Claim that mandates harm early child development has no proof
As the omicron variant of COVID-19 is surging across the United States, some states and municipalities are returning to mask mandates, as in Milwaukee, where the Common Council on Tuesday approved a change to the city’s existing mask ordinance to require masks for anyone at least 3 years old in buildings open to the public through March 1.
All of that has led to a new round of pushback from critics.
That could be seen in the response to a Nov. 29 announcement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of a new universal masking policy for federally-funded Head Start education centers. That policy applies to everyone above the age of 2, including all staff, volunteers and contractors.
Two Republican lawmakers — U.S. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota and U.S. Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan — introduced a bill to bar such a requirement, which also faces a host of legal challenges across the country.
U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., had this to say in a Dec. 21 Twitter post: “Mask mandates on children lead to learning loss that harms early childhood development.”
Most of the concern about learning loss has been centered on virtual learning, instead of in-person classes.
Is Fitzgerald right about mask mandates?
Study vs. opinion piece
When asked for supporting information, Fitzgerald’s office pointed us to a Dec. 21 letter crafted by McClain and sent to Dr. Bernadine Futrell, director of the Office of Head Start. Fitzgerald was among those who signed the letter, and he included a link to it in his tweet.
“We have grave concerns that your (Head Start Program Performance Standards) rule requiring universal masking for all individuals two years of age and older and universal masking and vaccinations for staff, certain contractors, and volunteers will further exacerbate the ongoing challenges posed by the pandemic,” the letter reads, in part.
The letter cited an Aug. 11, 2020, article that can be found online via the U.S. National Library of Medicine that states how important “facial recognition and expressions are for learning among young children.”
Online sources describe NLM, operated by the National Institutes of Health, as the world’s largest medical library. The article in question was written by Manfred Spitzer, a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Ulm in Germany.
The article notes that “covering the lower half of the face reduces the ability to communicate, interpret, and mimic the expressions of those with whom we interact.”
It goes on to say: “positive emotions become less recognizable, and negative emotions are amplified. Emotional mimicry, contagion, and emotionality in general are reduced and (thereby) bonding between teachers and learners, group cohesion, and learning — of which emotions are a major driver. The benefits and burdens of face masks in schools should be seriously considered and made obvious and clear to teachers and students.”
But the Spitzer article is not based on scientific study. In fact, an ethical statement at the end of the piece notes that “no data was collected for this opinion paper.”
Response from public health officials
In a Dec. 6 Science brief, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that limited available data indicates “no clear evidence that masking impairs emotional or language development in children.”
“A study of 2-year-old children concluded that they were able to recognize familiar words presented without a mask and when hearing words through opaque masks,” according to the brief. “Among children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), interventions including positive reinforcement and coaching caregivers to teach mask wearing have improved participants’ ability to wear a face mask. These findings suggest that even children who may have difficulty wearing a mask can do so effectively through targeted interventions.”
When asked about the issue, Wisconsin Department of Health Services communications specialist Jennifer Miller emphasized that the article referenced in Fitzgerald’s tweet “is not a study, but an opinion paper published in August 2020, before a handful of actual studies on this topic were published.”
“The Wisconsin Department of Health Services believes masks are one of the tools to effectively help stop the spread of COVID-19, but we also recognize that there may be reasons certain groups of people may find it difficult to wear a mask, including some children 2 years and older and people of any age with certain disabilities.” Miller said in an email.
With regard to the potential impact of masks on language and emotional development, Miller reiterated the CDC position that “available data indicate no clear evidence that masking impairs emotional or language development in children.”
Our ruling
Fitzgerald claimed “mask mandates on children lead to learning loss that harms early childhood development.”
But the article he and his colleagues cited is an opinion piece, not based on a study. In addition, it came out before other formal studies were completed that showed a different view.
The CDC says limited available data indicates “no clear evidence that masking impairs emotional or language development in children.”
For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False.