The State of Global 18 Months into the Pandemic - September 2021 - Rijksoverheid
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The State of Global
Education
18 M o n t h s i n t o t h e P a n d e m i c
September 2021
Acknowledgements Sincere thanks are due, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, to the many people who contributed to and helped shape the preparation of this spotlight on The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic. The data underlying this report were produced through the Survey on Joint National Responses to COVID 19 School Closures, a collaborative effort conducted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; the United Nations Children’s Fund; the World Bank; and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The data were complemented by an additional Special Survey on COVID-19 administered by the OECD for its member and partner countries to report on the situation in 2021 up to 20 May. Designed for government officials responsible for education, the survey collected information on national or regional education responses to school closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This spotlight is the fourth in a series that tracks developments throughout the pandemic, and analyses a range of topics, from lost learning opportunities and contingency strategies through the organisation of learning and the working conditions of teachers to issues around governance and finance. Our special thanks go to members of the OECD Indicators of Education Systems (INES) Working Party, who provided guidance on the design of the questions, co-ordinated the national responses to the survey, and provided guidance and comments throughout the process. This spotlight was prepared under the responsibility of Andreas Schleicher, Special Advisor on Education Policy to the OECD Secretary-General and Director for Education and Skills. Co-ordinated by Eric Charbonnier and Marie-Hélène Doumet, this work is the product of a collaborative effort across staff of the OECD INES programme of the OECD Directorate for Education and Skills: Étienne Albiser, Heewoon Bae, Andrea Borlizzi, Antonio Carvalho, Manon Costinot, Bruce Golding, Yanjun Guo, Corinne Heckmann, Massimo Loi, Gara Rojas González, Daniel Sánchez Serra, Markus Schwabe, Giovanni Maria Semeraro, Choyi Whang and Hajar Sabrina Yassine. Administrative support was provided by Valérie Forges. Cassandra Davis, Sophie Limoges and Della Shin provided valuable support in the editorial and production process.
The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
Editorial
As schools and universities in OECD countries are attainment were more affected by unemployment
progressively resuming operations following the most than men. On average across OECD countries, the
serious disruption of their services for many decades, unemployment rate among women without upper
it is time to look forward to what could and should secondary attainment was 12% in 2020, compared
be the new normal. In an unprecedented crisis like to 10% among men. In contrast, for those with higher
the COVID-19 pandemic, it is difficult to derive educational attainment levels, unemployment levels
lessons from the past. However, it can be instructive were not only lower overall, but also similar between
to look outwards to how other education systems are men and women. However, between 2019 and
responding to similar challenges. To support this, the 2020, the rise in unemployment due to the pandemic
OECD has collected comparative education statistics was generally similar for women and men, across all
to track developments throughout the pandemic, levels of educational attainment. This is due partly
looking at aspects ranging from lost learning to government and company policies to introduce
opportunities and contingency strategies to make up flexible working measures, but also to the occupations
for these through the organisation of learning and allowed and encouraged to continue working during
the working conditions of teachers to issues around lockdowns, many of which tend to be over-represented
governance and finance. by one gender or the other, such as nurses for women
or construction workers for men.
This spotlight expands the picture from learning
in educational institutions to the labour market While policy attention is naturally focused on young
opportunities of youths and their transition from people at work or in their transition to work, since their
education to work. Young workers typically bear the immediate future is most directly affected by the crisis,
brunt of economic and employment crises, as they the loss of learning opportunities for students in school
often have not acquired the skills and professional or university deserves no less attention, as it could have
experience needed in the labour market and are more serious implications for their future. As the OECD’s
likely to have short-term and precarious contracts. In Special Survey on COVID-19 shows, the extent of
times of layoffs, they are also often the first to go, as lost learning opportunities has been very significant in
they have not acquired sufficient seniority. This being many countries. On average across the 30 countries
said, and compared with earlier crises, government with comparable data for all levels of education,
interventions such as job retention schemes were pre-primary schools were closed for 55 days, primary
largely able to cushion the effect on employment, schools for 78 days, lower secondary schools for
with unemployment even among poorly qualified 92 days and upper secondary schools for 101 days
25-34-year-olds across OECD countries just between 1 January 2020 and 20 May 2021. The
2 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019. number of days of school closure represents roughly
28% of total instruction days over a typical academic
Furthermore, the impact of the pandemic on the labour
year at pre-primary and more than 56% at upper
market seems more evenly distributed across levels
secondary level on average across OECD countries.
of education than during the last global financial
While the Special Survey on COVID-19 highlights
crisis. This relates to the nature of this health crisis:
numerous contingency measures that countries put
while highly educated adults were often able to work
in place to keep learning going when schools were
remotely, those with lower educational attainment
closed, national studies show significant learning
dominated many occupations that performed essential
losses, particularly for students from disadvantaged
functions during the pandemic. Still, a closer look
backgrounds and among students in secondary
shows a less-even picture: Across the OECD,
schools.
the year-on-year change in hours worked during the
second quarter of 2020 fell only by 8.5% among the Recognising the serious impact of school closures
highly skilled, while it dropped by 24% among those on the learning and well-being of students, many
without an upper secondary education. And while countries adjusted their strategies concerning school
the number of hours worked recovered for highly closures as the pandemic evolved. As the Special
educated adults that returned to work later in the year, Survey on COVID-19 shows, after a quasi-systematic
they persisted for those with a lower level of education. closure of schools in most countries in mid-March
The data also show gender differences for the poorly 2020, approaches diverged significantly between
qualified: younger women without upper secondary September 2020 and the first part of 2021.
