Jaevion Nelson | Balancing lives and livelihoods

There has been a lot of talk, and rightly so, about balancing lives and livelihood since the first recorded case of COVID-19 in March 2020. A lot has transpired since then and, thanks to social and traditional media, the stories are well known. As part of managing the pandemic, the Government instituted a range of measures, including curfews and restrictions on gathering limits and events. These have had a significant impact on people’s livelihood and the economy.

Last August, the Jamaica Manufacturers & Exporters Association found 20 per cent of its members surveyed reduced their staff complement permanently and 34.7 per cent of them did so temporarily. For those who laid off staff, 14.7 per cent did so in March, 12 per cent in April, 9.3 per cent in May and eight per cent in June. At the time, only 44 per cent of companies surveyed indicated they have not and will not be laying off staff. 37.3 per cent of them reported lower production, and working hours for employees were reduced in 40 per cent of companies. Sales revenue declined for 67 per cent and demand for products and services declined for 58.7 per cent of them. 77.3 per cent of manufacturers and exporters reported an increase in the price for raw materials. Due to the business environment, at the time, nearly a third of companies indicated that if it continued, they would close their business temporarily or permanently. Around 24 per cent of them said they would do so between one and 24 weeks. 21.3 per cent of them were unsure when and 48 per cent indicated they would not close at all.

The persons employed in these companies can tell you about the devastating impact the pandemic has had on them and their families. In addition to manufacturers and exporters, there are other companies that have been negatively affected, such as those in the business process outsourcing industry. Some employees lost their job while others work hours were reduced. I hear, as well, that to prevent people losing their job, some are not allowing overtime. Similarly, educators in some private institutions have had a reduction in their salary. The sales revenue for some cookshops reduced. Some household workers have been let go or are working fewer days because their bosses are home and/or experienced a reduction in income as well.

Given the circumstances, much has been said about the impact of the pandemic and measures and recommendations proffered to, as we all love to say, balance lives and livelihoods. However, there is one aspect of the balance that is frequently discussed in the media that concerns me. A lot has been said about school but, at the same time, the formal education of our children does not seem to be a huge concern for many people.

CHALLENGES

Many students have also had challenges acquiring devices and/or connecting to the Internet to benefit from online learning. Some teachers also have similar challenges. Fewer students are said to turn up for classes. Among a myriad of reasons for this is the fact that the home environment makes it difficult for some to participate fully or at all. Sometimes, for whatever reasons, teachers don’t show or simply upload lessons. Consequently, an estimated 150,000 of the 534,502 students in early childhood, primary and secondary schools (population based on enrolment in 2018/2019 academic year) are reportedly not engaged in learning (consistently?).

We are already seeing the impact of children being out of school but wi nuh see nutten yet. The full effect will be experienced over time. Notwithstanding, we are seeing some signs. For example, I was speaking to some parents recently who shared that several girls in their community are expectant mothers. Some children I spoke to highlighted some boys have got themselves involved with the wrong company.

I know state and non-state actors, myself included, have tried to address the challenges by providing children and educators with devices and other support to be engaged. However, to me, it doesn’t matter if all children have access to the Internet for online learning. I don’t think it is very effective. It’s not a good alternative, especially for those with learning difficulties, those from homes where assistance isn’t available, and those who usually depend on teachers reading their facial expressions, for example. Even those in homes with adequate support are struggling. We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that because parents have a role in their children’s education, they can do the teacher’s job. I’ve heard stories about usually ‘bright’ kids who struggled and did poorly in their favourite subjects. I’ve heard stories about children who did ‘well’ online but struggled to get a decent grade when assessed in face-to-face learning during the summer school.

BACK IN THE CLASSROOM

We need to get children back in the classroom for face-to-face learning. Sadly, the reopening of schools is, in my humble opinion, seemingly not a big concern for many of us. It’s a little worrying that, as a nation, so many of us appear more invested in everything but our children’s education. We want extended curfew hours and changes to gathering limits to patronise parties and funerals, to attend church services and have other opportunities to socialise. This is of course understandable, and I am in no way suggesting they aren’t. I am grateful for every opportunity to have a good time with my friends and colleagues at a bar, restaurant, or party. I think worship and social engagement outside of work are particularly important to our mental health and well-being.

But I must ask. Where is the loud and concerted cry about the reopening of schools and improvement in infrastructure to allow for ‘safe’ learning? Why aren’t more people disseminating statements expressing their concerns about children being left behind? Why do so many of us rush to panic whenever we talk about face-to-face learning, regardless of the total number of cases daily, the rate of reproduction or daily positivity rate? Why do we push back? Where do we find all these reasons to support our arguments against face-to-face learning?

At the end of the day, those who will suffer most are children from poorer households. I strongly believe our children need at least three school days of face-to-face contact with their teachers and we must do everything possible to make this happen. The remaining days can be used to encourage critical thinking, creativity, application, and retention.

The conversation about balancing lives and livelihoods must go beyond the usual arguments. At the end of the day, the formal education of our children is a critical part of our economy, and we must never forget that.

Jaevion Nelson is a human rights, economic and social justice and inclusive development advocate. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and jaevion@gmail.com or follow him on twitter @jaevion