OPINION:
The New York Times has made a “startling” discovery. Its editorial board has recognized that “school closures that took 50 million children out of classrooms at the start of the pandemic may prove to be the most damaging disruption in the history of American education. It also set student progress … back by two decades and widened the achievement gap that separates poor and wealthy children.”
After three years of cheering lockdowns, criticizing officials who proposed lifting them, and refusing to balance their costs and benefits, this recognition is long overdue.
At the end of March 2020, all U.S. public schools were closed. By May 7, nearly all states had closed schools for the remainder of the academic year and switched to remote learning. But some states and officials called for reopening.
Florida, for example, shut down most businesses and schools in March but began a phased business reopening in May 2020. By July 6, the state’s education commissioner ordered school reopenings in August and required in-person instruction five days a week. The next day, at a White House summit, President Donald Trump and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos praised Florida and urged schools to reopen in the fall. Mrs. DeVos warned that online learning was not working well.
Teachers unions and many public health officials claimed that opening schools would spread infection and increase deaths and acted to slow school reopening decisions. American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten called Mr. Trump and Mrs. DeVos “reckless” and “cruel.” She threatened strikes if reopening occurred without what the union considered to be adequate safety measures.
National Education Association President Becky Pringle called on Mrs. DeVos and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar to resign. Teachers unions around the country attempted to link school reopenings to progressive goals such as police-free schools, cancellations of rents and mortgages, and moratoriums on new charter programs and standardized testing.
The unions insisted that schools remain closed here while they opened in Europe. At the start of the 2020-21 school year, only four states had mandated in-person education. Three-quarters of the 100 largest districts had remote-only schools. Through the fall and winter of 2020-21, only about one-third of districts nationwide had returned to fully in-person instruction. Teachers unions continued to advocate remote learning as late as early 2022.
Yet there was never evidence of risk to children or adults in schools. A June 2020 systematic literature review doubted children would be important pandemic drivers. It concluded that opening schools was unlikely to affect overall COVID-19 mortality, especially in vulnerable older people.
Schools for Swedish students through age 16 stayed open, and masks were neither required nor encouraged. A study of the more than 500,000 children in the Stockholm area through the pandemic’s first two months found that COVID-19 hospital admissions of schoolchildren were minimal. A nationwide Swedish study of the initial four pandemic months found a negligible incidence of severe COVID-19 among 2 million schoolchildren and no increase in relative risk among Swedish teachers compared with workers in other occupations.
The harms created by closed schools were also apparent early on. In the spring of 2020, education researchers predicted learning losses would result. They found that remote learning plans were inadequate, with many schools and many homes, especially those of low-income and minority families, lacking the equipment and internet access needed for online learning.
A study of the Netherlands’ spring 2020 school lockdown showed learning losses across all subjects that were most severe for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The findings were particularly significant since the Netherlands had a relatively short school lockdown (eight weeks) and has the world’s highest rate of broadband access.
Similarly, Belgium’s temporary spring 2020 lockdown resulted in large learning delays, disproportionately affecting disadvantaged children, and possibly led to more cases of child abuse. The researchers recommended against closing schools even when virus circulation was high.
Enormous declines in U.S. math and reading test scores linked to less in-person schooling and worse for poor and minority children were reported a year ago and earlier. The Times acknowledged a 2021 publication from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that showed children who received virtual instruction suffered decreased physical activity and decreased mental health.
So what accounts for the Times’ sudden concern? The usual liberal imperative: The Times advocates spending “substantial resources.”
Yet the federal government has already appropriated $190 billion in pandemic aid for schools — almost five times what it normally spends per year — at least 20% of which was to “address the academic impact of lost instructional time.” The funds can be obligated by districts up to Sept. 30, 2024, and spent much later. Unfortunately, no one seems to know where this money was spent or how much is left. An accounting is in order before further appropriations.
The Times claims that a “collective sense of urgency by all Americans” will be needed to combat “the devastating effects” of learning losses. Too bad the news outlet lacked the sense of urgency that Trump administration officials and Republican governors felt in 2020. Better late than never.
• Dr. Joel M. Zinberg is a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the director of the Public Health and American Well-Being Initiative at the Paragon Health Institute.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.