In light of the Omicron variant of COVID-19, Canadian provinces (like the rest of the world) have been trying to decide how best to handle children’s education. Some have delayed the start of school, others have moved online, and still others have implemented a staggered start. As numbers started to rise dramatically, there was a growing consensus that Ontario schools would be online for the beginning of January. Certainly, we had been prepared for that eventuality, with a pivot looking likely. Staff and students were directed to take all personal belongings home, as well as anything we would need to deliver a program remotely after the winter break. During the break, there was no word from the government, even after other provinces made and announced their plans.
On Thursday of last week (less than two business days before the start of school), the Ontario government announced that the return to school would be delayed by two days, in order to allow school boards to ensure safe environments, but that in-person learning would indeed be safe by Wednesday. Neither the Premier nor the Minister of Education were on hand for this announcement, which was instead made by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Kieran Moore. The main message seemed to be that we’ve pretty much lost control of this virus, don’t have the resources needed to either contain or track it, but that kids need to be in school. Thus, the decision had been made that schools would open, with the assurance that classrooms would have Hepa filters, that staff would have access to N95 masks, and that there would be enhanced screening as well as enhanced cohorts for recess and lunch.
No mention was made of the staff shortages we’ve been experiencing all year and which were certain to worsen if we all went back together this week. The TDSB has struggled with staffing shortages all year. Given the new guidelines that were announced at the same time it was decided that we would all return to school on Wednesday, it is absurd to think that staffing shortages wouldn’t have continued at a much greater rate. The government’s advice? Combine classes, which would necessitate mixing cohorts, and make it virtually impossible to provide a safe physical environment, let alone an adequate academic environment. This not only mixes cohorts, it also jeopardizes the ability of staff to run orderly classrooms, to plan adequately for student activities, and to maintain the patience it requires to guide our students gently and capably. To those worried about mental health and academic loss, this situation was not likely to improve either.
A memo was quietly circulated that schools should deal with the staffing situation by collapsing or combining classes, and by rotating virtual learning one day a week. They were suggesting ‘enhanced cohorting’ at recess and lunch (both outdoors), but a free-for-all indoors (by collapsing classes)? They’ve meanwhile reduced indoor dining, but provided no guidance for how students would safely eat without adequate distancing and supervision. Additionally, they announced that statistics would no longer be kept or reported, so we would not be able to trace the progression of the spread. Basically, we were being asked to accept that all of the kids would get Omicron, and we would hope for a mild outcome for as many as possible.
I am fully prepared to admit defeat with Omicron. It seems to be more transmissible and less severe, so it makes sense we’d all resign ourselves to getting it. I’m okay with that. But I understand exponential growth and the concept of flattening the curve to save the health care system from overwhelm. Also, I had my son vaccinated the first week he was eligible. He won’t be eligible for his second shot until January 25th. I don’t take my kid out in the car without a seatbelt, and I’m not inclined to send him out to catch a virus without the tools that we know will reduce his chances of serious complications. It seems prudent that we wait until those who WANT to be vaccinated have the chance to do so before sending them into a situation where we’ve already resigned ourselves to them catching a virus we’ve spent two years evading. This is less serious, yes, and mostly not severe in children. But children live with other people, many of them with grandparents or other elderly relatives. Also, children are being hospitalized with this in increasing numbers. Apparently about 1% of Omicron cases end up in hospital (likely lower for children). One percent of Ontario’s students is over 20 000. So even if we say 0.1%, that’s 2 000 children who end up in hospital. That’s a whole lot of families and friends affected, and not really something to ignore. But we were told that schools are definitely safe and the best place for children.
Then yesterday, with less than 48 hours notice, this decision was reversed with a new announcement. Schools will instead be closed and learning will be virtual for the next 8 days. Let’s be clear, nothing has changed. When asked why the decision had been reversed, Ford said that the numbers are really big now. YES, right. That’s what was projected last week. Nothing in the current numbers is surprising. We have the good fortune of being several weeks behind the rest of the world , and have seen what the various stages of COVID look like before having to deal with it ourselves. And yet, we are chronically unprepared.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m delighted with yesterday’s announcement. I have spent the last week trying to figure out where my responsibilities lay with the re-opening of schools. My 11-year-old son suffers from asthma and does not do well with respiratory illness. I’ve lost count of the number of times a common cold has turned into pneumonia. It seems reasonable to fear that he might struggle with COVID. Furthermore, I felt that the government had made an irresponsible decision that put all of us at risk, both in the education system and the health care system.
