Context

• In November 2024, the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) mandated a shift from physical to online learning in Delhi schools due to severe air pollution.
• This decision, rooted in concerns over health risks associated with the poor Air Quality Index (AQI), raises critical questions about its scientific validity, practicality, and consequences.
• While addressing pollution is imperative, linking school closures to air quality highlights deeper issues regarding the treatment of education, children’s rights, and public health.

The Impact of Poor Air Quality and Limitations of the Current Approach

• The Continuum of Health Risks
  • The harmful effects of air pollution are not limited to AQI levels above 400, which are deemed ‘severe.’
  • Even at moderate levels (AQI 51-100), pollution starts to affect vulnerable populations, including children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions.
  • This arbitrary emphasis on ‘severe’ AQI as the threshold for action risks normalising the health effects of prolonged exposure to AQI levels between 51 and 399.
  • Such exposure can lead to respiratory issues, cardiovascular problems, and developmental delays, especially in children.
• Children: The Most Vulnerable Group
  • Children are particularly susceptible to air pollution due to their developing respiratory systems and higher metabolic rates.
  • Unlike adults, children breathe more air relative to their body weight, increasing their exposure to pollutants.
  • This vulnerability makes it imperative to protect children from poor air quality, however, this protection cannot be achieved merely by closing schools and asking them to stay indoors.
  • Many children, especially those from low-income families, live in cramped, poorly ventilated homes where indoor air quality can be as bad as or worse than outdoor air.
  • For these children, schools equipped with air purifiers may offer relatively safer breathing environments.
• Socioeconomic Disparities in Exposure
  • Children from underprivileged backgrounds often bear the brunt of its effects.
  • They are more likely to live in densely populated areas with high pollution levels and lack access to clean indoor air.
  • While wealthier families can afford air purifiers and other mitigative measures, disadvantaged families rely on public spaces like schools to provide their children with a safer environment.
  • Therefore, closing schools during high-pollution days disproportionately affects these children, exacerbating health and educational inequities.
• The Limitations of the Current Approach
  • The current strategy of using GRAP measures, including the closure of schools during severe air pollution, reflects a reactive rather than proactive approach.
  • While the intention is to shield children from the worst effects of pollution, the policy overlooks the broader context: poor air quality is a constant, not an episodic, issue.
  • By focusing only on extreme AQI levels, policymakers fail to address the chronic exposure that harms children throughout the year.
  • This myopic approach results in minimal health benefits while causing significant disruptions to education and exacerbating societal inequities.

GRAP Policy and Its Broader Implications

• Disproportionate Impact on the Vulnerable
  • The closure of schools during periods of severe pollution disrupts educational access, particularly for children from low-income families who lack the technological resources to transition smoothly to online learning.
  • For many such children, schools are not only centres for education but also places where they receive essential services such as mid-day meals and a safer environment.
  • Shifting classes online deprives them of these benefits, exacerbating pre-existing inequalities in education and health outcomes.
• Education as a Collateral Victim
  • India experienced one of the longest school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in significant learning losses and developmental setbacks.
  • Repeating these closures for pollution-related reasons reflects a failure to learn from past mistakes.
  • Education is a fundamental right and should not be treated as expendable in the face of environmental challenges.
  • Instead, policies must ensure that children can continue their education safely, regardless of external circumstances.
• The Problem with Temporary Fixes
  • The decision to close schools in response to extreme AQI levels highlights a reactive policy approach that addresses symptoms rather than root causes.
  • While GRAP seeks to mitigate immediate health risks, it fails to provide long-term solutions to pollution.
  • School closures may reduce children's exposure to polluted air temporarily, but they do nothing to address the chronic pollution problem that remains pervasive throughout the year.
  • Such measures may even create a false sense of progress, diverting attention from the systemic reforms needed to tackle the pollution crisis comprehensively.
• Long-Term Implications for Society
  • The way a society treats its children reflects its values and priorities.
  • Closing schools during high pollution days not only disrupts education but also sends a message that children’s development is secondary to short-term policy goals.
  • Nelson Mandela’s assertion that the soul of a society is revealed by its treatment of children highlights the moral and ethical dimensions of this issue.
  • By failing to invest in solutions that protect both education and health, society risks creating a generation that is less equipped to tackle the challenges of the future, including environmental degradation itself.

Effectiveness of Online Learning and Masks for Children

• Shifting Schools to Online: A Flawed Substitute
  • Schools are more than academic institutions; they create holistic development through social interaction, extracurricular activities, and life skills.
  • Online education, while a necessary alternative during emergencies, is an inadequate substitute for in-person learning, especially for younger children.
  • Prolonged screen time can harm children’s cognitive and physical development, while the absence of mid-day meals affects their nutrition.
• Questions on the Role of Masks
  • The recommendation for children to wear face masks during periods of high pollution also warrants scrutiny.
  • Scientific evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that masks were not universally necessary for children under five and were only recommended, not mandated, for those aged six to eleven.
  • For classrooms with functional air purifiers, masks add little benefit; Instead, schools should adopt a more personalised approach, considering factors like pre-existing health conditions.
  • Blanket advisories not only lack scientific backing but can also cause unnecessary discomfort and stigmatisation among children.

Way Forward: A Science-Based and People-Centric Approach

• To address the issue holistically, schools must remain open with necessary mitigations.
• Outdoor activities can be suspended, and classrooms equipped with air purifiers should maintain sealed environments to ensure clean air.
• Mask policies should be individualised rather than universal, prioritising children with respiratory conditions or other vulnerabilities.
• Hybrid models, often misinterpreted as a license for convenience, must not replace the emphasis on physical schooling.
• Innovative solutions are needed to ensure that learning remains active, interactive, and inclusive.

Conclusion

• Shifting schools to online learning as a response to poor air quality is a reactive and ineffective measure that overlooks scientific evidence and socio-economic realities.
• A more nuanced, science-based approach is essential, one that safeguards children’s education and well-being without compounding the inequities already exacerbated by pollution.
• Only by valuing schools as indispensable spaces for development can society truly fulfil its responsibility to its youngest and most vulnerable members.