If schools are not a source of contagion, why were they closed for a year?

At first, in mid-March 2020, it seemed like a reasonable decision. A temporary closure of schools due to the threat of an unknown virus that had just arrived in the country. Months passed and the qualifier of provisional stretched like rubber: an entire year has passed without face-to-face lessons, with the exception of a tiny percentage of boys.

Last Tuesday, the national ministry of education released the first data on infections in schools, which resulted from the charge of the principals themselves in the Cuidar Escuelas system during the first month of school. The sample – which they said was representative – included 5,926 open institutions attended by a total of 1,429,190 students and 214,850 teachers and non-teachers, and reflected a very low incidence.

Of the total number of students attending school, only 0.16% were infected. Among teachers, 1.03% were infected. Moreover, from the educational portfolio itself, they noticed that there is no way of knowing if these infections have happened in schools and that on the contrary, establishments are emerging as the first case detectors. On average, according to official data, the mortality rate of the school-age population (0 to 18 years) is 0.08%, thirty times lower than that of the general population (2.4%).

So why, if schools don’t exacerbate the pandemic, have they been closed for so long?

In fact, in the first months of 2020, the vast majority of countries around the world closed their schools. According to the classification established by the Observatorio Argentinos por la Educación, Argentina ranks 44th out of 156 for the highest time in completely closed schools. In Latin America, this ratio places it in 14th place out of 22 countries, behind Brazil, Paraguay, Mexico, Venezuela, among others.

Now, If the qualifier goes from total to partial, Argentina climbs to 15th place in the world and is second in the region, only behind Bolivia. According to the report, the complete closure of schools lasted five months and two weeks until the opening of the first schools. It happens that the opening, more than partial, has been minimal. CIPPEC calculated that last year, only 1% of national registrations returned to face-to-face classes. Then, around November, an indefinite number of students joined the school through what they called “educational activities”, which each institution interpreted to its best.

Since the start of the 2021 school year, schools in Argentina have been going through a combined modality which, beyond the disparities, has allowed almost all boys to return to school for at least a few days.

But new data on infections in the educational community raised the question: Wasn’t that too much time wasted?

The first official response insists that last year there was no information to confirm the low incidence. In fact, at the onset of the pandemic, the possibility that children were “super contagion” was considered, that they hardly felt the impact of the virus, but functioned as great vectors. In fact, the evidence began to rule out such a presumption as early as May.

At Not essential. Childhood sacrificed (Zorzal Books), Victoria Baratta compiled the international evidence that could be gathered last year. While very few countries supported face-to-face education, a study in China found that children were not super contagious and suggested keeping school open. A few weeks later, in Singapore, the incidence of infections in boys was found to be very low.

Sweden was one of the exceptions. In 2020, he kept schools open despite the progress of the pandemic. A survey compared the rate of infections among school-aged children with neighboring Finland, which has opted for a temporary shutdown. Despite differences in strategy, Sweden and Finland had very few infected children. Even in comparison, data from Swedish teachers showed that the risk of contagion was no greater than that of other professions. At that time, taxi drivers and cooks were among the highest incidence groups.

Over the weeks and already with a massive return to classrooms in Europe, the evidence has multiplied. Germany, UK, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, among others, have verified that the school is not a space where the circulation of the virus is developing significantly.

On the other side of the Río de La Plata, Uruguay had also made a gradual comeback since the end of April, which went well. Now that they are going through their peak of infections, they have temporarily suspended classes at all levels. On this side of the pond, many provinces – or at least countless counties – did not register community traffic well in 2020 and, despite this, preferred to continue with distant classes.

Already between August and September, it was possible to ensure that schools, thanks to protocols, are safe places. However, time was wasted. For some reason, schools were speculated to be a Covid minefield, while the effects of other spaces such as restaurants, gyms and even casinos that had already opened were never examined as well. carefully. Argentina has come to accept distance learning as a valid alternative when 6 out of 10 boys were – are – poor.

The lack of will from the national government and the provinces, coupled with union pressure, delayed the return. Supporting the closure of the school was the simplest thing: in theory, it did not cause direct economic damage, although in reality it forced the mothers – who brought continuity in 90% of cases – to divide their time between professional responsibilities and the role of co-teachers. Not to mention projections of future economic damage due to the loss of classes which reflect, for example, a drop in the possible salaries of today’s students.

In March 2020, President Alberto Fernández downplayed the suspension from the school: “Classes can wait. If something doesn’t rush me, it’s the start of class. No one suffered from having received a year earlier or a year later. Neither will they suffer from having finished school a month before or a month after ”.

In the second semester, polls began to reflect a critical mass of parents eager to return to school. The opposition held up the education banner, despite being the ruling party, it had halted the Connect Equality program, which would have been key to riding the wave of the pandemic. The government felt pushed to the left and took a radical discursive turn: so education became a priority.

And now?

“It’s important to maintain presence. Closing schools is easy, but then reopening them is very difficultThis was one of the sentences heard during the last session of the Federal Council. There, education ministers agreed to maintain face-to-face classes despite the explosion of second wave infections.

The sentence hides two inescapable truths: on the one hand, the convenience of the shutdown for provincial governments and, on the other hand, the difficulty of recreating a consensus when it is planned to resume activity, unless the indicators health will show an unlikely sudden improvement in a few weeks.

During its second wave, most European countries changed their strategy. He prioritized the continuity of education and closing schools became the last resort. Argentina appears to be following the same path now, although a restrictive measure has undermined this claim.

Last Saturday, Catamarca ordered the suspension of classes for a week in its four most engaged departments and generated a bad omen. The feeling of a possible domino effect was quickly deactivated thanks to a declaration signed by all the education ministers in the country.

Today, the classes are not in danger, but the situation – they warn – “is dynamic”. The teachers’ unions, which initially accompanied the start of the school year, are already raising objections today. They are asking that the increase in cases be monitored “day by day”.

If the pressure mounts and the pandemic does not give up, it will be time to verify that education is a priority.

KEEP READING: