As schools return, we must prevent children from losing out any further

As schools return – those in Scotland are already back – there is some nervousness that this will lead to a rise in coronavirus infections, presaging another difficult winter. As we report, the government’s committee on pandemic modelling, SPI-M-O, has said: “It would be sensible for government to plan for this eventuality.”

This is one of the scientists’ less helpful pieces of advice. It may be that the best way to plan for this eventuality is to press ahead with making school life as normal as possible.

Our view is that, unless there are clear and present dangers, we should mean it when we say that young people have suffered enough, and when we say that we should stretch every sinew to ensure that they receive the best education possible. For the overwhelming majority, this means being back in class with no bubble-related disruption, and sitting public exams next year.

The members of SPI-M-O cannot even agree among themselves whether schools play a significant role in spreading the virus. One theory is that schools merely reflect the levels of infection in the neighbourhood around them; the other, which seems more plausible, is that the additional mixing at school, compared with what children would be doing otherwise, leads to higher levels of infection.

Either way, however, we need to move beyond infection levels being the most important determinant of the public policy response. As Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) and director of the Wellcome Trust, has said: “The infection is not going away.”

He has called for “an informed public debate on the options through 2021 and 2022”, about the balance between accepting some illness, hospitalisations and deaths, although much fewer than in the pre-vaccine period, and the possible need for some continuing restrictions.

That debate, we believe, should start from the assumption that schools should take priority. If any restrictions are still needed, as Sir Jeremy seems to believe they will be, they should not be at the expense of education.

One important part of that debate is whether vaccines should be offered to children aged 12-15. Ministers are understood to be frustrated that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has not yet recommended this policy, but they should curb their enthusiasm.

We suspect that the prime minister in particular is too influenced by figures showing that the UK has been overtaken by several other European countries, including Spain, Ireland and Denmark, in the proportion of the population fully vaccinated, which is partly because they have decided to vaccinate under-16s before we have.

On this question, we are happy to let the scientists wait. The cost-benefit calculation for vaccinating children is complicated by the illness being mostly mild for them, so the test for the safety of the vaccines has to be particularly stringent before we ask them to take vaccines for the benefit of the elderly. It would be wrong to rush this decision just because other countries have, or because the school term is about to start.

Getting schools back to a semblance of normality must be the starting point for learning to live with the virus. This means committing now to having A-level students sitting exams next year. This year’s teacher-assessed grades were unfair in that they gave students at private schools a further advantage. Externally assessed exams give students from poorer families an equal chance, and we must return to them, come what may.

Young people, especially those already facing disadvantage, have suffered too much from the pandemic so far. We must make sure that they do not lose out any further.