An Open Letter to My Kids’ School District Regarding the Reopening Plan
Dear Directors of the Board of Education,
I am writing to you as a parent of elementary aged children and as a social policy researcher. I have strong concerns about re-opening the schools to in-person instruction, given the few details that have been released about what that will look like next month. The all-or-nothing approach that was outlined asks parents to choose to send children for all-day, 5 days a week instruction or to commit to a year of full-time remote learning. I believe there is a different approach available that would prioritize student and staff health while incorporating the best scientific knowledge available about this virus.
First, although initial evidence from China and Italy suggested that children may be less impacted by severe COVID-19 illness than other age groups, newer evidence — including evidence from the US — is more mixed. As it turns out, in communities that have widespread community transmission, children are quite susceptible to COVID-19. About 1/3 of the 54,000+ children who have been tested for COVD-19 in Florida have tested positive, for instance, and while most of these children were asymptomatic or had “mild” symptoms, we are now learning that even with mild illness, permanent heart or lung damage may be more common than initially realized. We may be exposing a whole generation of children to life-long disabilities if we send them into high-risk situations right now, and we clearly need more research on the long-term effects of COVID-19 before we expose our children to it.
Furthermore, initial evidence has suggested that risk of contracting COVID-19 increases with age, and we have seen this in Colorado: children age 10–19 have higher rates of infection than children age 0–9, though both age groups have been impacted and their numbers are rising. So, it seems like the protections necessary for middle and high school students are different than those necessary for elementary school students.
Second, it does seem that the combination of proper mask usage PLUS adequate physical distancing and/or circulating of outdoor or filtered air can significantly decrease transmission of this illness. Ideally, we would hold all classes outdoors, but short of that, it seems clear that small class sizes (10 students or fewer) are necessary in order to ensure 6’ distance between students in the district’s classrooms. With very small classes, no exchange of students form period to period, and 100% mask usage, it might be possible to hold in-person classes safely. But right now it seems that there are no specific plans in place to reduce class sizes beyond the attrition that will occur if families choose to keep their kids home for remote learning. Unless 2/3 of the student population stay home, the classes will simply be too big.
Third, we have no reasonable expectation that students who attend in-person will be COVID-free when they enter the building. Although the Governor is now imposing a statewide mask order, current data show that even in places where mask orders are in place, cases are still increasing and will do so until we achieve 65% or higher rates of social distancing. Re-opening schools will DECREASE social distancing, not help to increase it, and so we should expect community spread to increase until community behavior changes substantially.
Since many children exhibit only mild symptoms, if any at all, and these symptoms are consistent with many other minor illnesses such as the common cold, it is quite likely that a number of parents will elect to send students to school even if the child seems a little tired, has a slight runny nose, or had a fever that was easily treated with Tylenol prior to drop-off. In an environment in which parent cooperation is likely to be uneven, it can only be safe to bring children together in-person when there is NOT widespread community transmission. Currently, in our county, cases and hospitalizations are increasing, not decreasing; unless this situation changes significantly, it seems unreasonable to expect that bringing students together will be low- or moderate-risk.
Lastly, I have spoken only of children and their risk, but the schools cannot function without adults. Teachers and staff are at much higher risk of serious illness and even death from COVID-19. If they are forced to spend whole days in closed classrooms with children — especially children not wearing masks — their risk is extremely high. Not only is this inhumane, but it is also short-sighted from a personnel perspective. Who steps in when teachers get sick? What happens when a number of teachers develop the long-term effects of COVID-19 that cause them to be out on disability for months or years? (A recent study found that 87% of patients discharged after hospitalization from COVID-19 were still symptomatic 2 months after discharge.) And who will address the significant trauma to the community when teachers begin dying, as happened in New York in March and April? Think of the profound effects on students if they worry that their illness was the cause of a teacher’s death, for instance.
It seems as though an approach that keeps older students and staff home is the best way to start the year. Perhaps elementary school students could return in cohorts of 10 or less per classroom, spread out across the many elementary, middle, and high school buildings in the district. Teachers without underlying health risks could be asked to teach these smaller cohorts, with a priority placed on outdoor time when weather permits, and with mask-wearing made mandatory. Older children would stay home and engage in eLearning, though cohorts of older special education students might be brought in for in-person instruction when that is in the best interests of the child. And if we reach a point when cases are steadily decreasing in the county, in-person experiences for older kids could be planned in a way that ensures physical distancing and focuses on the social-emotional health needs of students who crave social interaction. (Maybe half-day, once a week get togethers of classes could be arranged, for instance, instead of this all-or-nothing approach that has been proposed.)
This type of approach is recommended, by the way, in this report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25858/reopening-k-12-schools-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-prioritizing.
In short, I think the district should take some time to adopt a more creative approach that reflects the best science available and strategically uses district resources to balance the health & mental health AND economic needs of students, staff, and parents. I recognize that school is a source of meals, mental health support, and even health care for many students, and it’s a source of essential childcare for working parents. Obviously, it’s a source of income for teachers, who are an underappreciated backbone of our community. All of these concerns are important, but as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs teaches us, without a reasonable expectation of physical safety, none of these groups can thrive.
Thank you for considering this perspective as you finalize decisions for the 2020–21 AY.
Sincerely,
Jennifer C. Greenfield, PhD, MSW
Associate Professor & Mom of twin first graders
