The silent crisis: Pandemic learning losses that could haunt a generation

The cataclysmic second wave demolished efforts and hopes to get children back into schools. Only by April 2022 did things return to ‘normal.’ 

This disruption of schooling for nearly two years led to a massive loss of learning. What was supposed to be learnt during this period was not. In addition, children forgot a lot of what they had learnt previously.

Have we been able to recover this lost learning for our children in the three years that have passed? 

The answer is ‘no’. 

Also Read: Don't pretend the pandemic didn't happen and schools never closed

Even in states that have done the best, the learning recovery isn’t full.

Two things need to be noted. 

First, there is a noticeable variance in learning recovery across classes. 

The worst affected, where recovery has been the least, are students now in class 5. These children had just been admitted to schools when they were shut in March 2020. So, their first two years of schooling were through that period of severe disruption.

Second, there is large variance across states and Union territories (UTs). 

School systems are run by states and UTs and their capacity and effectiveness varies significantly. Some of the difference in recovery can be explained by this difference in systemic capacity, but I suspect that most of the difference is explained by the differing responses of states to the loss of learning. 

Here, I am not referring to the absolute level of learning of school children, which is largely a result of the systemic capacity in that state. But to recovery of the learning that was lost to the pandemic.

We can put these differing responses of states and UTs into three categories: enlightened, in-denial and random.

The enlightened response had six basic elements. 

First, a clear public acknowledgment that the disruption was leading to large learning losses. This aligned everyone in the system to tackle it. 

Second, a realistic understanding that online classes were not useful. 

Third, a redesigned curriculum so that when schools re-opened, children were taught on the basis of what they knew, with lessons adapted for gaps, rather than what was supposed to be in the standard curriculum for any particular class. 

For example, if in April 2022 most children in class 3 did not remember basic single-digit addition and subtraction, then they were taught that instead of three-digit addition and subtraction and multiplication, which would be in the standard curriculum of class 3. 

Fourth, the development of methods, tools and books to assess the real status of learning of each child, so that different groups of children could be taught based on their learning level within the same class. 

Fifth, the training of teachers and others in the system to work with this approach. 

Sixth, enough time was given to teachers and schools to recover, instead of hustling them to quickly move onto the ongoing year’s textbooks. 

Eventually, the execution of this enlightened response has differed, and so there is variance in learning recovery even across these states.

In contrast, deniers simply denied that there was any loss of learning. It is unclear why some states did that. 

Also Read: India should give its school education system a radical rejig

In some of them, the then leadership—political and/or administrative—seems to have got trapped by their premature pronouncements that ‘all is well’ and then didn’t correct course even later. In some others, the matter was just not given attention. 

Beyond this, it seems impossible to understand what drove the denial response, since the reality was staring everyone in the face.

Many states and UTs seemed to start with the enlightened approach, with those six basic elements, but then inexplicably changed or aborted some aspects of it, conveying randomness in decision-making. 

This randomness was in a wide range, with some showing less and others more. 

For example, some did all the right things for one or two months and then declared that all the lost learning had been recovered. I

n those one or two months, the system had barely geared up for the new approach and had not even begun recovering the lost learning.

Some states pronounced that they will act but never did on one or more of these basic elements. 

For example, they did not reframe the curriculum or failed to develop tools to assess children’s learning. 

A few states did even more puzzling things. 

For instance, they did the right thing by asking teachers to teach children on the basis of what they knew and not the standard curriculum for that class, but bizarrely limited this instruction to the morning session, while instructing them to use textbooks from the curriculum of that very class for afternoon teaching.

Since even those who have executed the enlightened response well have not been able to recover all the learning that was lost, we can imagine the situation among deniers and random responders. 

Also Read: We could make up for the covid disruption of schooling if we try

Our children will bear the brunt of this, many for their entire lives, because most education builds on prior learning and so the loss effects tend to accumulate. 

But this is not inevitable. School systems can still focus on ensuring that schools prioritize the recovery of lost learning for each child. 

Teachers know how to do it. The system needs to respond with clarity and purpose.

The author is CEO of Azim Premji Foundation.