As we approach the start of a school year unlike any other, public officials have reached the consensus that American primary and secondary schools should reopen this fall. To mitigate the risk of outbreaks, various public health authorities and school districts have released detailed plans and recommendations, often including mandatory social distancing, face masks, cohorting, and daily temperature checks. Given their adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s reopening guidelines, these practices are likely to protect the well-being and promote the academic progress of most students. However, it should be assumed that at least some proportion of returning students will fall ill with COVID-19 and then be excluded from in-person instruction. Surging numbers of reported COVID-19 cases — which probably only capture a fraction of the disease’s true path — will inevitably include children as they begin to gather in schools.
Tragically, those most likely to be infected with COVID-19 are those most prone to be academically disadvantaged while learning remotely. In terms of U.S. achievement and learning metrics, a variety of ethnic minorities, low-income groups, and LGBTQIA+ students were already falling behind at disproportionate rates before the pandemic began. These demographics are also more likely to suffer from preexisting conditions, be malnourished, and lack access to the internet, each of which makes them more vulnerable to COVID-19. It is for this reason that school reopening plans need to account for the upcoming exclusion of vulnerable populations; if these students are most likely to be quarantined and struggle to learn remotely while their peers return to in-person schooling, the already widening disparities in learning outcomes will only increase.
School closures in the spring of 2020 drastically reduced learning outcomes for some demographics. Studies have shown, for example, that lockdown caused immense disparities in remote learning outcomes between income brackets, with “student progress in math” remaining unaffected among students in high-income ZIP codes but being halved among their counterparts in low-income ZIP codes. A McKinsey model has also predicted that in the coming year, even if all classes were conducted online, the average loss in educational progress would be seven months across all American students, but 10.3 months for Black students, 9.2 months for Hispanic students, and more than a year for low-income students. Based on this information, they state that “this would exacerbate existing achievement gaps by 15 to 20 percent.”
For the upcoming fall semester, the federal government has largely left states to determine the length of and criteria for a student’s exclusion from school due to infection. Notably, these state-level regulations and policies vary considerably. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that when a student tests positive for COVID-19, they should be told by their school to “stay home and self-isolate for the timeframe recommended by public health officials.” At least Michigan and New York turn to the CDC guidance for this timeline: between 10 and 14 days. States like Vermont and Missouri, however, do not specify how long these students will need to learn remotely: The former suggests that they should not return to school until “they are no longer considered contagious,” and the latter asserts that “more restrictive ordinance[s] should be followed in order to better protect the health of students and staff.” Even high school students subjected to the most conservative measure among these examples — 10 days outside of school — may be up to 36% more likely to drop out before graduating.
In states such as Illinois, students may not even need to test positive for COVID-19 to be excluded from classrooms; schools are advised to consider students’ ability to “control secretions, cover mouth/nose when sneezing and coughing,” and other behavioral tendencies when deciding who can attend in-person classes. Further, while self-isolating, students may not be able to participate in after-school activities remotely. Local education agencies in Texas, for example, are allowed to “exclude students who are learning remotely from all extracurricular activities.” The vagueness and arbitrariness of some of these policies, particularly in comparison to the strict, highly detailed, and well-evidenced recommendations in place for students in classrooms, demonstrates the relative neglect of quarantined students in shaping state reopening plans.
Despite the uncertainty of timelines for quarantine, many states are trying to cater to the needs of excluded students. States like California and Vermont have specific recommendations for food delivery to quarantined students, which both offers a key benefit of school enrollment and protects these students from COVID-19. In Kansas, during remote learning, students are expected to have “meaningful daily connection” with at least one teacher every day, and “must have ready access to all local content” that their peers receive. It is not clear, however, who is responsible for providing this access; the percentage of Kansans who have broadband access ranges from 7.5% to 100% by county.
To prevent the growth of the learning gap caused by school quarantine guidelines, states must develop specific policies to address the needs of the students likely to be infected with COVID-19. Offering meals to quarantined students is a strong step in the right direction, but should be complemented by academic and social support. For model practices that assist with learning, one might look to Tennessee, which is recruiting “1,000 college students to tutor kids falling behind.” Florida has mandated that if a student learning remotely is “not making adequate progress,” they “must be provided additional support and the opportunity to transition to another teaching method” by their schools. Further, New Mexico requires free language assistance in communicating with the families of remote learners, and allows for special education students to be brought to schools for “services that are unable to be implemented during distance learning.” For emotional support, the state also encourages teachers to schedule video calls with quarantined students so they can “share and process their emotions.” Another strong example of a state explicitly addressing the social-emotional needs of excluded students is Oregon, which requires all of its K-12 schools to offer “daily opportunit[ies] for [remote] peer interaction,” “comprehensive school counseling programs” and “health education that includes social-emotional learning skills, including bullying, violence, sexual assault, and child abuse prevention.”
Schools will reopen this fall for good reason, but given where state regulations and policies currently stand, coupled with structural susceptibility to COVID-19, their most vulnerable students will be left behind to struggle academically, suffer physically, and become isolated emotionally. To prevent the nationwide learning gap from widening, and absent any effective nationwide mandates at the federal level, states must immediately institute specific regulations and policies to protect and support these particularly disadvantaged students.
Image Credit: Photo by David Pennington is used under the Unsplash License