© OECD 2021 3
The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
In some countries, schools remained closed as viral – with flexibility to implement these at the frontline.
transmission increased, while others kept them open Hybrid and remote learning should be second- and
even in a difficult pandemic context. Learning in third-best options, and only be used when keeping
upper secondary schools was disrupted (full or partial schools open proves impossible to preserve collective
closures) by more than 200 days in Colombia, health, or students’ and staff’s safety. Providing
Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Mexico, transparent criteria and guidelines based on infection
Poland and Turkey between January 2020 and May levels and other relevant considerations for different
2021, compared to less than 50 days in Norway, modes of schooling is essential, as is the necessary
New Zealand and Spain. The Special Survey on flexibility to implement them effectively at the frontline.
COVID-19 also shows that the arrangements for Beyond continued academic development, a holistic
keeping schools or classes open varied considerably. approach to education focusing on students’ socio
Germany, for example, implemented strict rules in emotional learning and agency needs to be a central
2021 such that all schools had to adopt hybrid part of their education, with their physical development
learning protocols if incidence rates were higher than and mental health needs met by co-ordinated services
100 in a region. Moreover, after 3 days with an liaising with schools. The best way of securing the
incidence exceeding 165 per 100 000 inhabitants, most suitable conditions for learning, assessment, and
schools had to switch to distance learning for all social and emotional growth is through collaboration,
students. By contrast, Belgium, France, Spain and with jurisdictions and education authorities working
Switzerland did not fully close their upper secondary together with teachers and their organisations, parents,
schools (or only for a few days) between January communities, and other education stakeholders to
and May 2021 despite high cumulative numbers of achieve them.
COVID-19 cases.
It is equally important that the crisis leads to a recovery
It is also important to address the impact of the which addresses inequity. Where school capacity
pandemic on adult learning. The shutdowns of is limited due to social distancing requirements, it is
economic activities decreased workers’ participation vital to prioritise young children and disadvantaged
in non-formal learning by an average of 18%, and students for in-school learning. The early years are
in informal learning by 25%. Before the pandemic, foundational for the social, emotional and cognitive
workers across OECD countries spent on average development of children, and prolonged exposure
4.9 hours per week on informal learning and 0.7 hours to screens is neither feasible nor desirable at such a
on non-formal learning. According to estimates, during young age. Similarly, students from lower
the pandemic, this dropped to 3.7 hours for informal socio-economic backgrounds may find it more difficult
learning and 0.6 hours per week for non-formal to study from home, suffer from low Internet connectivity
learning. This represents a notable amount of lost or lack parental support at home. Often, education,
learning, which may not be easily recovered. health and other social services need greater
co-ordination to support disadvantaged students’
In sum, the disruptions of learning risk to cast long
learning. Resources should be aligned with needs and
shadows over the economic and social well-being of
reflect the social and economic conditions of students
people of all ages. This makes it so important to learn
and schools in a transparent way. Countries should
the right lessons from this crisis.
make very deliberate efforts and commit resources to
For a start, it has become abundantly clear how provide additional targeted student support to address
important it is during a pandemic to ensure reliability the reduced learning opportunities experienced by
and predictability of educational services for learners students from some social groups. Targeted support
and parents. Even during school closures, all students can take different forms: the provision of in-school and
should have daily and dedicated contact with after-school small group tutoring, summer schools,
educators. Long phases of distant learning need to be counselling for specific students according to their
avoided, and daily schedules for hybrid learning work social and emotional needs, an enhanced emphasis
better than weekly or monthly schedules. on metacognitive and collaborative learning, on
Wherever possible, schools should remain open, with oral language interventions, but also on other forms
appropriate health measures that minimise risks for of pedagogical interventions that are supported
students, school staff and the rest of the population. by evidence and seem appropriate in the local
It is important to combine transparent criteria for context. Such interventions need to take into account
schools and education services – e.g. the use of that schools are both social hubs that support the
bubbles and stable pods, masks, ventilation, testing, development of students’ socioemotional skills and well
quarantine, vaccination, classroom or school closures being and centres of their local communities.
New interventions and approaches can also be
4 © OECD 2021The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
piloted with the engagement of schools within their Education systems can learn from these developments
communities. so that they become more effective and equitable.
Across societies, the pandemic has demonstrated
Since teachers and schools continue to be at the
the importance of frontline capacity and leadership
centre of student learning, their working conditions
of change at every layer of the system. Central to
and professional learning need to be fit for purpose
education recovery programmes should be a focus
in supporting their work in post-pandemic recovery.
on supporting a teaching profession that is actively
Clearly, teachers’ job satisfaction, well-being, beliefs
engaged in the design of learning environments and
and professionalism are inter-related and can have
public policy, in the advancement of professional
an effect on student outcomes. Teachers also need
practice, and in creating a stronger professional work
to be able to support students’ remote learning by
organisation. Many teachers have also responded
regular personal communication with students (and
to the pandemic by creating their own just-in-time
families, when necessary) and should, in turn, be
professional development. A lesson from the pandemic
supported to do so effectively. Education systems and
is that teachers need to feel empowered to exert
schools should aim to provide means and schedules of
their professionalism in the use of technology as part
communication with students and families, the provision
of their teaching. This also involves the integration of
of training, opportunities for teachers to network with
technology in all teacher training courses, and more
each other, and a variety of teaching and learning
collaborative platforms and professional learning
resources to support remote teaching and enable
projects enabling teachers to develop their digital
teachers to devote more time to bilateral interactions
pedagogical competences through a peer learning
with students, particularly for those in greater need of
process. Many education systems and teacher unions
support.
have provided virtual professional development for
The pandemic has also shown that education systems teachers during the pandemic reflecting a core activity,
need to have a strong digital learning infrastructure. that of providing effective and highly valued learning.
