Covid & Childhood

Although children face fewer health risks directly from covid-19, it is arguable that their lives have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In the UK, and much of the rest of the world, it is the closure of schools that has had the biggest impact. It leads, of course, to damage to children’s education, but as Nick Triggle, (BBC Health Correspondent) points out, ‘schools are not just a place for learning. They are places where kids socialise, develop emotionally and, for some, a refuge from troubled family life.’ Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, has argued that “When we close schools we close their lives.” Covid lockdowns have dramatically increased educational inequality. The Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, in her September 2020 report, noted that while 60% of private schools where providing daily online lessons, only 23% of schools in the most deprived areas were able to do so. Even where schools have been able to teach online, with an estimated 1-1.7 million children with no access to a laptop, desktop computer or tablet, children from the poorest families have been locked out of education completely. To mitigate this, the government has provided some 700,000 laptops and pledged a further 300,000 for schools in January 2021. Local and national campaigns have helped bridge some of the gaps, but the ‘digital divide’ is very real. While all parents have struggled with ‘home-schooling’, for the most poorly housed lack of space and uncongenial conditions, have compounded the lack of technology rendering learning nigh-on impossible. The educational levels of parents and language barriers also effect the capacity of parents further increasing educational inequality. Despite the government pledge of £1billion in ‘catch-up’ funding, losses in educational attainment of the most disadvantaged may never be recovered. More serious still may be the damage done to vulnerable children under lockdown, for whom school acted as a refuge. For children living in families suffering domestic abuse, parental drug or alcohol dependency or with severe parental mental health needs the consequences of confinement in the family home are potentially devastating. The 80% rise in calls to The National Domestic Abuse Lifeline reported in July 2020 give some indication of the scale of the crisis. Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) have also suffered disproportionately with only 27% attending school in the first lockdown, and parents struggling to cope at home. Children’s mental health seems to have worsened as a consequence of school closures and lockdowns in terms of both increased levels of anxiety and more serious mental health issues. There are health concerns over the reduction in exercise among children and over the complex impact of vastly increased screen-time. There are significant fears over the development of very young children, with reduced access to health visitors, outlets for socialisation, and the truncating of parental support networks. In Britain, the loss of access to free school meals required the intervention of Manchester United’s Marcus Rashford to prompt the government to act, but the delivery programme has been deeply flawed. On a global scale, lockdowns and the disruption of economies are likely to lead to a significant rise in childhood malnutrition. It is possible that for some there have also been positive gains, furloughed parents spending more time with their children, a revival of family life under lockdown and even increased outdoor activity (at least during the first lockdown), as evidenced by the rise in demand for children’s bicycles. How serious have detrimental effects on children been? What will the long-term consequences be? How will the pandemic effect educational inequality? How will it effect mental health? To what degree are children resilient and adaptive? What policy decisions should be taken now to protect children and limit any long-term damage?

On 4th February 2021 the Pandemic Perspectives group debated these questions guided by the Children’s Commissioner’s September 2020 report, ‘Childhood in the Time of Covid‘; Nick Triggles January 2021 report for the BBC, ‘Covid: The Devastating Toll on Children‘ ; articles from ‘Save the Children’ website on the global impact on children; the Lancet’s report on childhood malnutrition; Ofcom’s report on Children’s Media Lives under lockdown; and a positive representation from CBBC “Meet the kids doing amazing things under lockdown.’

David Christie opened the debate by remarking on the strikingly different way in which Covid impacted on individual families and its relationship to class, wealth inequality and family circumstance. He noted that for many middle-class families, regular furlough payments and reduced expenditure had kept household budgets in the black, ample access to technology, sufficient domestic space in larger premises, increased parental contact and, for some, access to well-funded online teaching in the private sector, had actually made lockdown a pleasant experience. He confessed to being in the smug ‘we’ve baked a lot of bread’ class himself. He noted the profound difference between the comfortable experiences of the affluent and the pressure put upon those families whose already marginal income had reduced or disappeared altogether, those who had attempted to home-school whole families from a single tablet or smart-phone, those crowded into small flats without gardens, those with dysfunctional families or suffering domestic abuse or parents attempting to bring up young children without access to family and other support networks. Hanan Fara, although part of a loving and supportive family, noted how her two younger siblings had struggled with studying at home due to lack of space, and noted that the second lockdown in mid-winter had made confinement much more problematic. That covid had further extended educational and other inequalities was accepted by all.

