Safely Reopening K-12 Schools During the COVID-19 Pandemic

  1. Courtney D. Shelley
  2. Philippa S. Chadwick
  3. Carrie Manore
  4. Sara Y. Del Valle

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Early school closures were a consistent, nationwide response to the COVID-19 pandemic in mid-March due to the role that children play in spreading influenza. This left us with limited understanding of COVID-19 transmission in children until several states reopened schools for the 2020-2021 school year. While early school closures were likely beneficial in protecting children in the initial stages of the pandemic in the U.S., long-term closures pose significant cumulative effects in children who rely on schools for instruction and additional social services, and for parents who need to balance work and childcare obligations. Reopening schools safely is a high priority for many interested stakeholders.

Proposed in-person school reopening plans include traditional, 100% school capacity, five days per week instruction, hybrid scenarios with reduced in-person instruction and virtual learning, and various reduced school capacity schedules with non-pharmaceutical interventions in place. To assess the potential impacts of different reopening plans, we created a modified SIR-type transmission model that captures multiple known pathways of COVID-19 transmission in a 100,000-person community.

Our results show that plans that utilize consecutive days in school and divide students into separated smaller cohorts who attend school together, as well as plans that emphasize distance learning, are better able to suppress disease spread and reduce risk from an introduced infective into the community. Plans with more consecutive school days are protective for both the schoolchildren and surrounding community by acting to separate the larger intermixing population into smaller intermixing subpopulations. The “Five-Day Switch” plan, which separates students into two cohorts, each of whom attend in-person learning for five consecutive days followed by five days of distance learning, best captures these protective attributes. All modeled plans assumed initially disease-free communities and that children’s interactions with the community are greatly reduced during instructional days, both for in-person and distance learning.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.07.20208710: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.07.20208710v1 on medRxiv