This infrastructure is best developed and implemented
Last but not least, much can be learnt from the
in collaboration with the teaching profession. Effective
innovative and collaborative partnerships between
and inclusive digital platforms should offer valuable
governments, the teaching profession at school
resources for in-school and out-of-school learning
level, and with its organisations and other education
experiences which can, in part at least, address
stakeholders which have emerged during the
the inequity that blights many learners’ experience
pandemic. The spirit of those partnerships should
of education and improve learning effectiveness
continue and should evolve into an innovation culture
for all. Beyond learning management systems and
as a legacy of the crisis, with an open and constructive
platforms of quality educational resources supporting
approach to improving educational outcomes and
teaching and learning in school and at home, this
equity for all. A culture of innovation will always rely
infrastructure can benefit from the latest advances of
on learning at the individual, organisation and system
digital technology. For example, intelligent tutoring
levels and involves both bottom-up and top-down
systems can support the individualised acquisition
processes and purposeful collaboration and learning.
of procedural knowledge in some subjects; digital
Under an effective leadership, a combination of
resources could provide teachers with feedback on
professional autonomy, supporting resources and
their teaching and students’ learning and facilitate
collaboration can help ensure that rules become
the continued learning engagement of students and
guidelines and good practice, and ultimately, that
learning interactions with peers and teachers. Enabling
good practice becomes culture.
technology solutions that can easily work with other
ones (interoperability), allowing teachers and other It is clear that the pandemic has seriously disrupted
relevant stakeholders to contribute learning resources education systems. But the implications of these
(crowdsourcing) and involving everyone in the curation disruptions are not predetermined. We have agency,
of those resources (crowdcuration) will also be key and it is the nature of our collective and systemic
to a strong digital infrastructure. The evaluation and responses to these disruptions that will determine how
quality assurance of this infrastructure should include we are ultimately affected by them.
transparent technology criteria for providers and
have the feedback of teachers, students and school
communities at its core. Andreas Schleicher
The pandemic has led to a wealth of school- and Director for the OECD Directorate of Education and
teacher-led micro-innovations, experimentation and Skills and Special Advisor on Education Policy to
the development of new learning infrastructures. the Secretary-General
© OECD 2021 5School closure during the pandemic
This closure represents:
Generally,
the higher the Average days of full school closure
from 1 January 2020 to May 2021
education level, the
101
longer schools were 92
100
closed 78 28% of total
75 instruction days at the
55 pre-primary level*
50
25
56% of total
Pre- Primary Lower Upper instruction days at
primary secondary secondary upper secondary
level*
Schools at upper secondary level experienced an additional 57 days All data refer to the average for
of partial opening during the same period OECD countries
*Over a typical academic year
A A focus on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)
CB
In 5 countries, ECEC settings did not
close at all during the pandemic Governments were less likely to shut down pre-primary
schools for a number of reasons:
Provision of online
learning was lower at this level. The share
of countries providing online learning:
The early years Setting up effective ECEC provides
are critical for remote learning childcare support to
62% >90% the cognitive strategies is parents returning
for for higher and emotional particularly difficult to work after
pre-primary levels of development for young children confinement
education of children
All data refer to the average for OECD countries
Impact of COVID-19 on learning outcomes
A number of countries have taken steps to assess learning losses and address learning gaps:
Standardised Remedial
assessments Questionnaires Formative measures
to track to teachers, assessments to reduce
learning losses principals Adjusted by teachers learning gaps
or school content of
Exam
1
providers examinations
2
1
2
3
36% 62% 76%
36% 44%
All data refer to the
average for OECD countriesSupport for teachers during the pandemic
The COVID-19 crisis has resulted in significant
Before the pandemic, teachers reported that: changes in the working conditions and
recruitment of teachers:
43% felt
‘well prepared’ or ‘very
well prepared’ to use ICT
in their own teaching
50% of countries 40% of countries
changed their school recruited temporary staff
56% felt calendars and curriculum
ICT* for teaching was
included in 2/3 of countries prioritised teachers for
their training COVID-19 vaccination
All data refer to the average for OECD countries
*Information and Communication Technologies
Financing of primary to tertiary education during the pandemic
In response to the pandemic, Countries that increased education budgets:
a growing share of about 66%
2020
OECD countries of countries
increased
their education 2021 about 75%
budgets of countries
The rise in the share of countries reporting
increased funding between 2020 and 2021 was
most striking at tertiary level:
2020
63%
of countries
2021
81%
of countries
All data refer to the average for OECD countries
Impact of COVID-19 on labour market outcomes
However, the share of young adult
Unemployment increased for all adults NEETs* has not changed remarkably
from 2019 to 2020, and the rise has been between 2019 and 2020:
similar across:
Educational 14.6% 16.4%
attainment Gender in 2019 in 2020
In 2020, the share of adults
enrolled in formal and/or
non-formal education decreased
by 27% compared to 2019
All data refer to the average for OECD countries
*Not in Education, Employment or Training1 School closures and distance education
during the pandemic
Although school closures were still ongoing after the first quarter
of 2021 in some countries, the situation improved in most countries
during the second quarter
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional these two modes of delivery. Low quality, diversity
schooling in 2020 and the first half of 2021, leading to and availability of teaching materials on line, as well
school closures across all OECD countries. While most as the lack of pedagogical continuity, particularly for
countries shut down their premises entirely in the wake the most disadvantaged students, risks undermining
of the pandemic in 2020, the situation has improved in learning during this period. School closures will also
2021. impact transitions between levels of education, with
disrupted examinations between secondary and
Between February and May 2021, an increasing
higher education for example, but also between higher
number of countries reopened schools across the
education and the labour market.
