The Trump Administration has prioritized re-opening schools this fall despite the threats of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Administration’s case for re-opening schools are based on several factors:
- Student learning is compromised in an online environment; students learning is more effective with in-person instruction.
- Many households do not have the required technology (computer equipment and internet access) to effectively accommodate on-line learning.
- Parents are ill-equipped to supervise their children’s learning.
- Students acquire important socialization skills within the classroom that cannot be duplicated in an on-line environment.
- Schools serve as important monitors of child abuse and neglect. In the first month of COVID-19, reported cases of child abuse and neglect fell over 40%. Historically, teachers and school officials are responsible for 20% of all reported cases. All this is happening at a time when the increased stresses caused by the pandemic and the increased time families are forced to spend together have almost certainly resulted in an actual increase, not a decrease, in both child abuse and neglect.
- The infection rate for young people is low and the consequences of them becoming infected are minimal.
- Parents are unable to return to work without their children being in school. As a result, economic recovery is compromised.
Economic inequality leads to the hardship and costs of keeping schools closed falling disproportionately on lower-income households. Schools in lower-income communities are less likely to have the best technology for online learning, lower-income households are less likely to own the necessary technology and have high quality internet access, parents in lower-income households would generally be less prepared to supervise their children’s learning, and parents in lower-income households feel greater financial pressure to be able to return to work. So, a case can be made that the re-opening of schools will benefit lower-income families.
However, it is likewise true that economic inequality also results in the costs of re-opening schools being disproportionately borne by lower-income households. Higher-income households are in school districts that have the resources to better ensure the safety of children returning to school. Schools and classrooms tend to be larger, better facilitating the recommended social distancing. Schools in lower-income/lower-wealth neighborhoods lack the needed resources and tend to be smaller and overcrowded, making social distancing within schools more difficult.
It is also true that re-opening schools will make it easier for parents to return to work and re-open the economy. However, returning to work creates greater risks for lower-income households relative to their higher-income counterparts. Since parents in higher-income households tend to work in white-collar jobs; they can more easily adopt a work-from-home model, eliminating the risk that a return to work will put them and their children at risk of contracting the virus from their jobs. On the other hand, parents in lower-income households are more likely to work in blue-collar jobs that require the physical presence of the worker at the worksite. This puts both these workers and their children at greater risk of contracting the virus from work-related sources since parents can bring the virus home from the work place.
Additionally, teachers, school administrators, and other school employees and their families will bear the cost and risk of re-opening schools. Since, for the most part, these individuals are middle-income/lower-income/lower wealth households, this is another way the cost of re-opening schools is being borne by such households.
Regardless of whether or not schools re-open, lower-income/lower-wealth households will bear a disproportionate share of the costs. The question is, then, in which direction are the costs for these households the least? Also, which set of costs can be most easily mitigated by government action? It would almost certainly seem that if the government provided adequate resources, the costs and risks of not re-opening schools would be less than the costs and risks of re-opening them.
This will be the subject of my next post.