Hanan went on to express concern about the long-term effects on children’s mental health, noting that adults often underestimated the levels of childhood anxiety and speculated that there might be some considerable social anxiety about returning to school for many children. Liam Knight suggested that this might be particularly difficult for children who would have been making the transition from primary to secondary school, a move that had always to be handled with care by teachers. It was widely noted that for both primary and secondary age pupils, enthusiasm for all forms of online learning had tailed off markedly during the current lockdown. Carmen Jones, speaking from New York, noted that in the US the private schools had remained open but that between 60 and 70% of state schools were failing to provide adequate online teaching services. Richard Kendall noted that for all children, but most crucially those in primary education, school’s purpose was primarily one of socialisation, of making and being with friends and learning how to function in group settings. These skills, he argued, would be the greater and potentially more damaging losses. There followed a debate about the resilience and adaptability of children. There was some optimism, but also concerns. Hanan noted the rise in suicide rates among adolescents. Sadegh Attari informed the group that suicide was increasing in Iran under lockdown, often among youths living in poorer and more marginal areas, who had limited access to digital technology. Hanan noted the degree to which children on the autism spectrum were suffering under lockdown, struggling to adapt to changed routines and the pressures that their agitation often put on families unable to call on support networks or gain respite. There was a lengthy debate about the influence of lockdown on the development of very young children. Referencing the literature, Liam noted the importance of the first three years of life for cognitive and emotional development and the concerns that this was being stunted by lack of social interaction. The group collectively felt the limits of their understanding of child psychology and therefore the long-term effects of the pandemic on mental health, and agreed that we should seek out an expert to lead a future debate.

On the impact of the pandemic on children’s media lives and its significance the group was equally uncertain. David noted that the Ofcom report’s statement that under the pandemic ‘children largely communicated through gameplay’ or that ‘Tik-Tok was popular among young girls’ was hardly a revelation, and did not suggest substantive change. He did note that his teenage daughters and their peers did not like using video conferencing apps like zoom and, by communicating only through instagram and snapchat, were actually more isolated than adults who had embraced the technology. Richard suggested that perhaps that zoom was both too intimate and too revealing, and noted that instagram, as a filtered form of communication, both figuratively and literally, led to a the construction of an inherently performative identity. There was a debate about to what degree there were dangers in a constructed identity of this sort and whether it would lead to increased anxiety when face-to-face contact returned. No reference was made to J.G. Ballard’s ‘The Intensive Care Ward’ but it was definitely the moment to do so…

In a surprisingly upbeat moment, Liam Knight, a scholar of dystopias, speculated that perhaps there would be positive effects for children as a consequence of covid and lockdowns. He suggested that a greater closeness in family relations and the centrality of family life might emerge, perhaps one where adults with greater leisure time had developed a revived joy in play which would enrich their lives and their children’s lives. Richard Kendall refused to be drawn into any such hopefulness, envisaging that far from celebrating their parents contribution to family life during the pandemic, the future would be more characterised by children calling out their parents for failure to act, and in the manner of WW1 propaganda asking ‘What did you do in the Great Pandemic daddy?’ Liam could not retain his optimism for long, noting that CBBC’s “Great things that kids had done under lockdown’ was focussed on children raising money, and that whilst defining ‘great things’ as altruistic acts might have some merit, it neglected to celebrate the joy and creativity of being a child. He also noted that they were raising money for the NHS, which would be unnecessary under a properly funded health system and promoted the idea of healthcare as a philanthropic gesture rather that a right of all citizens. Sadegh was nearly as bleak, suggesting that any such playfulness would be soon forgotten, and as soon as the pandemic was over, children would be tasked with working relentlessly to get the economy moving once again.

There was much more. To have your say join us at pandemic perspectives or set up your own group…