Remote “Learning”
One of the most damaging social costs imposed by the government response to the Covid-19 virus in 2020 was school closures. Their length, pervasiveness and damage were extended and strengthened by the capability to engage in remote “learning.” Because technology now allowed students to meet with teachers from their homes via computer screens, the governmental authorities (and colleges and universities as well) let their schools be closed down for as much as two years or more. The very phrase “remote learning” was not part of the everyday lexicon until Covid. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United States first used the phrase in 2021, smack dab in the middle of “remote learning” imposed on the country.
The government-mandated switch to remote learning harmed children and imposed tremendous costs on society. The imposition of remote learning caused “academic performance” to be “negatively affected … with lower scores in standardized tests … compared to previous years.” A host of other problems, including disorganization and motivational and behavioral changes, emerged too. Id. Remote learning was especially damaging to underprivileged kids, and the damage continued long after in-person teaching resumed.
But the Courts mostly rebuffed any redress of this government-imposed change in learning on all grades and into college. For instance, disabled students tried to sue because certain federal laws require them to be taught in ways that would take into account their disabilities. But the Courts largely rejected this claim, often relying on the Department of Education’s guidance and direction. See e.g. J.T. v. Deblasio, 500 F.Supp.3d 137 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (denying preliminary injunction and dismissing case because the Department had instructed schools they had great leeway during Covid-19).
Many students tried to sue their schools for breach of contract or on other theories because “remote learning” was not what they had signed up for when matriculating. These suits have had mixed results. Compare Meng v. the New School, 686 F.Supp.3d 312 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (student did not waive contract or unjust enrichment claim by continuing to attend remote learning) with Burt v. Board of Trustees of University of Rhode Island, 523 F.Supp.3d 214 (D.R.I. 2021).
The Courts were also unhelpful during the pandemic by generally blessing remote learning, and it appears that no federal court ordered the reopening of a school because of a claim that it was no longer medically warranted to keep it closed, nor because it was deemed necessary for any type of student to learn. Even when schools in Europe were reopened to no ill effects on students and teachers, courts allowed U.S. schools to remain closed.
The one ray of hope is that the National Institutes of Health and the other authorities who were largely responsible for many of these closures have acknowledged the extent of the damage from remote learning, particularly on younger or disabled children. The lesson here is that there appears to be little lawsuits can do to reopen schools when the Government shuts them down. But one hopes at least the urge to do so for long periods has been purged from the academic and medical communities.
April 1, 2025