OECD. This was particularly marked for the lower
levels of education (pre-primary, primary and lower Tertiary institutions also reopened progressively during
secondary education), while upper secondary schools the first half of 2021. While more than half of the
and tertiary institutions were still often only partially 30 responding countries reported their tertiary
open on 20 May 2021 (Figure 1). While only 40% of institutions were fully closed on 1 February 2021,
countries had opened their primary schools and 30% only 6 had not reopened them by 20 May 2021
their lower secondary schools by 1 February 2021, (Austria, Canada, Germany, Lithuania, Mexico and
schools at both levels were fully open in Poland). Despite the full closure of tertiary institutions in
two-thirds of countries on 20 May 2021, with the these six countries, some exceptions were made.
others operating mostly on a part-time basis. In Germany, for instance, laboratory classes, courses
The exceptions are Mexico and Turkey, where primary for beginners or exams could still be conducted in
and secondary schools were still fully closed by hybrid or face-to-face formats. In Poland, onsite
20 May 2021. The return to full-time schooling offered learning was maintained for practical classes, such
most countries the opportunity to assess learning losses as in laboratories. Students in their final years were
over the end of the 2020/21 school year and to also offered the possibility to take part in classes on
implement remedial activities if needed (see Section 3). school premises. In Austria, while most instruction took
place on line, exceptions were granted in specific
With schools fully or partially closed, in-person
circumstances for person-to-person meetings, teaching
schooling was often combined with distance learning.
and examinations on campus.
This has raised questions on the effectiveness of
learning as students and teachers alternate between
8 © OECD 2021The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
Figure 1•Status of education institution closures due to COVID-19 (2021)
By level of education
Schools were "fully open" as of 20 May 2021
Schools were "partially open" as of 20 May 2021
Schools were "fully closed" as of 20 May 2021
Other (as of 20 May 2021)
Schools were "fully open" as of 1 February 2021
Share of countries (%)
100 MEX MEX, TUR MEX, TUR MEX, TUR GBR, JPN
90 BRA, CHL, CRI, LTU BRA, CAN, CHL, BRA, CAN, CHL, BRA, CAN, CHL, AUT, CAN, DEU,
80 COL, CRI, DEU, COL, CRI, DEU, COL, CRI, DEU, LTU, MEX, POL
KOR, LTU, LVA, KOR, LTU, LVA, DNK, FRA, KOR,
70 AUT, BFL, BFR, POL
CHE, COL, CZE, NLD, POL LTU, LUX, LVA,
60 DEU, DNK, ESP, NLD, POL
AUT, BFL, BFR, AUT, BFL, BFR, BFR, BRA, CHE,
50 CHE, CZE, DNK, CHE, CZE, DNK, CHL, COL, CRI,
ESP, EST, FIN, AUT, BFL, BFR, DNK, ESP, FIN,
40 EST, FIN, FRA, ESP, EST, FIN, CHE, CZE, ESP,
GBR, HUN, ISR, FRA, GBR, HUN, FRA, HUN, IRL,
EST, FIN, GBR, LUX, LVA, NOR,
30 JPN, LUX, LVA, FRA, GBR, HUN, HUN, IRL, ISR, JPN,
NLD, NOR, NZL, RUS, SVN, SWE
IRL, ISR, JPN, NOR, NZL, PRT,
20 POL, PRT, RUS, LUX, NLD, NOR, IRL, ISR, JPN, LUX, RUS, SVN, SWE
10 SVN, SWE, TUR NZL, PRT, RUS, NOR, NZL, PRT,
SVN, SWE RUS, SVN, SWE BFL, CZE, ISR, NZL
0
Pre-primary education Primary education Lower secondary Upper secondary, Tertiary education
(32 countries) (35 countries) education general education (30 countries)
(35 countries) (35 countries)
Source: OECD/UIS/UNESCO/UNICEF/WB (2021[1]).
Institutions were still only partially open in a third of countries at upper
secondary level and in 60% of countries at tertiary level by 20 May
2021
Although the situation improved between the first and infection rates. For example, in the 15 regions in France
second quarters of 2021, partially open schools were where COVID-19 infection rates were the highest
still the norm as of 20 May 2021, especially at upper between 3 May and 30 May, in-person instruction
secondary level for more than a third of OECD and was delivered fully in the classroom for 6th and 7th
partner countries (14 out of 35) and at tertiary level for graders, while a hybrid learning arrangement was
about 60% of countries (18 out of 30). However, the deployed for 8th and 9th graders.
arrangements for opening schools on a part-time basis
The remaining ten countries applied stricter measures.
varied from country to country.
Schools were “fully open” only for certain grades
Of the 14 countries whose upper secondary (or age groups) and in certain areas/regions in
general schools were only partially open in May Canada and Korea; in certain areas/regions and with
2021, 4 of them (Costa Rica, France, Luxembourg a reduced number of students per classroom in Chile
and the Netherlands) only reduced the number of (with an attendance rate of about 25%), Colombia
students per classroom, employing a combination of and Germany; and for certain grades (or age groups)
distance education strategies and in-person classes. with a reduced number of students per classroom in
In Luxembourg, for example, all schools were fully Poland. In Germany, for instance, specific regulations
operational and all students attended class regularly applied from 23 April based on 7-day incidences per
except for those in Grades 4, 5 and 6 of secondary 100 000 inhabitants. Schools had to work in hybrid
education (general and vocational), where a hybrid learning (one-half of the class at school, the other
learning arrangement was deployed: half of the class at home) if incidence rates were higher than 100.
attended in remote learning mode and the other half Moreover, after 3 days of an incidence of more than
in the classroom. These groups alternated on a weekly 165 per 100 000 inhabitants, schools had to switch
or daily basis; it was left to the school’s discretion. to distance learning. In Denmark and Latvia, only
Other countries adapted strategies based on regional graduating classes in upper secondary and vocational
© OECD 2021 9The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
attended in person and only for some lectures. to aid in transitioning to online instruction, 29% of
Brazil and Lithuania were the only countries where undergraduates lost a job or income as a result of
upper secondary schools were “fully open” only in the pandemic, and 70% of undergraduates agreed
certain areas/regions, for certain grades (or age that their institution provided helpful communication
groups) and with a reduced number of students per on changes to accessing coursework due to the
classroom. pandemic (Cameron et al., 2021[2]).
