Blog No. 264. The Puzzlement of School Reopenings and Distance Learning

No aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic is more important or more challenging than the array of problems raised by school reopenings. Spoiler Alert: Readers searching for clear and definitive answers will be disappointed. The goal of this blog is modest—to provide a brief outline of the difficulties that must be confronted as the commencement of the school year comes roaring toward us.

For his part, President Trump has made it clear that he simply wants schools to reopen fully. Everywhere. Period. Indeed, he has gone further, stating that he might withhold federal funds from schools that fail to follow his urging. While Trump has no authority to do anything of the sort, he has seldom let lack of authority get in the way of making a bold threat—and sometimes attempting to carry it out. Trump’s pronouncements on school reopening displayed his customary confidence in his own instincts, and his willingness to reject or ignore scientific opinion that points clearly to a different or more cautious approach. Hence, it is tempting to dismiss Trump’s bluster out of hand as reckless and uninformed, but the issues remain complex.

On Friday, the media carried stories describing a proposal by Joe Biden for school reopening, but the stories provided no links to the actual proposal, and it does not appear on the website of the Biden campaign. According to media accounts, Biden’s proposal did not provide many details. It announced the general principle that any decision should be made by “state, tribal and local officials, based on science and in consultation with communities and tribal governments” and “should be made with the safety of students and educators in mind.” Biden also asserted that schools “need clear, consistent, effective national guidelines,” but he did not specifically address the guidelines issued by the Center for Disease Control–that have provoked some disagreement from the President, who considers them too restrictive.

According to the New York Times, Biden also called for massive federal funding:

[Biden] called for emergency funding for public schools and child care providers — about $30 billion for school districts is needed, he suggested, and another $4 billion for upgraded technology and broadband. He also urged a “large-scale U.S. Department of Education” effort to improve remote learning and smooth the reopening process.

It did not appear that Biden explained how the cost estimates had been arrived at or exactly what they would pay for.

For his part, Trump views school reopening, as he does everything, through a prism of self-interest. Thus, he sees the issue of school reopening as one affecting the economy—and, crucially, his prospects for reelection. Nevertheless, there are obvious reasons why reopening classrooms—whenever and however it can be done with reasonable safety for all concerned—is clearly in the public interest as well as Trump’s. The economy does suffer when parents cannot go to work because of the need to stay at home with their children. An estimate published in the Business Insider in May put the cost of shutting down every school in America at $51 billion per month. And the most direct impact would be on the most vulnerable: single parents and low-income workers. In addition, the absentee parents would inevitably include many healthcare workers, adding strain to a system already under stress.

Apart from the immediate economic impact, a loss of classroom instruction will deal a serious blow to learning. An analysis by the Brookings Institute indicated that the learning loss may even have a lasting effect on the future earning capacity of the affected students. In the short term, the loss of learning is demonstrable and highly worrisome. When the Los Angeles schools closed in the Spring, the school district made a robust effort to assure that all students had access to online learning and, to a degree, they were successful—but only to a degree. A comprehensive survey by the LAUSD of middle school and high school students established that, while a high percentage of students had shown an ability to log on, actual participation was substantially less, particularly in black, Hispanic and low income households. In other parts of the country that lack broadband service, digital participation is difficult or even impossible.

Despite the problematic nature of online learning, a large but unquantified number of school districts are apparently planning to open with only such instruction. That will be the case in California for the school districts of Los Angeles and San Diego, which together enroll some 850,000 students. Vice President Biden’s proposals, for increased funding of broadband access and research into making online learning more effective, clearly have merit, but even if they find support from the White House and Congress, they would be of no help this fall.

The degree of risk that classroom teaching entails is the subject of ongoing debate. The Wall Street Journal, for example, argued in a July 13 editorial, “The Case for Reopening the Schools,” that the health risks to reopening have been exaggerated and can be managed:

In any case, these risks can be managed as the Trump Administration has suggested in its guidance to schools: Space desks six feet apart, stagger class periods, make kids wear face coverings when possible, keep them in the same cohort, and have them eat, play and learn outdoors as much as possible. Teachers can also wear face shields, and schools can use plastic barriers in higher-grade level classrooms to separate them from kids.

The Journal conveniently elided the fact that the guidance from the “Trump Administration” is guidance that Trump himself found objectionable. More important, it ignored the costs to the schools required by, for example, finding or creating sufficient space for social distancing. In a July 18 editorial, “Reopening Schools is a Huge Undertaking. It Must Be Done,” the New York Times observed that “To maximize in-person instruction, the federal government must open its checkbook.” Whether the Trump administration and Republicans in the Senate are in fact willing to open the checkbook for this worthy purpose remains to be seen. In any case, the hour is late, and whatever help is forthcoming may well be too little, and too late, at least for the opening of school and some weeks or months thereafter. In the meantime, the surge in coronavirus cases, of which Trump has seemed only vaguely aware, has intensified the skepticism of teachers and their unions and many health officials.

There are various alternatives to teaching entirely in the classroom or entirely online. One is a program of hybrid instruction that involves combining classroom attendance for one or two days a week with online instruction. One useful study of hybrid instruction was performed for the Pennsylvania Department of Education, “Considerations for Opening Pennsylvania Schools.” The study was funded by the federal Department of Education, but that Department has done little to publicize it. (Advocacy of anything less than reopening full time may be regarded as rank heresy within the Trump administration, perhaps rivaling an expression of concern over climate change).

The Pennsylvania study reviewed the literature demonstrating the learning loss from remote learning, as well as the known techniques for mitigation of risk in a school setting (e.g. masks and social distancing). The study then analyzed various scenarios under which groups of students are given a classroom experience on a rotating basis. The analysis indicated that under some scenarios, the risk of COVID-19 infection could be very substantially mitigated. While the effect on learning was less clear, the authors believed that even a limited classroom exposure would significantly enhance the effectiveness of online learning.

Another interesting alternative was suggested in an op-ed column in Monday’s New York Times, “How to Reopen the Economy Without Killing Teachers and Parents.” The writer, Shardha Jogee, an astronomy professor and a mother, proposed that all instruction be given online, but with a major qualification: “[C]onvert schools and other large unused spaces into Safe Centers for Online Learning” or SCOLs, where the online learning would take place under the supervision of school personnel. The SCOLs would serve the portion of the student population that, for one reason or another, is least able to benefit from online instruction at home. Jogee theorized that students who could learn effectively at home would continue to do so, and “as a result, the centers would not be crowded and it would be possible to maintain social distancing.” Students enrolled at a SCOL would also have the benefit of the nutritious meals many students will miss by not attending school.

Professor Jogee may underestimate the demand for participation in a SCOL. In a recent conversation, a teacher in Los Angeles school district suggested to me that, apart from pedagogical benefits, many parents would be eager to have their children out of the house and off their hands. Thus, depending on the availability of space and personnel, it might be necessary to limit participation, giving preference to children from the lowest income households or to the youngest children, who are least proficient in the use of computers. In any case, it seems an approach worth considering.

There is probably insufficient time to study and evaluate various creative alternatives before school begins in August or September. Nevertheless, there is reason to fear that COVID-19 will be with us throughout the school year and possibly even longer. It is no time to give up on searching for the best solutions.