Let's do a little math...

Even if this was a straight up statistic, it wouldn't mean diddly squat... 

Some cursory research on this particular statistic, which likely came from a less than controlled Michigan study  strongly suggests that this statistic is likely largely overstated. The study was performed by people who had already come to the conclusion that masks were needed and they were bound and determined to prove it.

But let's assume it is real and there is a difference, what sort of difference are we talking about? 

Well what it means is that districts requiring masks have a infection rate of 0.05% while the districts who are not requiring masks have an infection rate of 0.08%. That is not five percent vs eight percent or even a half percent vs eight tenths of a percent... both of these numbers are less than one tenth of one percent. 

To take this one step further, the number suggest that about 80-90% of children who get covid will see almost no symptoms of the virus. Meaning only between 3-6 more children out of every 100,000 would even see symptoms. Meanwhile, the overall survival rate for children approaches the statistical equivalent of nearly 100% (literally over 99.9%). 

So what are we really talking about here?

Yes, masking children could conceivably (if the study is accurate) provide an additional 0.003% from getting sick and an additional 0.00003% security from a child actually dying from Covid. That is the equivalent to one out of 30,000 more or less seeing symptoms and one out of three million more or less deaths. 

So statistically speaking... it would save the lives of approximately 8 children over the entire United States if (and only if) the virus happened to remain at the current pace and kill another 700,000 people over the next year and a half. If we are (as many suggest) at the tail end of this, then the masking helps even less. 

To put that into perspective, there would be approximately an 85% chance that your state would probably not see a single extra death of a child because they didn't mask (depending on the size of your state of course). All of this assumes that the study is valid.

We are literally talking about disrupting lives in a manner that child psychologists suggest is doing long term sociological harm to our children, all because there is a poorly put together study that states masking wearing may or may not potentially save the lives of a handful of children. More will certainly die of the flu and all sorts of other causes. 

Note: over a thousand children under the age of 17 have died of pneumonia since the pandemic started. Over twice as many than have died of Covid. We have never masked for pneumonia in spite of that particular statistic. Why would we mask over single digits?