Students in higher education were also particularly In some cases, special measures were also proposed
affected by the partial opening of institutions. for pupils enrolled in vocational education. In Latvia,
In the United States, for example, a national survey students enrolled in vocational education and training
of undergraduate and graduate students enrolled (VET) and higher education programmes requiring
between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020 in practical work were allowed to attend classes on site,
postsecondary institutions eligible to participate in in small groups, and with the necessary precautions
federal financial aid programmes shows that, overall, and compulsory masks. In Poland, headmasters of
87% of students experienced a disruption or change schools providing vocational education could organise
in their enrolment, with 84% having some or all of their practical classes on certain days of the week, not
courses switched to on line-only instruction. The study exceeding 16 hours per week, in groups and allowing
also shows that 34% of undergraduates received for social distancing (OECD, 2021[3]).
technology or technical services from their institution
The number of instruction days schools were closed varied across
countries, but also between 2020 and 2021
Between January 2020 and May 2021, schools New Zealand, Norway and Spain, and for more than
closed for at least one level of education in all 150 days in Colombia, the Czech Republic,
countries that reported data to the Special Survey Costa Rica, Hungary, Latvia, Mexico, Poland and
on COVID-19. Generally, the number of instruction Turkey. Only six countries, namely Belgium, Chile,
days that schools were fully closed (excluding school Colombia, Costa Rica, New Zealand and Spain,
holidays, public holidays and weekends) increased have not differentiated their school closure strategies
with the level of education (Figure 2). On average according to educational levels.
across the 30 countries with comparable data for all
After a quasi-systematic closure of schools in most
levels of education, pre-primary schools were fully
countries in mid-March 2020, approaches diverged
closed for an average of 55 days between 1 January
significantly between September and December
2020 and 20 May 2021 while primary schools
2020. In some countries, schools remained closed
closed for 78 days, lower secondary schools for
as viral transmission increased, while others kept
92 days and upper secondary schools for 101 days
them open (OECD, 2021[4]). Similar strategies were
(Table A1 in Annex). The number of days of school
observed over 2021, regardless of the state of viral
closure represents roughly 28% of total instruction days
transmission across countries. Thus, nine countries
over a typical academic year at pre-primary and more
(Colombia, Costa Rica, Japan, Korea,
than 56% at upper secondary level on average across
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain and
OECD countries.
Switzerland) did not fully close their upper secondary
However, these figures mask substantial differences schools at all between January 2021 and 20 May
across countries and within them across levels of 2021, while Belgium and Luxembourg closed them
education. For instance, in Sweden, all primary and for only five days. In the other 19 countries, the
most lower secondary schools remained open in number of days of closure varies from 10 days in
2020 and 2021, while upper secondary schools were France and Sweden to 60 days or more in many
fully closed for about 80 days over the same period. Eastern European countries (the Czech Republic,
Schools were closed at least 40 days more at upper Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland), but also in
secondary than at primary level in the Denmark, Germany and Mexico (Figure 3). The level
Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, of COVID-19 infection rates did not determine whether
Mexico and Poland. In contrast, Ireland, Korea and schools were closed in many countries. For example,
Luxembourg closed their primary schools longer than Belgium, France, Spain and Switzerland did not fully
their upper secondary schools. Upper secondary close their upper secondary schools (or only for a few
general schools were fully closed for less than 50 days days) from 1 January 2021 to 20 May 2021 despite
in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, a high cumulative number of COVID-19 cases per
10 © OECD 2021The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
million inhabitants over this period. In contrast, infection Belgium, Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Lithuania,
rates were lower in Denmark, Germany and Mexico, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Learning in upper
although the three countries closed their upper secondary schools was disrupted (full or partial
secondary schools for more than 60 days in 2021. closure) by more than 200 days in Colombia,
Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Mexico,
In many countries, schools did not fully close, but
Poland and Turkey between January 2020 and
remained open with reduced capacity in 2020 and
May 2021 compared to less than 50 days in New
until May 2021. Upper secondary schools were
Zealand, Norway and Spain.
partially open at least 100 days over this period in
Figure 2•Number of instruction days schools were fully closed in 2020 and 2021, by level of education
Excluding school holidays, public holidays and weekends, between 1 January 2020 and 20 May 2021
Pre-primary education Primary education Lower secondary education Upper secondary general education
Number of days
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Ireland
Spain
Czech Republic
Colombia¹
Latvia²
Israel
England (UK)
Germany¹, ³
Belgium
Finland
France
Costa Rica
Hungary
Turkey
Austria
Chile¹
Estonia¹
Denmark²
Sweden
Switzerland
Korea
Norway
New Zealand¹
Lithuania
Netherlands
Slovenia
OECD average
Portugal
Luxembourg
Mexico
Poland
1. Most typical number of instruction days. For Colombia, some schools were fully closed during the period from September to
December 2020 while others were partially open in hybrid mode for 65 days.
2. Minimum number of instruction days in 2020.
3. Different school holiday schedules explain the higher number of instruction days when schools were fully closed at pre-primary
compared to primary education.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the number of days schools were fully closed in upper secondary
education between 1 January 2020 and 20 May 2021.
Source: OECD/UIS/UNESCO/UNICEF/WB (2021[1]).
