Editor’s note: This commentary is by Eric Hutchins, a parent who lives in Johnson and who teaches social studies at Lamoille Union High School in Hyde Park.
Should we send our students and school workers back to in-person instruction in Vermont? A nation serious about stopping the spread of the virus would have made this decision at the federal level. Instead, the buck was passed to each state. Then, in Vermont, it was passed to each school district, and sometimes left for each family to decide on their own.
This approach fails on multiple levels. Most importantly, allowing public health decisions that will affect our entire region to be made on a town-by-town basis will fail to prevent the spread of the virus in the same way the state-by-state approach has been an unmitigated disaster nationwide.
Politicians will point to the very favorable test numbers being registered in our state. Unfortunately, Vermont is not a separate republic. Every day, thousands of individuals from areas with higher infection rates enter our state with merely recommended guidance that we can only hope visitors both read and obey.
Despite these factors outside our control, Vermont’s very cautious approach and well-thought-out restrictions on our schools and businesses have, against the odds, kept our positive cases down.
However, on Sept. 8, in nearly every community in Vermont, our schools will simultaneously, and exponentially exceed the previously maintained safety standards by nearly every measure. The physical distancing requirements of 6 feet required for businesses and other settings have been lowered to 3 feet for elementary schools, and only maintained “to the extent possible” for older students.
On Aug. 12, Gov. Scott increased the maximum size for indoor gatherings to 75, yet most of our schools will attempt to house several hundred staff and students. Guidance for retail spaces is one person per 100 square feet, but for most classrooms that would limit a room to four or five students. Ventilation in businesses and restaurants is relatively new and must maintain OSHA standards, yet most of our schools don’t have ventilation systems capable of the air changes and MERV filtration required to mitigate virus spread.
A trip to the store or a restaurant is perhaps an hour or two. Students and staff will try to use outdoor spaces, but will eventually be inside these buildings for seven to eight hours a day. Conversely, those responsible for these decisions, including Education Secretary Dan French and Vermont state employees, will all be working remotely until at least Dec. 31.
When you consider these factors, the widespread reopening of schools seems like a very risky prospect that could be avoided by postponing in-person learning until the pandemic is under control within our nation’s borders.
We all would love a return to normalcy, and to engage in all the socially and economically rewarding activities in which we used to be able to participate, but if a patchwork of states continue to try to reopen while the virus rages on, we are simply playing a game of life and death whack-a-mole. If Gov. Scott and other decision-makers continue to weave between competing interests of the desire for normal and evidence-based reality, we are all put at increased risk.
There are many examples of other countries that tried to reopen before the data indicated that it was safe. This discouraging data is from political entities that had control of their borders, while Vermont does not.
If we truly want to defeat the virus, reopen our businesses and schools, and be fully social humans again, we need to make short-term sacrifices for long-term gain. We need to give up personal freedoms for the public good. We need to enact policy that gets less fortunate Vermonters through the crisis, whole. We need to continue to keep work and school remote, if at all possible. Attempting to “return to normal” while reality dictates we do the exact opposite is complete and utter folly.
Be safe. Be well. And if you can, be helpful.
