Dear Colleagues:

This week’s “Friday Lunch” will be structured a bit differently than usual. The topic is something that was an important part of our students’ lives, and about which many of them have ideas. When the political science department had a welcome-back gathering a couple of Fridays ago, Professor Parris and I found ourselves in a fascinating conversation with a group of our majors. I am very glad they’ve agreed to share comments and perspectives for this week’s discussion.

“To curb the spread of the coronavirus, almost all countries implemented nationwide school closures.” But closures were especially extensive within the United States, though their extent varied among states and school districts. As with many other policies in the early stages of the pandemic, decisions had to be made under great factual uncertainty – such as how easily the virus would spread among children, how badly it might affect them, and how easily it would spread from children to the older adults in their households. On balance it appears that the Spring, 2020 school closures saved lives, though that was in part because there was not much understanding of alternative measures. Many critics, however, quickly raised concerns about how closures could damage children in many other ways; and by June 30, 2020, the American Academy of Pediatrics was urging school districts to find ways to mitigate risks while keeping schools open.

The AAP position is now close to conventional wisdom – one of the authors being cited in the New York Times in March saying, “there’s fairly good consensus that, in general, as a society, we probably kept kids out of school longer than we should have.” Criticism of the closures has also become a conservative talking-point, as a way of attacking government, Democrats, and the teachers’ unions.

It is possible to argue that many of the problems identified with closures involved trends that began before the pandemic, or could be due to the pandemic itself more than closures. After all, reading test scores were already declining, and the pandemic should have made everybody more anxious whether in school or not. Nevertheless, closures at least seem to be correlated with some reduction in measured year-on-year learning, growing absenteeism after in-person instruction resumed, and especially with distinctly worse results for minority and low-socio-economic-status students than for others. There is also evidence both in the United States and other countries that school closures increased loneliness, anxiety, and depression. One really interesting question is whether and how the closures tended to affect boys and girls differently. There are claims that it was worse for girls – but also that it was worse for boys.

Joe White
Luxenberg Family Professor of Public Policy and Director, Center for Policy Studies

About Our Guests

Anne Castagnero is a senior majoring in Economics and Political Science. Her hometown is Zelienople PA,
north of Pittsburgh. She is interested in U.S. politics, labor economics, and is currently researching welfare economics. She plans to attend graduate school to study economics or public policy.

Sandra Russ is the Louis D. Beaumont University Professor Emerita in the Department of Psychological Sciences at CWRU. Professor Russ is a Distinguished University Professor and has been interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences—twice. She was chair of the Department of Psychological Sciences, university associate provost, and faculty senate chair, among many other roles. Professor Russ has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Pittsburgh.