© OECD 2021 11The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
Figure 3•Number of instruction days that upper secondary general schools were fully or partially closed in
2020 and 2021
Excluding school holidays, public holidays and weekends, between 1 January 2020 and 20 May 2021
Number of days where schools were partially closed between January 2020 and 20 May 2021
Number of days where schools were fully closed between 1 January 2021 and 20 May 2021
Number of days Number of days where schools were fully closed in 2020
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Costa Rica
Hungary
Latvia
Belgium
New Zealand
Greece¹
Russian Federation¹
Chile
Ireland
Finland²
France
Germany
Mexico
Czech Republic
Colombia³
Turkey
Lithuania
Slovenia
Austria
OECD average
Portugal
England (UK)
Sweden
Korea²
Spain
Norway
Luxembourg
Brazil¹
Denmark
Estonia²
Israel
Switzerland
Netherlands
Slovak Republic¹
Italy¹
Poland
1. Data for 2021 and on number of days schools were partially open are missing.
2. Data on the number of days schools were partially open are missing.
3. Some schools were fully closed during the period from September to December 2020 while others were partially open in
hybrid mode for 65 days.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the number of days schools were fully closed in upper secondary
education between 1 January 2020 and 20 May 2021.
Source: OECD/UIS/UNESCO/UNICEF/WB (2021[1]).
Criteria for deciding to close a school are set centrally in most
countries
Central governments play a major role in decisions Central governments continue to play a major role
related to the closure or reopening of lower secondary in decision making concerning the national sanitary
schools. Among the 37 countries and economies measures for school reopening, either deciding on
reporting to the Special Survey on COVID-19, these these issues (in 15 out of 36 countries) or setting
decisions were taken by the central government frameworks for these decisions (in 8 countries).
in about two-thirds of them, or at a lower level of This reflects the co-ordination with national health
government within a framework set at the central level authorities on whether to close or open schools.
in another 6 (Figure 4). Even in countries such as the However, in some countries such as Colombia and
Netherlands, where nearly all decisions are taken Lithuania, central government decided to reopen
at school level in public lower secondary education schools, but subnational entities had the authority to
(Figure D6.1 in OECD (2018[5])), the decisions override national recommendations based on the local
on school closures are taken at the central level. state of the pandemic.
Nevertheless, in some countries, such as Denmark and
Policies for closing classes (and in rare or extreme
Finland, regional or local authorities can also decide
cases, schools) in case of a positive test for one or
on local school closures in addition to decisions taken
more students were generally the same for primary and
at the central level.
lower secondary schools across all countries. Closure
strategies in higher education were more flexible.
12 © OECD 2021The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
Positive cases of COVID-19 in higher education a set quarantine period. This is not surprising, as tertiary
institutions were generally less likely to result in the institutions were already heavily engaged in remote
closure of classes than at other levels of education, and teaching and learning strategies in 2021, facilitating
instead led to the isolation of the infected student(s) for social distancing.
Figure 4•Decision making on school closure and reopening due to COVID-19 (2020)
In public lower secondary education
Central government in full autonomy
Subnational authority or individual schools with frameworks from central government
Subnational authority or individual schools in full autonomy
Consultation across multiple levels or parties
Others
Not applicable
School closure/reopening
Sanitary measures to reopen schools
Resources to be made available to continue students'
learning during school closure
Remedial programmes (if applicable)
0 10 20 30 40
Number of countries
Notes: Central government in full autonomy includes decisions taken by the central education authority in consultation or
recommended by the central level health authority. Subnational authority includes state governments, provincial/regional
authorities, sub-regional/municipal authorities. Others indicates cases where classification into given categories is not possible or
the information is insufficient to classify.
Source: OECD/UIS/UNESCO/UNICEF/WB (2021[1]).
Only in a few countries (Korea, Latvia and infected pupils or staff. In 17 of the remaining countries,
New Zealand) did certain schools shut down entirely school based contact tracing is carried out (i.e. COVID
when a positive case of COVID-19 was detected testing of students and staff), which may or may not be
among students or staff. In Korea, for instance, a followed by school or classroom closure.
particular school in which a COVID-19 case was
Despite this trend, the criteria and duration of class
declared organised a temporary transition from offline
closures vary between these countries. In the
learning to distance learning.
Czech Republic, for example, if a positive case
In six other countries (Brazil, Finland, Germany, is detected before classes start, only the infected
Lithuania, Norway and Sweden), schools, districts individual is quarantined. If the case is detected
or the most local level of governance could take later in the week, the class is closed (all students are
decisions on school closures at their own discretion. quarantined) and switch to distance learning.
In Finland, for example, according to the provisional In France, primary and secondary classes are
Basic Education Act (valid until 31 July 2021), closed for seven days when a case of COVID-19 is
local authorities could decide independently to confirmed. In Costa Rica, classrooms with COVID-19
move towards distance education on the basis of cases are closed for 24 hours, are thoroughly
recommendations made by the regional authority for a disinfected, and only students or staff suspected or
given area. In Germany, the municipal health authority confirmed for COVID-19 are isolated for 10 days.
decides which mitigation measures to implement, In England (United Kingdom), if 2 or more confirmed
including isolation of infected cases or closing classes cases are declared within 14 days of school, or there
or schools. In Norway, the head teacher and the is an increase in sick leave with suspicion of COVID-19
municipality decide whether to close the school or infection, the local health protection team is informed,
quarantine those who have been in close contact with which advises if any additional action is required.
© OECD 2021 13The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
Finally, in Turkey, if a student is diagnosed with guidelines. If more than one case occurs in the same
COVID-19, students in the same class are considered class within 14 days, all of the students in that class are
to be close contacts and will only be allowed to return considered close contacts and sent home to isolate for
to school wearing a mask according to the national 14 days.
