The Pros and Cons of Churches' Opening Their Doors to School Children in a Pandemic

By Robin G. Jordan

In my daily search for new articles for Anglicans Ablaze, I ran across an article, “Churches Open Their Doors When Schools Can’t,” that I thought might interest readers. The article describes the different ways churches are responding to needs in the community arising from children starting the school year online. I posted a lengthy comment in the comment section of the article. This article is an expansion of that comment.

Churches considering launching similar programs need to take into consideration the new research findings that children may play a much larger role in the transmission of CIVID-19 than previously thought. A number of the programs described in this article were launched at a time when it was thought that children played a limited role in the virus' transmission. The latest research has found that young children can carry a viral load greater than adults hospitalized with COVID-19. A growing percentage of the new cases is among school-aged young people. While they may not experience severe symptoms (albeit this is not always the case as was once thought), they can spread the virus to others.

The main reason that many school districts are offering remote learning only is that they cannot guarantee the safety of the children, teachers, and other staff in their schools. The question is that if local schools cannot protect the children, teachers, and other staff from infection with COVID-19, can local churches do any better than local schools. The answer is “no.”

School districts are expected to maintain a high standard of safety in their schools, a standard determined by the federal and state government. Churches, on the other hand, determine their own standard of safety. This has been a longstanding problem with unlicensed day care facilities operated by churches. Licensed day care facilities are required to meet state standards. Unlicensed facilities are not. As a consequence, church-operated, unlicensed day care facilities often take greater risks. Churches operating a number of the programs described in the article may also be taking greater risks.

From a public health perspective it makes no sense to close schools to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the community only to have churches launch programs that may provide opportunities for the further spread of the virus in the community. Churches need to be a part of a community strategy to contain the spread of the virus and not working against that strategy. There needs to be close coordination between public health authorities and churches operating programs like those described in the article to prevent them from becoming an epicenter of clusters of new COVID-19 cases.

Young people, including high school and university students, comprise a high percentage of the new COVID-19 cases in the US population. This is attributable to a number of factors, including a tendency to disregard public health guidance out of the mistaken belief that they are not susceptible to the more severe forms of the disease; a belief in personal invulnerability which is common in adolescents; the proclivity to rebel against authority which is also a characteristic of adolescents; and a negligible sense of community responsibility which social scientists have identified as a major contributing factor to the spread of the virus in the United States. This lack of a sense of community responsibility is not confined to young people but also is also characteristic of other segments of the population and is attributable to what has been described as the "me" culture in the United States. This culture strongly influences US Christians as well as secular members of the population.

Churches that launch similar programs without implementing necessary preventive measures based upon the latest research findings may not only contribute to the spread of the COVID-19 virus in their communities but also may face litigation initiated by parents whose children became ill or whose children infected other household members, particularly those who are elderly or otherwise in a high risk category. If a particular program becomes the epicenter of a COVID-19 hot spot, state and local authorities may take steps to shut down that program as a hazard to public health. While this may provoke an outcry from some quarters of the Christian community, such action from a public health perspective is both reasonable and appropriate.

Parents who are considering enrolling their child in such a program need to make sure that the program which they are considering provides their child with protection from the COVID-19 virus based upon the latest research findings. They should not sign any agreement that releases the church or para-church organization operating the program from liability in the event that their child becomes sick or infects one or more members of their household and the infection results in serious illness and even death.

Unfortunately parents who are pressed to enroll their child in such a program due to their circumstances may not make the wisest decisions and may come to regret the decisions that they did make. One of the risks that they take is that other parents may drop off a sick child at a church even though the church may have a policy requiring parents to keep sick children home. This was an ongoing problem at the early childhood development program that a church with which I was affiliated for 15 years operated. While children can benefit greatly from enrollment in such programs, they are also at higher risk of infection from various coronaviruses as well as a range of childhood diseases. The same holds true for day care centers and nurseries. Infants and toddlers enrolled in these facilities tend to be sicker than those cared for at home. In the COVID-19 era what may be the solution to one problem may be the cause of a far greater problem.

A number of churches, however, are in a good position to serve their communities through these types of ministries. At the same time they need to take all necessary precautions to protect their communities from the spread of the virus. As I noted earlier, it does not make sense to deny the virus an opportunity to spread by delaying the opening of schools, only to have churches create new opportunities for it to spread. In whatever programs they offer, churches need to make the safety of the community a high priority. It may be helpful for denominations, judicatories, and other church networks to develop guidelines for these types of ministries.

On the other hand, some churches  may not be in such a good position and they should consider looking at other ways that they might serve the community. For example, they might subsidize internet connections and laptops for children who do not have access to these resources. A qualified church member might tutor one or more children, using Zoom or another video conferencing platform.

Whatever approach a church adopts, it should carefully screen all volunteers working with children even remotely. There is a real danger of sexual predators taking advantage of the pandemic to gain access to children.

A need for a number of the ministries described in the article exists across the United States. Churches can meet this need. At the same times churches should not become known for maintaining low standards of safety. This will negatively impact their public image and damage their witness to the community. While parents may be initially grateful that a church helped them solve the problem of what to do with their child while they worked, they are not going to feel that way if their child falls sick or infects other members of the household and they have to lose time from work and to pay expensive medical bills or worse.