The logistical and financial burdens of school-managed testing are worth it if it keeps students learning in classrooms, some education stakeholders say.
From K-12 Dive
By Kara Arundel
Feb. 2, 2022
Just months after the Biden administration announced a renewed effort to expand COVID-19 testing in K-12 schools — and weeks after the omicron-induced mad scramble for testing kits began — some districts say they plan to limit school-based testing or phase away from it altogether.
At the same time, however, other districts are intensifying campus-based testing efforts.
The wide variety in approaches to the types and timing of testing in schools across the country has education stakeholders guessing at the fate of school-led testing programs. They also wonder whether educators should instead put resources and energy into other mitigation strategies or double down on what has been a widely promoted safety practice since the first year of the pandemic for keeping students safe on campuses and for minimizing absenteeism.
Some say the momentum for school-based testing programs faded a bit in December and January, when schools — like municipalities and individual households — saw COVID-19 cases skyrocket but had limited access to rapid antigen test kits or received delayed results from PCR tests.
Increased pushback from parents and even some medical professionals for COVID-19 mitigation efforts also has some district administrators wondering how hard they can keep pushing for opt-in testing programs even while saying they’re a proven approach to keeping students in school.
The complexity of sustaining a somewhat predictable and equitable program for detecting a potential deadly virus amid staffing shortages, pressures to accelerate learning and other K-12 stressors can be overwhelming, school leaders say.
“I think at a high level, you’re seeing school districts become extensions of public health agencies and having to educate parents about the importance of COVID-19 testing and vaccinations, and administrators taking on additional kinds of public health roles that they’ve never had to do before,” said Ana Vasudeo, managing director of Safely Opening Schools and a director of the Berkeley Unified School District Board of Education in California.
Safely Opening Schools, an initiative of the Public Health Institute, works with the California Department of Public Health to provide technical assistance to schools on beginning on-campus testing programs.
Shifting practices
Running a routine screening testing program, which typically tests everyone on a weekly schedule, or a test-to-stay program, which tests people with known exposures detected through contact tracing, is much more involved than just having easy access to test kits and labs.
What types of tests to use, who and when to test, and the restrictions placed on those who test positive is often where complications run deep.
Do you have different testing policies for positive household close contacts versus verified positive school close contacts? What are the best protocols for testing students with significant cognitive disabilities? How is all this data tracked and kept secure?
These, and many others, are the questions vexing school leaders.
National and state guidance also changes regularly based on the changing status of the virus, forcing districts to alter course and continually explain shifting practices to staff and families.
In late December, updated guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for reduced isolation and quarantine times, for example, suggested the possibility of using test-to-stay programs as an alternative to at-home quarantining for close contacts who test negative for COVID-19.
And in the past month, a handful of states including Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and Ohio said they are no longer emphasizing test-to-stay programs and contact tracing. Ohio also is switching from reporting daily COVID-19 cases for K-12 schools and instead is requiring weekly reporting.
In some areas, school system leaders have to factor opposition to testing approaches into their strategies. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, has criticized schools that require students and staff to have negative COVID-19 tests to stay on campuses, telling reporters in early January, “It’s not good policy to use testing as a tool to basically limit opportunity and limit people’s ability to get an education,” according to Politico.
Where the hurdles lie
As part of $10 billion in funding from the American Rescue Plan dedicated for COVID-19 testing in schools, each state had to submit school testing plans for how screening testing would be conducted, who would be tested, partners they were working with, and how they planned to use the funding.
Access to those funds, which flow from state health departments to districts, has not been a big barrier so far, several administrators, education advocates and testing vendors say. The hurdles have been accessing enough testing kits and, in a few areas, delays in accessing vendors to help school leaders coordinate testing efforts.
Last month, the Biden administration said it was sending 5 million rapid antigen tests and 5 million lab-based PCR tests per month to schools. While that news was welcomed, it won’t meet demand, said Mike Magee, CEO of Chiefs for Change, an organization supporting state and district education leaders.
Those tests calculate to one test a month for one out of every five students in the U.S., he said.
Photo: Jon Cherry via Getty Images
Read this and other stories at K-12 Dive