The Observer view on how the debate on schools has been dangerously mishandled

Decisions about how to mitigate and control this pandemic are some of the most thorny and complex that governments have ever had to make. Every day, choices must be made that trade off different risks and harms on the basis of highly uncertain evidence. Be sceptical of anyone who pretends these decisions are easy.

Perhaps none is more high-stakes than how to keep children as safe as possible from the effects of the pandemic. So it is unsurprising that the staged reopening of schools has become such a fraught debate. Parents are desperate to do best by their children; teachers want what’s best for pupils but are understandably frightened by the deaths of health and care workers; those who work in child protection are distressed about vulnerable children being at home for weeks with little contact with the outside world.

The epidemiological evidence base as it relates to children is uncertain. There is greater confidence that the direct health risks are much lower than for adults: very few children develop severe symptoms, and child deaths have been extremely rare. The evidence on the likelihood of them acquiring Covid-19 is more mixed: some studies have found children as susceptible to it as adults; others, less so. The balance of studies so far seems to suggest that they are less likely to pass on the disease than adults, although there has been a contradictory study that suggests they are as infectious as adults.

If keeping schools closed were a harm-free proposition, it would be right to do so. But a very low rate of school attendance – currently just 2.5% – has huge implications for child wellbeing, so the risks of cautiously and gradually increasing the number of pupils attending school have to be weighed against the harms of not doing so.

Those harms are substantial. Most urgently, children are being abused at home during the lockdown without the safety net of school, where teachers can raise concerns with social services. Imagine how hard it is for an adult to cope with or report abuse during the lockdown, then how much more intolerable that situation is for a young child. The children’s commissioner for England estimates that there are 2.3 million children living in homes where there is domestic abuse, parental substance abuse or parental mental health issues. Only 14% of children officially classified as vulnerable are currently attending school, and far more are vulnerable but not officially registered as so.

School closure will also undoubtedly widen the educational attainment gap between children from low-income backgrounds and those from more affluent families. There are huge disparities in the quality of distance learning provided by schools, and children from disadvantaged backgrounds are much less likely to be living in environments conducive to home learning: access to basic technology, somewhere they can concentrate, and parental supervision. The longer a staged return to school is put off, the more this will blight some children’s employment and health outcomes for the rest of their lives.

It will not be completely “safe” to reopen schools until a vaccine is readily available, but that is likely at least a year away. We agree with the children’s commissioner that taking a holistic view of child welfare, balancing the available evidence about risks and harms, supports a staged reopening of schools to give as many children as possible some time at school before the summer holidays. That is contingent on mitigating risks to teachers and support staff, on infection rates continuing to decline, and on a robust system of testing and contact tracing to manage the risks of future outbreaks.

It is difficult to communicate the complexity and uncertainty of the evidence base while reassuring teachers and parents that, on balance, a staged return to school is best for children and can be done without exposing staff to unacceptable levels of risk. But the government has mangled the way it has consulted on and communicated its policy. There have been significant delays in publication of the detailed guidance that sets out protective measures for teachers, such as a cap on class sizes. The government has been too opaque about the safeguards that must be in place in order for the staged return to begin by 1 June; not open enough about the evidence on which it is basing its decisions; and too reticent to consider the scope for regional variation depending on local infection rates. There is too little support for schools: for example, there is an expectation that schools will safely provide school meals rather than the government organising packed lunches to alleviate that burden.

Ministers have as a result lost the confidence of teachers. It is understandable that teachers are anxious about the risks to their health; unions are completely justified in seeking assurances about the safety of their members. Yet the risks of working in a school, while not insignificant, are likely to be lower than in a hospital or a care home, and there are steps that can be taken to reduce them, such as keeping older and at-risk staff at home and staggering drop-offs and pick-ups. We urgently need government and the unions to collaborate on a safe plan for gradually increasing the number of children at school before the summer holidays.

The rate at which schools reopen should be driven by our best understanding of what’s good for children without putting school staff at unacceptable risk. Children deserve a calm consideration of the evidence and for their politicians and teachers to work together to find a solution in their best interests. Instead, the debate has deteriorated into adult politicking. Covid-19 has made the world a less safe place to grow up in. We owe it to our children to protect them from its ill effects as best we can.