moment for U.S. teachers unions and their media friends.”

Awkward, indeed, because the unions and their media enablers have been disingenuously prattling on about the safety of “the children,” when the science seems to say otherwise. If we didn’t know better, we’d swear this cabal wasn’t concerned about the kids at all; that it was instead sowing chaos and confusion within American families all across the nation in an effort to hurt Donald Trump and help Joe Biden. Call it the Left’s BIG Lie about getting back to school.

The president, meanwhile, has made his position perfectly clear. And he’s willing to put his family’s skin in the game.

Of course, the president is not alone here. In an NBC News interview last week, “five top pediatricians across the country” were unanimous on this point: “The benefits of being in the classroom far outweigh the risk of getting the disease.” And when asked directly about letting their own children go back to school, they responded: “I will. My kids are looking forward to it.” “Yes, period.” “Absolutely. As much as I can. Without a hesitation, yes.” “I have no concerns about sending my child to school in the fall.” “I would let my kids go back to school.”

As for the larger medical community, the American Academy of Pediatrics has seen enough of online learning to know what’s best for the kids. Recently, it issued this clinical guidance: “The AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school. The importance of in-person learning is well-documented, and there is already evidence of the negative impacts on children because of school closures in the spring of 2020.”

With each passing day, the Left’s anti-science stance becomes less tenable and less family-friendly. Remember this on November 3.

SOURCE






Here's how we can lift the standards of school teachers

Matthew Bach

An increased respect for school teachers may be one of the few welcome effects of this pandemic.

During the period of online learning (unfortunately still ongoing for most in Victoria) teachers did brilliantly to adapt, delivering innovative lessons.

Meanwhile, parents had a taste of just how challenging their children could be at school. More than a few were relieved when classes reopened. There is no doupt most teachers are excellent dedicated, expert and genuinely interested in the students they teach.

As a teacher and school leader before entering the Victorian parliament, I know this first-hand. But, as in any profession, a small number of teachers is not up to the mark. Most of us know someone who fell into teaching because their preferred career option didn't work out, or who always struggled academically yet is in charge of a classroom full of young minds.

One history teacher I used to work with thought, like Victoria's Deputy Chief Health Officer Armaliese van Diemen, that James Cook led the First Fleet. And while teaching religious studies I had to explain to a colleague that he was wrong to teach his students that Catholics weren't Christians. He wasn't trying to make some theological point; he just wasn't too bright.

It has been worrying to learn that one in 10 student teachers fails to meet the most basic standard in literacy and numeracy. The Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education Students, which was introduced in 2016, in time will prove to be a useful tool to improve teacher quality. So will increased Australian Tertiary Admission Rank scores for teaching courses -- not that either is a silver bullet.

When I first started secondary teaching I remember how struck I was by the almost complete autonomy I enjoyed: no appraisal, no key performance indicators, no meaningful oversight. I could teach whatever I liked, however I liked. As long as students and parents did not complain about me, I could do as I pleased.

This teacher autonomy is part of the culture of schools. But it has to change, as it has started to change — in a positive way — in the better private schools.

Far from the clutches of the powerful public education unions, some independent schools have started to introduce meaningful systems of staff appraisal. The best models include regular lesson observations by a school leader, with structured feedback; student surveys on teacher performance; targeted professional development guided by a mentor; and goal setting, with progress reviews.

This can be done, in my experience, in a collegial and supportive way. The many excellent teachers can be affirmed, encouraged and - enabled to be the best they can be. Underperformers can be supported to improve or perhaps weeded out.

This type of change, especially in state schools, will be difficult But we can't ignore the facts. The performance of Australian students in the critical areas of literacy, numeracy and science has been going backwards for years — at least since the Program for International Student Assessment first started publishing its reports in 2000. Teacher quality is not the only reason for this. From personal experience I know most teachers to be hardworking, quality educators. But if our goal is to provide every Australian kid with a great education, improving teacher quality must be a major part of the conversation.

From "The Australian" of 22.7.20