Learning loss after the pandemic

These documents are part of the «Learning loss after the pandemic» project, led by the Esade Center for Economic Policy (EsadeEcPol) and the COTEC Foundation.

To find out more, visit www.perdidadeaprendizaje.es

Learning loss after a year of pandemic: the case of the Basque Country

This first document presents the main results of the analysis of microdata from the Basque Country to estimate the learning loss caused by COVID-19. In particular:

• Until now there were no data on the impact of the pandemic on student learning. Below we present the first study on learning loss, in this case in the Basque Country, based on the analysis of data on 4th-year primary and 2nd-year ESO students in the Basque education system. The study draws on data from external diagnostic assessments carried out by the Basque Institute for Educational Evaluation and Research (ISEI-IVEI), a pioneering body in educational evaluation.
• The analysis uses a difference-in-differences empirical approach in a «natural experiment» setting, a methodology recently recognised with the 2021 Nobel Prize in Economics. In addition, we have pioneering data on the effect of the pandemic on student well-being, which allows us, for the first time in scientific research, to link learning loss and students’ socio-emotional well-being during the pandemic.
• The results show significant learning losses for 2nd-year ESO students in the Basque Country in March 2021, one year after school closures. That said, the magnitude of the loss observed in March 2021 is smaller than that found in other countries in June or September 2020 (roughly half), and represents around 13% of a school year’s learning: this may be explained precisely by a partial recovery of learning loss following the efficient reopening of schools, far better than in the rest of the OECD countries. The learning loss is greater in Mathematics and Basque, while we find no losses in Spanish. Given the similar school closure and reopening policies across Spain’s regions, the magnitude of the learning loss can be expected to be similar in other regions.
• When analysing which types of schools and students were hit hardest by the pandemic, the main channel through which learning loss operates is school-related variables. We find that public schools account for most of the students’ learning loss, regardless of the school’s socio-economic level. Among state-subsidised schools, those with lower prior learning levels also show significant learning losses.
• Among students at the same school, a reduction in inequality of results within the school is observed, as students with the best results in the 4th year of primary show a greater learning loss than those with worse results. This may be the result of the curriculum compression measures adopted by schools during lockdown and reopening. We find no differences in learning loss between students by socio-economic level.
• In terms of student well-being and attitudes towards school, we find that the most socially disadvantaged students, those with lower prior learning levels, and boys suffered a greater deterioration in their socio-emotional well-being during the pandemic. The effect of COVID-19 on student well-being is negatively related to academic performance, although this relationship is not necessarily causal.

→ The document is available here and the academic paper here

COVID-19 AND EDUCATION V: Policies and practices to tackle learning loss

The second document presents an analysis of the education policies and practices that national and international administrations have implemented to recover the learning loss caused by the pandemic. In particular:

• There is a clear trend towards including socio-emotional aspects of learning in programmes, with the aim of minimising not only the academic effects of the pandemic but also those related to student well-being.
• Both nationally and internationally, there is agreement that individual or small-group tutoring is the most effective measure in terms of educational recovery and support. But nationally, and despite the PROA+ framework, there are few tutoring programmes in the regions that are structured, systematic, continuous and organised.
• Teachers, despite being a key element in support programmes, do not have a clear presence in the design of measures: there is no evidence of a commitment to training them in diversity, inclusive methodologies, new assessment frameworks or support programmes.
• There is a growing perception that educational support has not only an individual dimension —the student— but also requires the community, especially in vulnerable settings. As a result, there is an increase in programmes aimed at families and in partnerships with the local community.
• The analysis, both nationally and internationally, reveals major gaps in the design of measures:

— Education policies see support as something separate from how schools operate: the underlying idea is that educational support actions are essentially extracurricular, and measures are designed from that perspective.

— Vocational Training is the most neglected stage in the design of measures.

— Evaluation and monitoring remain the great unfinished business of public education policies during the pandemic.

• The document closes by proposing a learning recovery strategy structured around six lines of action: (i) evaluation and diagnosis; (ii) strengthening inclusive teaching practices in schools; (iii) programmes; (iv) teacher professional development; (v) monitoring and follow-up; and (vi) partnerships.

→ The document can be downloaded here