Distance learning during school closures often took place on a daily
basis, with a hybrid approach involving a mix of asynchronous and
synchronous online learning
As schools shut down, new arrangements were made primary and secondary schools were virtually open
to ensure learning continuity. The organisation of (i.e. every day of face-to-face schooling was provided
distance learning was often decided at the local level, remotely during school closure periods) when schools
to ensure rapid and targeted action for schools amidst were first closed at the onset of the crisis in 2020.
the uncertainty of the pandemic. However, remote learning is not always considered a
substitute for a full day of instruction in the classroom.
Data from the Special Survey on COVID-19 show
For example, six countries (Austria, Costa Rica, Israel
that flexible and collaborative arrangements across
[for only few primary schools], Mexico, Portugal and
multiple levels of government allowed the smooth
Turkey) reported that distance education strategies did
roll-out of resources made available for students
not compensate for each day of in-person teaching
and for distance education during school closures.
lost during school closures. Finally, of the
Decisions on the resources available during school
33 countries with data, only the Czech Republic did
closures were usually taken at a more local level and
not provide distance education to pupils during the first
in collaboration with or in consultation across multiple
period of school closure in 2020. However, for the
levels. Only in 8 countries were these decisions taken
second closure in autumn 2020 and the first closure
in full autonomy by the central level (4 countries), state
in 2021, the amendment to the Czech Republic's
level (2 countries) or provincial level (2 countries). In
Education Act implemented the obligation for pupils to
about 40% of countries, these decisions were taken
attend distance education in primary and secondary
by multiple levels of government. For example, in
education and at pre-primary level (only for pupils in
Colombia, the central government defined the main
the last compulsory pre-school year).
resources to be transferred to sub-regional authorities.
However, some local or sub-regional authorities with While the availability of digital tools for remote
resources also were able to take decisions on the learning is generally widespread across most
resources to be made available during school closures OECD countries, the overall quality of distance
(Figure 4). education and the way it operates has been a matter
of debate in many countries. Results from the Special
With school closures often implemented at short
Survey on COVID-19 show that primary and lower
notice to respond to the rapidly changing situation,
secondary schools in two thirds of the countries were
countries sought to bridge gaps in education coverage
autonomous in setting up and implementing strategies
by building on existing digital tools or developing
for distance education. While autonomy may allow
new ones. Responses from the Special Survey on
for greater agility to address specific learning gaps
COVID-19 show consistent patterns across countries:
or to tailor remote learning strategies to students’ level
online platforms were prioritised across levels of
of access and digital skills, the quality of the strategies
education, most clearly at the secondary level. Mobile
implemented may differ, thereby exacerbating
phones were more common at the secondary level
inequalities across schools. Ten countries and
and radio at the upper secondary level. At the same
economies (Austria, Costa Rica,
time, take-home packages, television or radio were
England [United Kingdom], France, Hungary,
reported with similar frequency at both primary and
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Slovenia and Turkey)
secondary levels of education and other
reported using a hybrid approach, including a
distance-learning solutions were more commonly
mix of asynchronous learning (i.e. learning through
reported at the primary level (OECD, 2021[4]).
online channels without real-time interaction with
Countries have therefore managed, during this crisis, other students or teachers, at one's own pace) and
to develop a range of tools to provide distance synchronous online learning (i.e. real-time with
education to students during school closures. interaction such as Zoom/Skype classes) and no
It is therefore not surprising that 74% of them report that country reported using exclusively one or the other
14 © OECD 2021The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
model at primary or lower secondary levels of local level, other platforms were also used.
education. In Luxembourg, synchronous learning took place to a
varied extent and was adapted to the age of children.
Despite this trend, the modalities used for hybrid
There were also a number of tutorials, teaching
learning differ between countries. Korea, for example,
videos and other online learning materials, as well
incorporated different types of distance learning,
as training courses for teachers on how to develop
including two-way live courses (synchronous learning),
such asynchronous learning offers. Blended learning
content-based courses, homework-based courses,
opportunities (i.e. an approach that combines online
courses combining two or more of these methods,
educational materials and opportunities for interaction
etc. In France, online platforms often operated in two
on line with traditional place-based classroom
different but complementary and articulated ways:
methods) have also been developed, but these are
at the national level, the National Centre for Distance
early attempts and still often rely on individual teachers’
Learning (Centre national d'enseignement à distance,
initiatives.
CNED) provided access to educational resources and
virtual classes (Ma Classe à la Maison) while at the
© OECD 2021 152
Early childhood education and care:
Managing the crisis when social distancing
and distance education are more complex
to implement
In about two-thirds of countries with data, there was no evident policy
to reduce the duration of school closures at pre-primary compared to
primary level in 2020
Countries around the world have implemented In about two-thirds of countries with data, there was no
unprecedented containment measures to control the evident policy to reduce the duration of school closures
spread of COVID-19, including the closure of schools. at pre primary compared to primary level in 2020. In
While all levels of education shut down their premises about a third of the countries with data, the duration of
during the first months of the outbreak in 2020, pre-primary school closures was the same as at lower
pre-primary schools were generally closed for shorter secondary level. In Poland and Turkey, pre-schools
periods of time on average. On average across closed for less than half the number of days as primary
OECD countries, pre-primary schools were fully closed schools, and in Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
44 days in 2020, compared to 58 at primary level Finland, Hungary and Latvia, pre-primary was the only
and 65 for lower secondary general programmes. level of education to have not closed at all in 2020.
