The emerging consensus to prioritise school reopenings is
welcome. But how the return to school is managed
is just as important as when. An optional return risks
widening the gaps between disadvantaged students and their
better-off peers. And even if the return to school is compulsory
and soon, we will still need substantial additional support for
poorer pupils.
That is the conclusion of new research from IFS based on data
collected in England during last spring and summer. These lessons
need to be taken into account when the plan for school reopenings
is announced on Monday.
The research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, shows that:
-
During the first lockdown, the longer
schools were closed, the less work pupils did. Primary
school children who were not offered the chance to return to
school spent around 3½ hours a day learning in June/July, 15%
less than at the start of the lockdown in April/May and well
below the 6 hours a day of learning time that primary pupils
got before the pandemic. Secondary school pupils saw their
learning time fall even faster over the period they were out of
school.
This reinforces the case for a full return to school to
be at the very top of the priority list.
-
Once schools started to reopen, pupils from better-off
families were far more (50% more) likely to take up the offer
to return to school in June/July last year than their more
disadvantaged peers. Among primary
school children offered the chance to return to school, just
over half (56%) of those in the poorest fifth of families went
back to the classroom, compared with five in six (83%) of those
in the richest fifth.
This suggests that there is a real risk
that a voluntary return to school in March will further widen the
gaps that the pandemic has already
exacerbated.
-
Children from better-off families not only spent more
time learning at home than their disadvantaged peers – they
also increased their learning time by more when they returned
to the classroom.
Substantial targeted support will be needed to help
disadvantaged pupils catch up, even after all children are back
in the classroom.
Other findings include:
- School reopenings boosted total learning time. Primary school
students who returned to school, at least part-time, in June/July
saw their learning time rise by over an hour a day.
- Surprisingly, even children who chose not to return to school
benefitted somewhat from having the option to go back: their
learning time held steady instead of continuing to fall. These
pupils did not receive substantially better learning resources,
but parents and children might have been encouraged to focus on
home learning to keep up with peers in the classroom. A phased
return to school will likely widen the gaps between children in
different year groups.
- Last summer, school reopenings were primarily driven by a
child’s age; around three-quarters of children in the ‘priority’
year groups were offered at least some in-person schooling,
compared with a quarter of those in other years. Encouragingly,
we find no evidence that schools attended by disadvantaged
students were less likely to reopen. In classes that reopened,
schools did not pull back on their provision of resources such as
online classes, suggesting they felt able to manage a concurrent
programme of in-person and remote learning.
- Among poorer families, the primary concerns with returning to
school last summer were health risks to the child, health risks
to the wider family and a reluctance to be the first to go back.
Government, schools and local authorities should be working to
address parents’ concerns and provide reassurance about the
return to school.
Adam Salisbury, a Research Economist at IFS,
said: “Despite schools’ and policymakers’ efforts to
improve home learning during the first lockdown, pupils who
remained at home were spending less time learning in June and
July than they had been at the start of the pandemic. These falls
were particularly big among secondary school pupils. The lack of
‘settling in’ to home learning means that, for students who were
out of school over the whole period from March to September,
learning loss per week likely got worse rather than better.”
Christine Farquharson, a Senior Research Economist at
IFS, said: “In light of the enormous costs that school
closures have for children’s learning, the consensus on
prioritising getting pupils back to school as soon as public
health allows is welcome. But decisions about how
schools reopen are perhaps even tougher than decisions about
when. Prioritising certain year groups widens the gaps between
children of different ages. A voluntary return to school from 8
March risks widening inequalities further if the poorest children
stay home while their better-off peers choose to return to the
classroom. We are going to need a big programme of support for
pupils to undo some of the damage the pandemic has caused.”
Josh Hillman, Director of Education at the Nuffield
Foundation, said: “The fact that children from poorer
families were less likely to return to school at the earliest
opportunity last year, and in many cases were less able to engage
with remote schooling, reinforces the need for sustained and
targeted support for those pupils when they do return.
Realistically, many parents will delay sending their children
back to school whatever the policy is on prioritising particular
groups for a return to the classroom, and that will increase the
learning gap in the summer term and into the next school year.”
