As States and Municipalities Resume In-person School Activities, Improved Risk-Prevention Protocols are Necessary to Ensure Greater Safety for Students and Education Professionals

Main Conclusions

The Return to In-Person Schooling Safety Index (RISSI) seeks to evaluate the public policies and measures adopted for the reopening schools for in-person schooling in Brazil.

The Federal Government’s safety protocol for in-person educational activities in the context of COVID-19 is less stringent than most state and municipal protocols. The Federal Government has failed to comply with its obligation to coordinate, through technical-scientific evidence, the ongoing debate regarding safety protocols for returning to in-person schooling in educational networks.

Transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency in communication protocols are of utmost importance for the school community and society’s general knowledge and safety. Only 56% of state capitals and 49% of states have published guidelines in the form of a structured plan. The corresponding protocols were not published in a single, structured, and transparent document in the remaining cases but instead issued through a series of separate and not always coherent guidelines.

Safety protocols were significantly more concerned with emphasizing thermometers and cleaning surfaces than with other more effective measures, such as distributing or promoting high-quality masks and requiring testing to identify active cases in schools.

The use of high-quality masks (PFF2 or N95) is a scientifically proven effective measure for containing the spread of COVID-19. However, only 2 of the 26 capitals (8%) and 1 of the 27 states (4%) distributed these types of masks as part of the reopening efforts for in-person schooling.

Proper room ventilation in classrooms was not given due priority in protocols. None of the plans analyzed in this policy brief adopted CO2 monitoring in classrooms.

The subdivision of school classes into pods, in which in-person attendance by cohorts is rotated, reduces classroom occupation and serves as an efficient tool for isolating contacts in an infection outbreak. However, this policy was proposed by only 3 of the 26 state capitals (12%) and 12 of the 27 states (44%).