There are, however, significant differences across Germany, Ireland and Slovenia are the only countries
countries: in Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico, with data where pre-primary schools remained closed
pre-primary schools closed for 140 days or more in longer than primary schools, for 10 days more or less
2020. In contrast, they could remain open throughout (Figure 5). However, different school holiday schedules
the year in Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, may also explain variations in the number of instruction
Finland, Hungary, Japan, Latvia and Sweden, even days that schools were fully closed across levels of
though in some countries such as Finland, families were education. For example, in Germany, pre-primary
urged to keep their children home if possible during schools remained open during the spring holidays
the second quarter of 2020. Similar to other levels of when primary and secondary schools are typically
education, municipalities in many countries still offered closed, explaining the higher number of instruction
emergency care to disadvantaged and vulnerable days when schools were fully closed at pre-primary
children during periods of full school closure. compared to primary level.
16 © OECD 2021The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
Figure 5•Number of instruction days pre-primary and primary schools were fully closed in 2020
Excluding school holidays, public holidays and weekends
Number of days Pre-primary education Primary education
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Brazil
Costa Rica
Slovenia
Chile¹
Slovak Republic¹
Estonia¹
Finland
Colombia¹
Mexico
Greece
Italy¹
Korea
Turkey
Lithuania
OECD average
Russian Federation
Netherlands
France
Czech Republic
Ireland
Austria
Luxembourg
England (UK)
Norway
Hungary
Latvia²
Denmark²
Sweden
New Zealand¹
Belgium
Portugal
Poland²
Germany¹, ³
Spain
Switzerland
Israel
1. Most typical number of instruction days. For Colombia, some schools were fully closed during the period from September to
December 2020 while others were partially open in hybrid mode for 65 days.
2. Minimum number of instruction days.
3. Different school holiday schedules explain the higher number of instruction days when schools were fully closed at pre-primary
compared to primary level.
Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the number of days schools were fully closed in pre-primary educa-
tion in 2020.
Source: OECD/UIS/UNESCO/UNICEF/WB (2021[1]).
As the pandemic continued to progress during the Partial school closures were not as extensive in
first half of 2021, pre-schools were much less likely to pre-primary education as at higher levels of education.
close their premises in almost all OECD and partner Only in Chile, Colombia, Lithuania and Turkey were
countries. In about half of countries with data, pre-schools partially closed for 70 days or more
pre-schools closed for ten days or less between between January 2020 and May 2021, while in
January and May 2021, including countries such as Poland they remained partially closed for more than
Costa Rica or Ireland, where school closures were 300 days over this period.
among the highest in 2020. In some countries,
Several factors may explain the lower tendency of
pre-primary institutions remained open, although
governments to close pre-primary schools compared
authorities recommended parents keep their children
to other levels of education during the pandemic:
at home when possible. Such recommendations
may, however, have been challenging for working » T he early years are critical for children’s
parents. For example, municipalities in Denmark have cognitive and emotional development,
estimated that approximately 66% of pre-primary particularly for the most disadvantaged. During
children attended early childhood education and care school closures, children relied on their caregivers
(ECEC) in January 2021, increasing to 86% in March to provide for their developmental and emotional
2021 (Kommunernes Landsforening 2021). Only in the needs. Parents, having to balance childcare and
Czech Republic, Germany and Hungary did work responsibilities, amid the uncertainty of a
pre-schools fully shut down their premises for more looming economic crisis and employment instability,
days in 2021 than in 2020. may have faced additional stress, and found it
difficult to provide the nurturing learning environment
at home children need to develop. In a recent
© OECD 2021 17The State of Global Education: 18 Months into the Pandemic
survey conducted by the OECD on ensuring the considered an effective method of teaching at
continuity of ECEC during the pandemic, the most pre-primary level. For example, Belgium, Germany
cited challenge faced by families was parents’ and the United Kingdom do not consider distance
or caregivers’ lack of time to support children’s learning a valid form of delivery to account for
learning at home (OECD, forthcoming[6]). Some official instruction days at that level. In addition, a
countries targeted specific measures to ensure the number of countries cited the low quality of digital
return of children to ECEC after school closures. learning strategies and content for young children
For example, in Denmark, the Minister for Children and the number of computers/tablets available in a
and Education required municipalities to conduct household as some of the major hurdles impeding
proactive outreach efforts towards children aged the use of digital technology among pre-primary
0-6, in particular towards those from disadvantaged children. The digital competency of teachers may
backgrounds. With the same goal of supporting also have led to lower uptake of distance learning.
families, face-to-face school activities in pre-primary Only half of the countries reported training
education resumed at the beginning of June in pre-primary teachers for remote teaching during
Portugal. the pandemic, compared to 78% among primary
school teachers (OECD, forthcoming[6]).
» etting up effective remote learning strategies
S
is particularly difficult for young children. » E CEC provides reliable childcare support to
Watching screens and being restrained in chairs parents returning to work after the confinement
may also be undesirable for young children’s health periods. As confinement measures relax and the
and well-being (WHO, 2019[7]). Among countries economy reopens, parents will require reliable
that responded to the Special Survey on COVID-19, childcare solutions to return to work. However,
about 60% reported making use of online platforms in some countries, the provision of ECEC is strongly
to support pre-primary children’s learning during dependent on small privately owned businesses,
the pandemic, compared to almost all countries which struggled to break even during the crisis.
at primary and lower secondary level. Other In the United States, 50% of parents who have not
strategies, like take-home packages and television, yet returned to work cite childcare as a main reason
were also seldom used, with only 40-50% according to a survey conducted in 2020 (US
of countries reporting doing so at pre-primary Chamber of Commerce Foundation, 2020[8]).
level, compared to more than 70% at primary and
lower secondary levels, although the lower uptake
may also be due to the shorter periods of closures
at pre-primary level (Figure 6). Contrary to higher
levels of education, distance learning is not always
Figure 6•Share of countries offering the following distance learning solutions during the pandemic in 2020
and/or 2021
Online platforms Take-home packages Television
Share of countries (%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary
Source: OECD/UIS/UNESCO/UNICEF/WB (2021[1]).
18 © OECD 2021You can also read
