The unequal pace of school reopenings
Health disparities in the state are worsening educational inequities.
In Santa Ana, the city next door, there is no in-person instruction. School officials are hoping to be able to open classrooms next month, but just for their youngest students.
There’s a reason for this stark difference. Though Santa Ana’s population is 25% bigger than Irvine’s, it’s had six times as many COVID-19 infections and more than 20 times as many deaths. That’s hardly coincidence: Eighty percent of Santa Ana’s students are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunches, or four times the rate in Irvine. And low-income areas have more crowded housing conditions and more people who work at essential jobs, where they are more likely to be exposed to infection.
People have been talking about educational inequity for decades, but nothing has etched its outlines as sharply as the pandemic. When schools closed last spring, disadvantaged students were less likely to have the computers and broadband connections needed for virtual classes or parents able to navigate this new world of learning. Now, income could be the determining factor in whether students get to attend school at all.
The good news is that, for all the stories about outbreaks at reopened schools, almost all have involved a couple of students and/or staff. We have little idea at this point how many of those infected people brought the virus into their schools from outside and how many were infected at school.
California has taken a cautious approach overall to reopening and has been rewarded with no signs of a related increase in COVID-19 cases, according to Mark Ghaly, the state’s secretary of health and human services. Properly handled, in-person learning appears much less dangerous to our health than we’d feared.
But Los Angeles County is still in the high-danger category; the county plans to offer waivers to no more than 30 schools a week to reopen just their prekindergarten through second-grade classes. The slow buildup is important; opening schools in a large-scale way in an area with a high percentage of positive COVID tests is an almost sure way to bring the virus onto campuses.
Still, it’s hard to see the scientific reasoning behind some of the county’s plans. In September, the Public Health Department announced that schools could bring in limited numbers of English language learners and students with disabilities, regardless of age. Although these are among the students who have been harmed most by remote learning, that’s an educational issue, not a public health one. The agency should decide what’s safest and then leave it to schools to decide what’s sound educationally.
As for the waivers to reopen for the youngest students, the department’s plan gives preference to schools with the most underserved kids — a right-minded idea. But it also requires the waivers to be granted evenly across the supervisorial districts, which has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with health or need. It’s even more problematic that the county is requiring that unions and parent organizations sign off on any reopening plans.
Los Angeles Unified isn’t participating in the waiver plan. It’s waiting for community infection rates to be low enough to allow for a safe return, while also developing its own safety measures.
Here’s one more driver of inequity: the wide health disparity between well-off and low-income neighborhoods. Unlike, say, the Irvine Unified School District, L.A. Unified encompasses many neighborhoods with COVID-19 rates high enough to threaten reopening efforts.
The California Constitution guarantees all students a free and public education of reasonably good quality. When some neighborhoods are allowed to suffer far more than others during a pandemic, we are required to recognize that systemic inequality is also robbing too many Californians of that all-important right to learn.
