The New York Times reports a study showing that three million children have dropped out of full-time learning during the year of lockdown and closed schools. They are shocked – shocked! – to discover that learning at home doesn’t always work.
Once again, we see how progressives claim to be for the “little guy,” but in fact are just the opposite. Who could be more “little guys” than kids of poor or immigrant families? Who could be more “little guys” than at-risk kids of single parents? Who could be more “little guys” than kids whose families can’t afford internet access or laptops for each kid?
But no, these aren’t the “little guys” that progressives talk about. They mean the kids – or more likely the single children – of well-to-do families, with individual laptops, internet access, and perhaps math tutors as well. A year of lockdown and at-home learning is tolerable for them. They miss their friends, and even worse, they miss the opportunity to make new friends, and still worse, the opportunity to learn how to make new friends.
Still, kids of comfortable families have made it through this year only slightly wounded. But what about poorer kids, kids with single parents, kids whose parent(s) work two jobs and have little time to help them learn, kids with limited English skills, and kids whose parents got third-grade educations in their native lands? These kids have been seriously wounded by a year out of school. It remains to be seen if this damage can be undone when kids are allowed to return to school. I believe the damage may be permanent.
Note that I said “wounded,” which is used instead of “injured” in the case of combat. My purpose is to imply – no, say straight out – that this represents a war on our children. Someday, power-hungry public health officials and selfish teachers unions will have to answer for the damage their war has done to children.
•