We had already decided to keep my son out of school, and I was concerned that my going in would defeat the purpose of keeping him home. I felt like the government had made a bad call, and I was aware that my complicity would effectively make me part of the problem. A bystander who doesn’t speak up stands with the bully. If I feel that I am being asked to do a job that is morally irresponsible, at what point is refusal the ethical choice? When is the best option conscientious objection? I am tasked with keeping the kids in my class safe. If I don’t feel I can do that, do I have a responsibility to refuse? As such, I was weighing options and preparing to quit my job.
And then, they reversed it. Just like that, the government decided that opening schools was NOT the safest choice, and they announced virtual learning until January 17. As I said, I was pleased by this decision, but come on! Announcing in-person learning on Thursday, and then declaring it unsafe on Sunday is beyond disrespectful of parents, teachers, and students. Beyond that, they’re very likely setting themselves up to do it again. They’ve announced capacity limits and closures until the end of the month, projected the peak to be over a month away, but only closed schools until the 17th, which is before the date when the first vaccinated kids would be properly eligible for a second dose. This means that, more likely than not, the school closures will be extended, quite likely the weekend before we are expecting to go back to in-person learning. This leaves parents scrambling to find childcare or arrange their schedules to supervise and help their kids. It leaves teachers scrambling to change to screen-friendly activities. And it leaves students uncertain and anxious about their safety, their learning, and their schedules, not to mention being a huge disappointment for those who were looking forward to going back. I’m not sure what the government is thinking – that parents don’t need time to arrange childcare or supervision? That children can be adequately supervised by a teacher from a different location? That teachers don’t bother planning until the day before? That the same lesson can be delivered in person and online? That children don’t need time to digest changes in plans over which they have no control? It’s just rude, and totally unnecessary. In an effort to please everyone, our government is flip-flopping between two bad scenarios, and frustrating everyone in the process. I’m not saying they have an easy job, and most days I’m glad it isn’t me making the decisions. But what if there were other options? Better options.
The easiest thing I can think of is to announce longer school closures and then go back to in-person learning early if it becomes safe to do so. How great would the government look if they could send kids back to school earlier than expected? This would allow parents and teachers to plan for the worst-case scenario, and then either grin and bear it or be pleasantly surprised when we get sent back to school early. It is easier for everyone to pivot into school than out.
But I see other, outside-the-box ways to keep kids safely in school. We seem very focused on getting back to school ‘as usual.’ But why? These are not ‘usual’ times. Why are we not looking for innovative solutions that would solve the actual problems we’re experiencing? Why are we not pushing for solutions that would benefit the most vulnerable students? How do we find solutions that take into account the resources we actually have? I do believe that we don’t have the resources we need to do a lot of what parents and teachers are asking for – thus asking doesn’t really help. We need to focus on things that can actually be done.
If mental health is the biggest challenge, we need to put that first. We need to put it ABOVE academics. If allowing parents to work is necessary, then we need childcare. Safe childcare. Students learn naturally if given safe spaces to do so. We need smaller, safer classes for the kids that NEED to be in school. I would be happy to keep my child home because I have the privilege to do so, if it allowed us to safely send back those who need to be in school. Also, every school has teachers assigned to cover prep – often covering music, art, French, etc. A slightly shortened day would provide prep for teachers, which would allow these specialists to staff smaller classes or to cover absences. A slightly shortened day would be more helpful for parents than what we are currently doing.
Alternatively, we could hire people to help lower class sizes. Not teachers – there aren’t enough teachers to hire – but others who could work with teachers and ECEs to run programs for kids. Basically, camp counsellors would be fine. Using community centres and churches, we could spread classes out to reduce contact. I’ve said right through the pandemic that what we need is child-care and socialization. Children will bounce back from academic delays, but society needs children to be safe and supervised, and children mostly need to be around other people. Ideally people who can focus on their needs and interests instead of trying to work a full-time job. Teachers are burning out from covering each other due to staffing shortages. Trying to run a vigorous academic program with kids who are stressed and out of practice is nearly impossible. It certainly isn’t putting the mental health of either students or teachers first.
In deference to transparency, I’m already disillusioned by the system, and do not believe that traditional schooling is all it’s cracked up to be. I believe that a safe return to socialization, in smaller groups and with lower expectations, would allow us to keep kids in school, even if it meant sacrificing the rigorous standards we have been led to believe are necessary for future success. If nothing else, this could have been an amazing opportunity to pilot child-led programming and become leaders in innovative programming.
What other innovative solutions could help drag us collectively out of the COVID well?
Out of the Well 