In my previous post I argued that regardless of whether schools re-open or remain closed, that the cost and risk of doing either will be disproportionately borne by lower-income/lower-wealth households. The question then becomes which set of risks and costs, from re-opening or not re-opening schools, can most effectively be mitigated by government action? Almost certainly, the government is better able to lessen the costs and risks of keeping schools closed than re-opening them.
If schools re-open, the main cost and risk is of contracting the virus. The government will have great difficulty mitigating this. Schools in lower-income communities tend to be smaller and over-crowded. Implementing social distancing in such schools will be virtually impossible. Schools don’t have the resources to rent and equip new facilities to spread students out to different locations. This puts students, teachers, administrators, and support staff in schools located in lower-income communities at greater risk of becoming ill than those in higher-income communities.
When infected with the virus, the consequences tend to be more severe for individuals from lower-income communities. Their symptoms are worse, they are more likely to require hospitalization, and they at greater risk of dying. Health-care facilities and providers in lower-income communities also tend to be less likely to have necessary resources to most effectively treat those affected. This lack of resources includes adequate access to personal protective equipment which then puts providers in lower-income communities at greater risk of contracting the virus than providers in higher-income communities.
Had the Federal government acted more quickly and effectively these risks and costs could have been reduced. Financing and support could have been provided to rent large facilities such as sports venues, community centers, and convention facilities, and adequately equip them so safer in-person instruction could occur. Challenges such as transportation and adequate oversight would have existed, but could have been accomplished with adequate funding and support. Instead, the Trump Administration is demanding that schools re-open without providing the necessary funding, support, and guidance to ensure it can be done safely.
As a result of where we now are, the costs and risks of re-opening the schools is much greater relative to the costs and risks of not re-opening them, particularly for lower-income communities. In the case of re-opening schools, the risks and costs are primarily economic and financial as opposed to safety, and so the government can more effectively mitigate these costs and risk.
The main economic cost is the inability of parents to return to work. This can be mitigated with extending and expanding unemployment benefits for families. Moratoriums on rent and mortgage payments can be continued. Federal government food support programs can be expanded.
Greater Federal support could be provided to ensure lower-income households have the necessary technology to improve on-line learning. Equipment could be provided to lower-income/lower-wealth households. As with the Rural Electrification Program during the Great Depression, this is the time that Federal support should provide support to build a system to ensure all Americans have access to high quality internet. Such an effort would create jobs in the short-run, and like the rural Electrification Program, would enhance economic growth in the long run.
Greater support could be provided to parents to train them to better support their children’s online learning. Funds could be provided to schools to hire individuals that could provide such support. Help lines could be created so that either parents or student could call schools to get the guidance, advice, and counseling they need to help improve online learning.
Greater public health funding could be provided so that social workers would be more able and more available to respond to concerns about increases in child abuse and neglect. These individuals could be employed by or deployed to school districts to reach out to parents, either by phone or by visiting homes, to offer support and attempt to identify instances where abuse or neglect may be ocurring.
Certainly all the costs of keeping schools closed cannot be eliminated. In person learning is more effective for many students. Important socialization skills cannot be attained in an online learning environment. Parental support of learning will never be able to fully replicate the support offered in person by a professional teacher.
There is no perfect solution; these are difficult times. Unfortunately the Trump Administrations and the Republicans in Congress have chosen the same path Republicans have historically chosen. They are more willing to risk the health and safety of Americans, particularly lower-income/lower-wealth Americans, for economic and financial gain. This has been true with providing adequate health-care as Republicans opposed the passage of Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. It has been true in Republican opposition to environmental protection, the health-effects which disproportionately impact lower-income communities. It has been demonstrated by Republican opposition to workplace health and safety standards. And it has been demonstrated by Republican opposition to consumer protection legislation.
The Republican party has a long, sad history of putting economic and financial concerns ahead of the health and safety of the American public; particularly ahead of the health and safety of lower-income/lower-wealth households. It should be no surprise that they are doing the same when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic.
